Politics

DaytonIllini · Dec 17, 2009, 12:36 PM

I was going to post this in the health care thread, then in the global warming thread, then in the bankrupt thread, then in the Obama thread. It really transcends all of those threads though.

Is there anything more fun than watching a political party self-destruct? I watched the Republicans self-destruct on several occasions and now I am watching the Left lose their minds.

We are seeing that when a minority party holds together in opposition to everything (as the Democrats did for the first 6 yrs of the Bush administration) and as the Republicans have done for the first year of the Obama administration, that the ruling party must obtain nearly unanimous consensus to move any bills.

Unfortunately for both parties they have varying constituencies and so any movement one way or the other on any issue, tears apart the coalition by alienating the other end of the spectrum.

We now know that Obama's approvals are at a record low level and VERY likely to drop as the rabid left gets alienated by the President's attempt at placating the centrists of his party.

We know the country is really growing tired of Democrats in general as the economy has hurt them and their generic poll numbers have fallen.

This article is hilarious showing how loons like Dean, KOS, Arriana and Olberman are now attacking the President.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...737_Page2.html

Good Stuff!!

illinirazorback · Dec 17, 2009, 01:05 PM

I, too, find it funny. They deserve it, though, just as the Republicans did before. They came in with a "screw you" attitude, making it clear they were going to pass their agenda and not include the opposing party in their discussions since they theoretically didn't have to. Therefore, I can't blame the Democrats then or the Republicans now for universally opposing everything the other party is doing, because contrary to what they may say, neither party outwardly included the other party. It's just funnier this time because BHO and the dems campaigned on how they were going to be different, when in reality they were exactly the same.

I'm still looking forward to the concept becoming a reality. If a majority party in power actually outwardly tried to get ideas from the minority party, good bills may actually get passed. Problem is, that probably won't ever happen.

KBLEE · Dec 17, 2009, 02:00 PM

I was going to post something earlier today about Sen. Chuck Schumer calling a flight attendant a beeotch, but then I realized that I didn't care to start another thread. Thanks for posting...we need a political "catch all" thread.

bmb777 · Dec 17, 2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

I was going to post this in the health care thread, then in the global warming thread, then in the bankrupt thread, then in the Obama thread. It really transcends all of those threads though.

Is there anything more fun than watching a political party self-destruct? I watched the Republicans self-destruct on several occasions and now I am watching the Left lose their minds.

We are seeing that when a minority party holds together in opposition to everything (as the Democrats did for the first 6 yrs of the Bush administration) and as the Republicans have done for the first year of the Obama administration, that the ruling party must obtain nearly unanimous consensus to move any bills.

Unfortunately for both parties they have varying constituencies and so any movement one way or the other on any issue, tears apart the coalition by alienating the other end of the spectrum.

We now know that Obama's approvals are at a record low level and VERY likely to drop as the rabid left gets alienated by the President's attempt at placating the centrists of his party.

We know the country is really growing tired of Democrats in general as the economy has hurt them and their generic poll numbers have fallen.

This article is hilarious showing how loons like Dean, KOS, Arriana and Olberman are now attacking the President.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...737_Page2.html

Good Stuff!!

Obama was supposed to be a uniter, according to democrats before he was elected. apparantly he cant even unite his own party lol.

and he was supposed to being a different kind of politics. well I would have to say on that, meet new boss, same as old boss.

I have quite enjoyed watching the democrat party start to explode though. It's really quite funny in a sad sort of way.

Obama O-one B-big A-ass M-mistake A-America.

DaytonIllini · Dec 17, 2009, 03:37 PM

I thought this was interesting:

Quote:

HOWARD DEAN: Look, here's the thing: every politician says this and I hesitate to do it because they all say it, but sometimes the country's more important than either party.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Amen.

DEAN: I'm going to support President Obama when he runs for re-election. Not vigorously. I'm going to vote for him.
Scarborough can be heard bursting into laughter off-camera.

DEAN: I am, I am.

SCARBOROUGH: "Not vigorously." Boy, I can almost feel the confetti [presumably from GOP victory celebrations] falling on my head here!

Not just the Dean quote about not supporting Obama vigorously. Really? After one year when he pushed thru his radical agenda that wasn't radical ENOUGH for Dean?

The other part that interested me was Scarborough's response about confetti on his head. It is rumored that he might be interested in running for President. I wonder if this was a Freudian slip on his part.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...e-election-bid

Illest · Dec 17, 2009, 05:42 PM

Obama's in a tough spot. His base sees 60 Senators and a sizable majority in the House and expects him to pass their Christmas list. On the other side, in this media environment, he was never going to get prolonged support from conservatives, regardless of what policy choices he made.

When everybody thinks your policy choices are either too conservative or too liberal or too cautious or too radical, you have to count on getting news that everyone can agree is good -- economic growth, capturing/killing bin Laden, that kind of stuff. But, even with optimal management of the economy, unemployment is going to be ugly for a while, and the choice to escalate our effort in Afghanistan virtually guarantees that there will be war casualties on the nightly news for the foreseeable future. And he's pursued health care reform, which everyone anticipated would be a political nightmare long before the debate started.

