No doubt that you are correct about Congress also being responsible and that I hope and pray they are more responsible. I do disagree however that there has been no cooperation from day 1 however. The problem is not just who is in the WH, again it lies partially with Congress. But perhaps more now than in a long time, we need a leader in the WH who can pull together enough members of Congress to get past the gridlock. Perhaps no President can do that given the political climate; but what I've seen so far, I'm sure that President Obama hasn't. His constant shots at business might be great re-election talk, but it doesn't help bring Republicans back to the middle. The frequent shots he took at former President Bush, while great for lathering up the Dems, didn't help bring a spirit of cooperation from the Republicans. I'll continue to state and believe that President Obama's decision to push health care reform without llittle or any Republican support for the bill and with a majority of American opposed to the reform set the stage perfectly for more Tea Party believers to get elected in the 2010 elections and pushed moderate Republicans in Congress to the right. Battle lines were drawn and the moderates of both parties retreated to the trenches. It was a huge strategic plunder in my opinion regardless of whether it was the "right" thing to do or not. President Obama won the battle but may have lost the war of gaining cooperation from the Rs in Congress. And I'll also disagree that sometimes cooperation is not capitulation. I've been involved in numerous law firm votes where an issue had enough votes to pass, but was withdrawn because the large minority were so adamantly opposed to the issue. Rather than tearing the firm apart, the issue was withdrawn until the majority could convince most of the minority to support the issue or it was permanently placed on the back burner if that couldn't be accomplished. Sometimes capitulating is the best course of action in the long run.

 

 

LN, I agree and disagree with you on health care. I agree that Obama and the Dems did not get enough bi-partisan consensus in the final health care bill and that has hurt Obama. I disagree that the majority of America did not want health care reform. It was one of the key issues that got Obama elected IMO. He promised health care reform and he got it done. Now, if you are saying America was against the health care bill itself, then there may have been a slight majority opposed to the specific bill that passed, but America wanted health care reform.

 

As to a president who can get past the gridlock, I have some serious doubts that it can happen. Both sides are so strongly entrenched along partisan lines, I believe the only way they will get on the same page is when they believe the US is so threatened that they must agree on something or the country will be in peril. We see it in every budget debate, debt ceiling debate, etc. Both sides push it to the brink of disaster before they agree on anything.

 

As to the OWS protests, I see some similarity with the Tea Party movement in that there is great disatisfaction with the current state that is the true driving force. Also, there is not much coordination in the movement nor a central unifying list of goals. There are general goals. It will be interesting to see if OWS gets more organized and turns their disatisfaction into a movement that has agreement on what they really want as the Tea Party has. And even further if they will be able to turn the passion of their protests into a sustained political movement.

LN, I agree and disagree with you on health care. I agree that Obama and the Dems did not get enough bi-partisan consensus in the final health care bill and that has hurt Obama. I disagree that the majority of America did not want health care reform. It was one of the key issues that got Obama elected IMO. He promised health care reform and he got it done. Now, if you are saying America was against the health care bill itself, then there may have been a slight majority opposed to the specific bill that passed, but America wanted health care reform.

As to a president who can get past the gridlock, I have some serious doubts that it can happen. Both sides are so strongly entrenched along partisan lines, I believe the only way they will get on the same page is when they believe the US is so threatened that they must agree on something or the country will be in peril. We see it in every budget debate, debt ceiling debate, etc. Both sides push it to the brink of disaster before they agree on anything.

 

As to the OWS protests, I see some similarity with the Tea Party movement in that there is great disatisfaction with the current state that is the true driving force. Also, there is not much coordination in the movement nor a central unifying list of goals. There are general goals. It will be interesting to see if OWS gets more organized and turns their disatisfaction into a movement that has agreement on what they really want as the Tea Party has. And even further if they will be able to turn the passion of their protests into a sustained political movement.

I believe what LN was saying is the majority of Americans were against the reform that the POTUS put forth. I would say almost all if not all Americans agree that reform is needed.

I'm sorry...I'd love to delve deeper into this, but work prevails. I will say to the bolded: Mitch McConnell set the tone and the path for the Republican if not on day one, then within the first week.

 

Keep in mind that Mitch's comment about wanting to make sure President Obama was a one term President was made after President Obama rammed health care reform down the Republicans throats. You treat me that way and I'll do my best to make sure you are a one term President also.

Edited October 12, 201114 yr by leatherneck

LN, I agree and disagree with you on health care. I agree that Obama and the Dems did not get enough bi-partisan consensus in the final health care bill and that has hurt Obama. I disagree that the majority of America did not want health care reform. It was one of the key issues that got Obama elected IMO. He promised health care reform and he got it done. Now, if you are saying America was against the health care bill itself, then there may have been a slight majority opposed to the specific bill that passed, but America wanted health care reform.

