Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<How come the great mediator couldn't get his party in line with him early on when they had the power in Congress?>> If you really want to know the answer to this question, wahoo, I have just two words for you: C-I-V-I-C-S C-L-A-S-S You obviously don't understand how the government is actually run, especially the Senate. If you did, you wouldn't be asking this question.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Wahoo... the Dems never had the power to stop the filibusters because the Blue Dogs mostly caucused with the Republicans. During those two years, the Dems would have needed a 64 or 65 seat majority to not worry about the Blue Dogs nor Republican filibusters.
Originally Posted By hopemax First off, Obama never really had 60 votes, to reach cloture and break the GOP filibuster. This is part of the noise machine. On July 7th 2009 the caucus reached 60 when Al Franken was sworn in. But that was comprised of 58 actual Democrats and 2 Independents. It dropped back to 59 on August 25th, 2009 when Ted Kennedy died. And obviously, Ted Kennedy was in no position to vote for some period before that. At best, Obama had a chance at 60 votes for about a month. Wahoo, are you really going to penalize Obama for not being able to bring his agenda to the floor in such a narrow window of time? And how do you account for Liebermann? Why should his vote be counted on, based on his prior party affiliation? Lieberman was playing his own set of games and to think that the Democratic President should have been able to overcome that is pretty naive. Was he supposed to strong arm him, was he supposed to grant him favors? Lieberman was acting like someone who was not going to be swayed by vigorous debate, he wanted his piece of the pie, whatever he thought that was.
Originally Posted By hopemax And since skinnerbox brings up the blue dogs, lets remind everyone of who and where the were from: Ben Nelson - Iowa Blanche Lincoln - Arkansas Mary Landrieu - Louisiana Now while it would have been nice for Obama to be able to talk them into a yes vote, don't we want to still at least pretend that Congressmen should attempt to represent their districts? If a Congress person really feels like that going against their constituency is a bad idea, shouldn't they retain the right to vote no? That's more for Lincoln and Landrieu, Ben Nelson was playing the same games as Lieberman and trying to use his vote to bargain for "favors" for his district. Is that what you think Obama should have done, traded votes for projects? IMO, the only way Obama could have secured some of these votes would be to participate in actions that would be opposite of how I believe, and hope, government can be run. Strong arm tactics, favoritism, money for votes, etc. The fact that Obama did not take those paths was actually a positive in my eyes, and it's where I am disheartened to see him taken to task for not "controlling his party." We've seen how the GOP controls its party, and I don't want to see any more of that.
Originally Posted By andyll The funny thing is that you are criticizing obama for not keeping his promise on Gitmo and criticizing Obama for keeping his promise on not raising taxes on the middle class. He can't win. The HCR was to long, to open, and there was way to much of an attempt to get 1-2 republican votes. The to open and long allowed every proposed piece of it to be mis-represented and then debated by the opponents. The public option was dropped just to try to get Snows vote. The national exchanges ( a republican idea ) were dropped to get Liebermans vote. That is why we ened up with a mish-match of a bill which nobody loves. They should have started the debate with a better complete bill and then allowed congress to fight over it at that point.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Ben Nelson - Iowa> Nebraska, actually. But otherwise, great posts, hopemax.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 What about Obama has led people not to "trust" him?<< His snarky attitude.....
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>And, how come the Great Communicator can't seem to get the message across that it isn't his fault?<<< Because if he had he would have sounded like a member of the GOP! Sometimes it's better to take the high road. It helps you sleep at night.
Originally Posted By utahjosh More people speaking out about Romney: <a href="http://www.parents.com/blogs/parents-news-now/2012/09/11/parents-news-now/how-mitt-and-ann-romney-helped-me-get-through-my-husbands-deployment-opinion/" target="_blank">http://www.parents.com/blogs/p...opinion/</a> "Sometimes the media tries to portray the Romneys as uncaring, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Ann talked about this unfair characterization in her recent speech at the Republican National Convention. “Mitt does not like to talk about how he has helped others because he sees it as a privilege,” she said. “Not a political talking point. We are no different than the millions of Americans who quietly help their neighbors, their churches, and their communities.”"
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "What about Obama has led people not to "trust" him?<< His snarky attitude....." What??? Specifics?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Sometimes the media tries to portray the Romneys as uncaring, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Ann talked about this unfair characterization in her recent speech at the Republican National Convention. “Mitt does not like to talk about how he has helped others because he sees it as a privilege,” she said. “Not a political talking point. We are no different than the millions of Americans who quietly help their neighbors, their churches, and their communities.”" Oh, please. He's a lying, spineless sack of crap who has no earthly idea how to be president.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Right on, SPP. Plus, the only people he's ever helped are fellow Mormons. He could give a flying puck about anyone outside the LDS church. That was clearly evident when Mitt left office at the end of 2006. He couldn't have been elected dog catcher of Boston if he tried. Especially dog catcher. "Remember Crate Gate!"
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Yep, and when he is helping people from his church he is doing what is expected of a person in his position and he's using the formidable resources that the church has collected over the years. Like a vulture capitalist, he doesn't use his own money - he uses other people's money. Over and over again, Romney shows how little he cares about regular people. If the tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan aren't important to him, what chance do the rest of us have?
Originally Posted By fkurucz Wallow in your fantasy world, Josh. We aren't buying it. Romney was a corporate raider and ruined thousands of lives while making millions for himself. Nothing you say will change that.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Okay, Josh. Show us a time before Romney was a governor where he used his wealth and power to help a stranger who wasn't in the LDS. Show us his contributions of time and energy to non-LDS charities. Show us a time that he made a decision to lose a little money to keep factories open so people didn't have to lose their jobs. Show us a time when he had any of his own money at risk rather than the money of investors or the banks that he arranged loans from. Show us a time when he valued people more than he values his wealth.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck As each day passes, and the tension grows, we will start to see a lot more of the real Mitt Romney. Forget those who are hard wired to support this guy, they are nothing but political zombies. I am confident that those who will make the difference in this election will see right through that cardboard cutout of a man.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Okay, Josh. Show us a time before Romney was a governor where he used his wealth and power to help a stranger who wasn't in the LDS. Show us his contributions of time and energy to non-LDS charities. Show us a time that he made a decision to lose a little money to keep factories open so people didn't have to lose their jobs. Show us a time when he had any of his own money at risk rather than the money of investors or the banks that he arranged loans from. Show us a time when he valued people more than he values his wealth.> Watch Glenn Beck's special tomorrow night for all of those answers. I don't have time to do it.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Oh yeah. Glenn Beck. Because as we all know, Beck is such a stalwart of unbiased American journalism: <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-T-113538-P-1.asp" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms...-P-1.asp</a> (I love me some Lewis Black!)