In short, Obama's approval ratings, both by circumstance and by choice, are going to go through a rough patch for a while. If his administration turns out to have taken successful approaches on the really big issues (economy and national security), his ratings will eventually work their way back up again, probably in time for him to get re-elected. If things don't work out, then we'll see his approval continue to sink. That's the way politics works.

A year or two into their terms, both Bushes looked unbeatable, and Clinton and Reagan both looked very vulnerable. Point being, it's far too early to pronounce Obama either doomed to unpopularity or destined for re-election.

Illinell · Dec 17, 2009, 06:10 PM

The truly sad part about this IMHO is that I cannot think of a good Republican leader for our country (now or in a few years)..............and I consider myself to be fairly conservative.

I am thoroughly convinced that we will never have a successful political system as long as we only have the two current parties to choose from. The hyper-polarized state of our nation (see "Obama O-one B-big A-ass M-mistake A-America") will continue to force the bullwhip-type cyclicality of our "leaders".

The majority of Americans no longer vote by merit or actions, but by the team (political party) they root for. The independents that change sides based upon the information they are fed by Fox News and CNN are what cause the pendulum to move.

Sorry for the rant, but I am tired of watching the perpetual and predictable trainwreck that is our leadership. But I do have to say I think Obama is actually doing an okay job considering what he inherited. He hasn't accomplished nearly what I would like, but I don't know if anyone could given the current state of affairs.

Pheww

*steps of of soapbox*

4ever · Dec 17, 2009, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illinell

The truly sad part about this IMHO is that I cannot think of a good Republican leader for our country (now or in a few years)..............and I consider myself to be fairly conservative.

But I do have to say I think Obama is actually doing an okay job considering what he inherited. He hasn't accomplished nearly what I would like, but I don't know if anyone could given the current state of affairs.

Illinell · Dec 17, 2009, 07:19 PM

Why the ??? 4ever?

I consider myself conservative, but don't necessarily vote by party lines.

Oh, and I didn't vote for Obama.

4ever · Dec 17, 2009, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illinell

Why the ??? 4ever?

the fairly conservative part associated with the I think Obama is actually doing an ok job considering what he inherited.

Please explain.

Illinell · Dec 17, 2009, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4ever

the fairly conservative part associated with the I think Obama is actually doing an ok job considering what he inherited.

Please explain.

Fair question.

I think that with all of the things BHO inherited (credit crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan), he has done fairly good job of managing.

Credit Crisis: There were issues with TARP, but I can't confidently say anyone else could have done better. The economy does appear to turning around, but I want to see how this funding will be paid for.

Iraq: Troop draw-down and marked improvement (please note I am not giving all credit to BHO, simply stating that the situation has improved)

Afghanistan: I like 30K. Someone was going to be pissed no matter what he did, and I think the troop surge was needed. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE WITHDRAWAL TIMELINE (at least advertising it), but I think it was communicated in response to the cry for one in Iraq.

Healthcare: I don't know enough about the current iteration of the plan, but I do know that my taxes were paying for Cook county hospital to take care of the homeless anyway. Because I am going to pay for it one way or the other, I like the idea of requiring it.

Just my opinion. Again, he is no where close to perfect, but I do think he has done relatively well.

DaytonIllini · Dec 17, 2009, 09:27 PM

Interesting take. I agree that the TWO party system has outlived its usefulness. I share illest's stated concerns that many parties leads to inordinate power held by small splinter far Right or far Left parties. OTOH, that appears to be our current condition with the Democrats held enthrall to the California brand of Democrat (moveon, Kos, Olberman, the truly wacky) and the Republicans held enthrall to the vocal lunatic fringe.

As for a viable Republican candidate, I rather like what I have heard from Judd Gregg though I don't see him running and from Tim Pawlenty who will run but probably does not have the name recognition to win the primary.

As for Obama. I give him a D.

(1) He squandered his goodwill with the people by overestimating his mandate and utterly failing to attempt bipartisanship. Sure he invited the Republicans to watch the Super Bowl and to vote for HIS plans but I saw no effort to bring Republican ideas into the debate.

(2) Iraq - I would give him a B on this. He has continued the progress that Bush, Petraeus and the Surge/negotiations with Sunnis created. Deaths went from 904, 314, 150 in the years 2007, 2008, 2009 so obviously the trend was sharply down before he came into office and continues to improve.

(3) Afghanistan - utter failure. He has increased the war, taken forever to come up with a couple widely disparate and poorly articulated plans. The death rate has accelerated rapidly since he took office. 117, 155, 305 in 2007, 2008, 2009. Interestingly while a surge in Iraq seemed to decrease the danger, the opposite is true in Afghanistan.

(4) Economy - I for Incomplete. Personally I think his stimulus spending was wildly reckless and CLEARLY unecessary. With the vast bulk of this added spending remaining UNSPENT and the claim that the economy has turned the corner, one could easily surmise that we could have avoided spending the money committed but not yet spent. Further, it is unclear that TARP alone would not have handled the problem. I also feel strongly that his strongarm tactics with bondholders in the GM situation was brutish and dictatorial.

