Did I miss the President that got every campaign initiative through Congress?

 

Of course there's not a President that delivered on everything. But you highlighted one of few promises Obama made that he actually delivered on--and even that delivery wasn't what he promised (i.e. public option).

Regardless, you cannot say a sitting President does not have substance. They all do. They've got 4 years of substance. You and I get to decide on the value of that substance.

 

If this view is accurate, then how can a three-time elected governor of the nation's second largest state not have substance?

I am unfamiliar with the mechanics of your example. To answer your question, I would need more specific information than I currently have.

 

I will say, however; I genuinely do not understand the fixation on raising taxes instead of simply cutting known areas of waste and unnecessary spending.

 

I guess it's another way of asking "is there any chance in heck you'd support raising taxes in some form - even if it was in exchange for a 10x cut in spending?"

If this view is accurate, then how can a three-time elected governor of the nation's second largest state not have substance?

 

Fair question.

 

In his case, I think he's hanging his hat on an outcome he didn't have much of an impact on.

 

What did HE do or get his state to do that had a positive impact?

Of course there's not a President that delivered on everything. But you highlighted one of few promises Obama made that he actually delivered on--and even that delivery wasn't what he promised (i.e. public option).

 

I highlighted it to show that he provided something to chew on. He's not a dictator so he couldn't force Congress to go the public option route. It was negotiated out. I guess that's substance as well- how much sway he has.

Fair question.

 

In his case, I think he's hanging his hat on an outcome he didn't have much of an impact on.

 

What did HE do or get his state to do that had a positive impact?

 

On that much we agree. And I honestly don't know how much influence Perry's leadership has had on the state's prosperity & growth.

I guess it's another way of asking "is there any chance in heck you'd support raising taxes in some form - even if it was in exchange for a 10x cut in spending?"

 

This is where I cut ties somewhat with most TPers. While I'm as strong an advocate for cutting spending, I don't see how we can get out of this mess without somehow increasing revenue.

In 2007 and 20008 the big question was in regards to who one associates with ie Rev Wright.

 

While I know many will try to "shoot the messenger" because it's Rachel Maddow it doesn't override what the actual words are by the people that Gov Perry invited to his "Christians only" prayer service recently. Again, focus on what is being said vs the fact that the report is from a lesbian lefty who lives in NYC and works for the communist-owned MSNBC. SHE is not the story.

 

Go to the 3:00 minute mark to start.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/44098787#44098787

Regardless of your political leanings it's going to be interesting through Nov 2012 to see how each of the candidates morphs. Does President Obama go centrist or left ? Does Gov Perry stay with his beliefs on immigrants that are contrary to the right wing of the party thinks or does he forgo those folks to appeal to that hard right? Will he tell the right that he still supports in-state tuition for illegal immigrants? Does he still think the "fence" is not a good investment? Will Mr Romney continue to push right despite his record in MA? Will Sen Bachmann .... Never mind ...No chance for her.

I guess it's another way of asking "is there any chance in heck you'd support raising taxes in some form - even if it was in exchange for a 10x cut in spending?"

 

Yes I'd support raising taxes in return for a huge cut in spending. But I'd not support an increase in taxes for just the "wealthy".

 

We have way too large of a percentage of Americans paying no federal income taxes. Every person in America has the opportunity to be successful. Granted that some have more difficult hurdles to overcome, but the opportunity is there with hard work and as our grandparents told us all, hard work never hurt anyone (which is one of those in the long list of old sayings of conventional wisdom that we've seemed to forget. Remember being taught Aesop's fable about the Ant and the Grasshopper when we were young. A simple lesson taught about the value of hard work and the need to save for tougher times. We have way too many grasshoppers in this country because the govt has become the winter storehouse to be turned to and relied on after a summer of laziness and enjoyment). And thus the non-wealthy have the same obligation to pay at some level for the system that gives them the opportunity that the wealthy person does who takes advantage of the opportunity.

 

I've heard a saying over the last decade to the effect of "it takes a village". My guess is that if this country was broken down into small villages that depended on each and every person to contribute in order for the village to survive, the villagers would take care of those unable to gather, hunt and prepare, but would throw out into the cold those capable but unwilling to contribute. The problem with the US, is that the village has gotten so large that the system can no longer detect who is capable but unwilling, and the village has been so successful in the past that those willing to work and contribute could "carry" those capable but unwilling. But times have changed. Other strong villages have arisen in this global economy. Those capable and willing to contribute can no longer carry those capable but unwilling, particularly when the latter group has grown larger and larger because the system has not only enable it, it has incentivized it.

 

It may be cold and uncaring, much like the ant's treatment of the grasshopper was cold and uncaring. But when the efforts of fewer and fewer ants is forcibly taken from them in order to provide for a lot of grasshoppers over a long winter, everyone starves including some of the ants, which makes it very difficult to have enough stored up for the following winter. Any organization, any entity that enables a majority of the participants to live off of the efforts and contributions of a minority is doomed to fail in the long run. When a majority of the eligible voters don't have to pay for the system that they can elect, problems are surely to follow. When the grasshoppers fail to respect and acknowledge the efforts of the ants, but rather look at them with envy and jealousy and want to take more and more of the ants' work product, the ants quit working as hard, die off and the whole system fails.

 

From my reading of Roman history, I believe there are parallels to the fall of the Roman Empire with the state of this country over the last several decades. I like to believe in the adage that success begets success; but success can also beget laziness, dependency, corruption, "do goodedness" gone to the extreme and bad, a lack of personal responsibility, and the inability and unwillingness to respond to external challenges, all as the Roman Empire experienced to its peril.

 

Hopefully our destiny will be different than the Romans.

I'm surprised we haven't heard more from Jon Huntsman. I hope we do.

Regardless of your political leanings it's going to be interesting through Nov 2012 to see how each of the candidates morphs. Does President Obama go centrist or left ? Does Gov Perry stay with his beliefs on immigrants that are contrary to the right wing of the party thinks or does he forgo those folks to appeal to that hard right? Will he tell the right that he still supports in-state tuition for illegal immigrants? Does he still think the "fence" is not a good investment? Will Mr Romney continue to push right despite his record in MA? Will Sen Bachmann .... Never mind ...No chance for her.

 

I wasn't aware that he had taken this position. This was one issue in which I strongly disagreed with Mike Huckabee.

I wasn't aware that he had taken this position. This was one issue in which I strongly disagreed with Mike Huckabee.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/perrys-immigration-record/2011/03/29/gIQADsyxHJ_blog.html

 

I can't say I am against his proposal.

Hopefully our destiny will be different than the Romans.

Great post, and if I'm not mistaken many historians measure 16 to 22 centuries as the span of the Roman empire. We aren't even to 3 yet... unfortunately, our destiny will be different than the Romans... by more than a millennium if we don't straighten up soon.

Great post, and if I'm not mistaken many historians measure 16 to 22 centuries as the span of the Roman empire. We aren't even to 3 yet... unfortunately, our destiny will be different than the Romans... by more than a millennium if we don't straighten up soon.

 

I think it's important to remember that the Rome managed to keep their Republic together for less than five centuries and that for much of that time, they could best be considered an upstart, backwater city-state. One of my favorite professors in college used to say that "The history of politics is the history of failure." It's tough being a viable Republic and being the most powerful nation on Earth, as Rome discovered by the end of the first century BC. But if we can make it 500 years, we're doing pretty well be the historical scheme of things.