 

As to a president who can get past the gridlock, I have some serious doubts that it can happen. Both sides are so strongly entrenched along partisan lines, I believe the only way they will get on the same page is when they believe the US is so threatened that they must agree on something or the country will be in peril. We see it in every budget debate, debt ceiling debate, etc. Both sides push it to the brink of disaster before they agree on anything.

 

As to the OWS protests, I see some similarity with the Tea Party movement in that there is great disatisfaction with the current state that is the true driving force. Also, there is not much coordination in the movement nor a central unifying list of goals. There are general goals. It will be interesting to see if OWS gets more organized and turns their disatisfaction into a movement that has agreement on what they really want as the Tea Party has. And even further if they will be able to turn the passion of their protests into a sustained political movement.

 

As woodsider pointed out, I was talking specifically about the bill that was passed; not health care reform in general. The polls I remember seeing showed that at least 59% of Americans surveyed were opposed to the bill. A survey after the act was passed: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/25/rasmussen-57-percent-of-americans-favor-repeal-of-obamacare/. A survey before it was passed: http://belowthebeltway.com/2010/03/22/cnn-59-of-americans-oppose-obamacare/. Read particularly the last paragraph of this link. I couldn't agree more. For those not able or willing to open the link, here is the last paragraph:

 

"I don’t think there has ever been a time in American history when such an unpopular piece of legislation has become law by such a narrow, and completely partisan margin. The political consequences could be very interesting."

 

 

You may be right about no one being able to unite the country unless the country is placed in true peril. But I think Romney has a better chance of doing it than President Obama. I've stated why I don't think President Obama can do it. Here's why I think Romney may be able to do it. 1. he's an accomplished businessman with a strong understanding of economic principles. If someone can appeal to the business leaders to start hiring and stop hoarding cash, he has a much better chance of making it happen than President Obama. Business leaders will look at him as a President that is pro-business; not a President that hurls firebombs at Wall Street and big business at seemingly every press conference. But he's a social moderate. He's not going to be advocating the elimination of all social welfare programs. As such, he'll appeal to the moderate Democrats in Congress on social issues. He may not appeal to the far right because he's a social moderate and he may not appeal to the far left because he's pro business, but I think he can appeal to enough moderate Congresspeople that we can re-create a moderate middle and pull enough people out of the trenches so that DC can start working again and quit trying to constantly undermine and throw firebombs at the other side constantly. Will it totally stop? Nope. Some of that has always been present throughout this country's history. But it has to be diminished to a level that DC can start working again.

Edited October 12, 201114 yr by leatherneck

Keep in mind that Mitch's comment about wanting to make sure President Obama was a one term President was made after President Obama rammed health care reform down the Republicans throats. You treat me that way and I'll do my best to make sure you are a one term President also.

 

I don't want to speak for rockmom, but before Obama was even inaugurated Republican leaders pledged that they would oppose Obama's legislative agenda and spent an extraordinary amount of effort in making sure no Republican votes were cast for the stimulus bill, despite there being some moderates who were planning to vote for it. So really from day one there was not even a feint of bipartisanship in Washington.

I don't want to speak for rockmom, but before Obama was even inaugurated Republican leaders pledged that they would oppose Obama's legislative agenda and spent an extraordinary amount of effort in making sure no Republican votes were cast for the stimulus bill, despite there being some moderates who were planning to vote for it. So really from day one there was not even a feint of bipartisanship in Washington.

Sure, because they disagreed with what he said his agenda was. Lets not forget his "I won" moment as well as some of his other partisan comments.

I don't want to speak for rockmom, but before Obama was even inaugurated Republican leaders pledged that they would oppose Obama's legislative agenda and spent an extraordinary amount of effort in making sure no Republican votes were cast for the stimulus bill, despite there being some moderates who were planning to vote for it. So really from day one there was not even a feint of bipartisanship in Washington.

 

Very fair point about no Rs voting for President Obama's stimulus plan. Can't disagree with you on that point. The Rs wanted a stimulus bill driven by tax cuts because they believe the private sector can best create jobs; the Ds wanted a bill driven by increased spending because they thought govt spending can best create jobs. Such reflects the wide philosophical gulf between the two parties which I believe has gotten even wider. President Obama went with the route that was sure to be opposed by Rs 8 days or so after he was inaugurated. Sure way to end the honeymoon short if you are trying to woo the other side or at least some of the other side to be supportive of your agenda.

