Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <In your opinion, because you have no proof of this.> True, but you have no proof against it, do you? <Gregg in fact has voted to abolish the Commerce Dept in the past, and to slash funding for the census.> Which is relevant to my point how? <So if Gregg has felt this way for some time, why even accept the nomination in the first place?> The more important question is, why would the President offer it to him?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "True, but you have no proof against it, do you?" Proof against your opinion? You're insane, there's no need to proof your opinion wrong. Moreover, your opinion therefore does not automatically become a fact. "The more important question is, why would the President offer it to him?" No idea. You claim to have the inside scoop. Ask him yourself and get back to us.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Proof against your opinion? You're insane, there's no need to proof your opinion wrong.> You're projecting. There's no need to prove my opinion right. But it is valid, based on the known facts. <Moreover, your opinion therefore does not automatically become a fact.> I never claimed it did.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "You're projecting. There's no need to prove my opinion right. But it is valid, based on the known facts." What facts? You haven't provided any.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Unless I am horribly mistaken, he never promised tax cuts for everyone making under $250g. He merely promised that no one making less than that would see their taxes RAISED. Am I not correct on this?< sorry - the rhetoric was they would be better off than today -- and yes no tax increases and some relief as he included them in HIS middle class.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You haven't provided any.> Sorry. I didn't realized I was trying to have a conversation with someone who has to be spoon-fed.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Sorry. I didn't realized I was trying to have a conversation with someone who has to be spoon-fed." It's your dementia. Let's play a game- where are the facts in the following paragraph, because, after all, that's what I challenged you on before you decended into derailing again. "Sen Gregg withdrew because it became obvious President Obama was not going to be bipartisan like he promised. Falsely claiming the GOP wanted to do nothing to stimulate the economy was bad enough, but stripping the Commerce of the census was a clear indicate that Sen Gregg would be a token Republican in his administration, with no power and no influence." "Sen Gregg withdrew because it became obvious President Obama was not going to be bipartisan like he promised." Source? "Falsely claiming the GOP wanted to do nothing to stimulate the economy was bad enough, but stripping the Commerce of the census was a clear indicate that Sen Gregg would be a token Republican in his administration, with no power and no influence." Source? I've already shown that Gregg wanted to ABOLISH Commerce. Where do you get the notion Obama wants to strip it of the census? Moreover, your memory again fails you. Gregg a token? Robert Gates and Ray Lahood ring a bell?
Originally Posted By hopemax > Where do you get the notion Obama wants to strip it of the census? < It's from this article in the Congressional Quarterly <a href="http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003025792" target="_blank">http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmsp...03025792</a> "The Obama administration acknowledged Thursday that the as-yet-unnamed Census Bureau director will have a direct line to the White House but sought to define the relationship as one in which the director would “work closely with” rather than report to President Obama’s senior staff. After black and Hispanic leaders raised concerns over Commerce Secretary-nominee Judd Gregg ’s commitment to core functions of the Census Bureau, a senior White House official told CQ on Wednesday that the director would report directly to the White House."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Because I assumed you were capable of searching and reading things on your own. Must be my dementia.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Because I assumed you were capable of searching and reading things on your own. Must be my dementia." Self parody becomes you.
Originally Posted By Kala <So if Gregg has felt this way for some time, why even accept the nomination in the first place?> Maybe he believed this administration would actually BE bipartisan. I drank the kool aid on this promise and I'm becoming disappointed. I'm still hopeful.
Originally Posted By gadzuux According to reports, Gregg ASKED for the position - or at least approached the Obama team first. It's a messy situation, and one that was wholly created by Gregg himself - which he admits. He's damaged his own reputation and caused embarrassment for the Obama administration. I don't think he intended to do this intentionally - I take him at his word. Still, he's not dumb and I think over the last several weeks he saw that his own GOP side was not going to cooperate with the overtures of bipartisanship from the Obama administration, and he saw himself likely to become isolated from his party. An unfortunate situation is then made ridiculous by the GOP party hacks who try and spin it so it seems like this was a courageous act on Gregg's part and a stand on principal. In other words - it's the democrats fault. Somehow.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Maybe he believed this administration would actually BE bipartisan. << Do you think Obama could do any more than he's already done to try and find common ground with the GOP? If so, I don't know what it is. For all of his efforts so far, it's been a total snub. GOP majority leader Boehner told congressional republicans he expected 100% cooperation with voting against the bill BEFORE they even sat with the president to hear his pitch. The problem isn't that the Obama administration doesn't want bipartisanship, or that they don't go the extra mile to accomodate republicans. The problem is that it doesn't matter what the Obama administration says or does, the GOP is against it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Maybe he believed this administration would actually BE bipartisan.*** What a crock. This administration, in its' opening days, has attempted to be more bipartisan than practically any I've witnessed in my lifetime. AND, this when they don't even need to be (considering how strong the Democrats are in Congress as well). They've been met with scorn and stonewalling for their efforts. I personally hope that the President gets tougher on the obstructionists, and right quick!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Still, he's not dumb and I think over the last several weeks he saw that his own GOP side was not going to cooperate with the overtures of bipartisanship from the Obama administration, and he saw himself likely to become isolated from his party.*** Well, sure. When you hear the reactions of party leaders to his change of mind; "wonderful", and "glad to have him back", it's pretty obvious that the right wingers couldn't care less about working together whatsoever. More like "you're either with us, or against us". Apple doesn't fall far from the tree, in this case. Pathetic. (but yes, I agree that he was smart to see the writing on the wall and recognize that working in a bipartisan spirit would cause him to be shunned)
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The problem isn't that the Obama administration doesn't want bipartisanship, or that they don't go the extra mile to accomodate republicans. The problem is that it doesn't matter what the Obama administration says or does, the GOP is against it.*** <---stands and applauds vigorously!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <According to reports, Gregg ASKED for the position - or at least approached the Obama team first.> According to reports put out by the Obama administration, after Gregg withdrew, that is. That certainly wasn't reported before the nomination, and Sen Gregg hasn't said that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Do you think Obama could do any more than he's already done to try and find common ground with the GOP?> Yes. Not only did President Bush have Democrats in his cabinet and as top advisors, he listened to them and allowed Congressional Democrats to have substantial input on bills such as No Child Left Behind, Medicare prescription drugs, and immigration reform. President Obama, on the other hand, told Congressional Republicans, "I won", and pulled the census from Commerce right after Sen Gregg said yes.