 

So there are two major pieces of legislation passed and championed by President Obama without any R support. Perhaps that indicates no bipartisanship from the Rs; perhaps that indicates no bipartisanship from the Ds. But any way you want to call it, President Obama hasn't been able to create a spirit of bipartisanship in Congress. Again, we don't know if anyone serving as President can create a spirit of bipartisanship in this political climate, but it seems that we do know that President Obama hasn't been able to do it. Time to let someone else that may be more appealing to the moderates on the other side give it a try. I think that's Romney.

Very fair point about no Rs voting for President Obama's stimulus plan. Can't disagree with you on that point. The Rs wanted a stimulus bill driven by tax cuts because they believe the private sector can best create jobs; the Ds wanted a bill driven by increased spending because they thought govt spending can best create jobs. Such reflects the wide philosophical gulf between the two parties which I believe has gotten even wider. President Obama went with the route that was sure to be opposed by Rs 8 days or so after he was inaugurated. Sure way to end the honeymoon short if you are trying to woo the other side or at least some of the other side to be supportive of your agenda.

 

So there are two major pieces of legislation passed and championed by President Obama without any R support. Perhaps that indicates no bipartisanship from the Rs; perhaps that indicates no bipartisanship from the Ds. But any way you want to call it, President Obama hasn't been able to create a spirit of bipartisanship in Congress. Again, we don't know if anyone serving as President can create a spirit of bipartisanship in this political climate, but it seems that we do know that President Obama hasn't been able to do it.

 

I agree. It seems like politicians get rewarded for sticking it to the other side far more than they do for actually getting anything done. In a sense it's always been like that, but it in other times there seem to have been leaders and competent policy wonks willing to put some things aside and get things done.

I don't want to speak for rockmom, but before Obama was even inaugurated Republican leaders pledged that they would oppose Obama's legislative agenda and spent an extraordinary amount of effort in making sure no Republican votes were cast for the stimulus bill, despite there being some moderates who were planning to vote for it. So really from day one there was not even a feint of bipartisanship in Washington.

 

Thank you for speaking for me! I was in meetings all afternoon and am just not getting back to this. Your statement is exactly what I was speaking of.

I agree. It seems like politicians get rewarded for sticking it to the other side far more than they do for actually getting anything done. In a sense it's always been like that, but it in other times there seem to have been leaders and competent policy wonks willing to put some things aside and get things done.

 

And it will continue that way unless voters send a message that they WANT our elected officials to work together. It won't matter WHO the POTUS is, or what letter follows his name.

Very fair point about no Rs voting for President Obama's stimulus plan. Can't disagree with you on that point. The Rs wanted a stimulus bill driven by tax cuts because they believe the private sector can best create jobs; the Ds wanted a bill driven by increased spending because they thought govt spending can best create jobs. Such reflects the wide philosophical gulf between the two parties which I believe has gotten even wider. President Obama went with the route that was sure to be opposed by Rs 8 days or so after he was inaugurated. Sure way to end the honeymoon short if you are trying to woo the other side or at least some of the other side to be supportive of your agenda.

 

So there are two major pieces of legislation passed and championed by President Obama without any R support. Perhaps that indicates no bipartisanship from the Rs; perhaps that indicates no bipartisanship from the Ds. But any way you want to call it, President Obama hasn't been able to create a spirit of bipartisanship in Congress. Again, we don't know if anyone serving as President can create a spirit of bipartisanship in this political climate, but it seems that we do know that President Obama hasn't been able to do it. Time to let someone else that may be more appealing to the moderates on the other side give it a try. I think that's Romney.

I agree with you that Obama hasn't been able to create that spirit of bipartisanship. I'm undecided about Romney. The fact of the matter is, the bipartisanship needs to occur in the House and Senate. THAT's where it's not getting done. I don't see that changing without change there.

Obamas first stimulus was mostly a failure. The R's were smart to vote against. Their plan was better and more jobs would have been saved and new jobs created at a faster pace.

Obamas first stimulus was mostly a failure. The R's were smart to vote against. Their plan was better and more jobs would have been saved and new jobs created at a faster pace.

Bingo.

Unfortunately, I probably have to agree with you on that point. While I voted for Sen. McCain, I held hope that President Obama would be a unifying influence in this country. So far, on my scorecard, he has probably done more divisive than unifying things. He'll be treading on very dangerous ground (for our country's future) if he turns this election into class warfare. It might get him re-elected, but I think he'll do a lot of long term damage to our country in the process. I hope and pray he's more responsible than that.

 

I do too, but I have a bad feeling that just may be what's coming.

For those that had a problem with the "racist Tea Party", I offer this little gem from one of the Occupy Wall Street crowd.