(5) US presige - he made a big deal about this but it is not apparent in any meaningful way that he has improved anything. On the contrary Iran and North Korea seem to be more belligerent. Venezuela is just as bad as they were. We are not getting obvious concessions from Asia or Europe. His administration has been extremely poor at handling protocol, bowing and scraping there way across the globe in an effort to portray the US as being just as average as the rest of the nations of the globe. Lastly, he has been downright insulting to some of our allies including the UK, France and Israel.

(6) Health Care - his sceding control of this important issue to the Congress is inexcusable. He should have hammered out broadly acceptable guidelines with a bipartisan commission and then implemented that plan. The farce that is occurring currently, while excellent theater, is absurd. The current bills are so complex that they are no longer understood by any single individual. Truly an epic failure and quite possibly the downfall of his presidency if he doesn't make a dramatic turnaround quickly. Approval ratings of 44-50% depending on the poll but ALL polls headed DOWN.

Illinell · Dec 17, 2009, 10:04 PM

OTOH, that appears to be our current condition with the Democrats held enthrall to the California brand of Democrat (moveon, Kos, Olberman, the truly wacky) and the Republicans held enthrall to the vocal lunatic fringe.

Absolutely agree!!!

On to the other points:
1. I understand the point, but would comment that it goes both ways. I will admit that the problem with that is that he is the president, and it is his job to cross the chasm.

2. Fair. I think Petraeus (or more likely the team that came up with the approach) deserve the bulk of the credit.

3. Not so sure. From what I have read and heard from friends, the rising death toll could be attributed to the rather flat approach taken by the US (Bush, Obama, I don't care). Al Qaeda et al fled to other countries initially, but crept back in and began attacking weaker positions.

4. Ideally, I would have liked to see all held accountable and the gov stay out of it. But, because I don't think any politician would allow that to happen, I accept how TARP funds have been spent. Granted, ideally construction projects and other job driving efforts would have been a greater focus, but I believe the spending has had a significantly positive impact on the issue. I cannot speak to GM situation, but I am fine with the company going bankrupt.

5. Interesting point that I will have to do a little research on.
I think Iran, Venez, and N. Korea are all in trouble without the US intervening, and I don't really know what BHO could have done in the first year to curtail their activities.

WRT Asia and Europe, Japan's economy is as bad as ours, China has a huge chunk of our debt, and I'm not sure what concessions we could want from the EU.

Also, I think the UK is the only ally of ours that deserves blind loyalty. France has been playing with us for the last ten years, and I am not aware of any ill treatment towards Israel.

Just my two cents, and I definitely appreciate the well thought out and articulated response.

DaytonIllini · Dec 17, 2009, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illinell

On to the other points:
1. I understand the point, but would comment that it goes both ways. I will admit that the problem with that is that he is the president, and it is his job to cross the chasm.

Absolutely. Republicans have sensed that Obama without Any Republican support has his hands full. They have done little to be bipartisan. I still think that if Obama embraced ANY conservative idea, he could more accurately be portrayed as reaching out.

Quote:

2. Fair. I think Petraeus (or more likely the team that came up with the approach) deserve the bulk of the credit.

Yes, certainly I don't think Bush came up with the idea. I think bringing the Sunnis into the power structure in a more fair manner helped at least as much as the extra troops.

Quote:

3. Not so sure. From what I have read and heard from friends, the rising death toll could be attributed to the rather flat approach taken by the US (Bush, Obama, I don't care). Al Qaeda et al fled to other countries initially, but crept back in and began attacking weaker positions.

I cannot say. Another possibility is that Iraq became so hostile to Al Qaeda because of political stability that they began focusing on the fight in Afghanistan. BTW, I know that Al Qaeda was not a significant factor in Iraq pre-war but certainly they became a factor there subsequently.

Quote:

4. Ideally, I would have liked to see all held accountable and the gov stay out of it. But, because I don't think any politician would allow that to happen, I accept how TARP funds have been spent. Granted, ideally construction projects and other job driving efforts would have been a greater focus, but I believe the spending has had a significantly positive impact on the issue. I cannot speak to GM situation, but I am fine with the company going bankrupt.

Not sure I get this. TARP (bailout) was mostly under Bush. I think it could have been handled better but clearly slowed the plunge enough to allow the economy a chance to recover. The Stimulus was all Obama and the Dems in Congress and I think it was a bloated fiasco, slow to be implemented, overly costly considering the meager jobs results and poorly targeted IMO.

Quote:

5. Interesting point that I will have to do a little research on.
I think Iran, Venez, and N. Korea are all in trouble without the US intervening, and I don't really know what BHO could have done in the first year to curtail their activities.

Oh, I wouldn't blame Obama for their intransigence. Just that he made it seem like we were jerks under W and therefore these guys became bad guys. All we needed was a nice guy like him to be president and we would see progress. That hasn't happened.

Quote:

WRT Asia and Europe, Japan's economy is as bad as ours, China has a huge chunk of our debt, and I'm not sure what concessions we could want from the EU.

I think that the EU, Russia and Asia could have done a lot to help us with Iran. We gave up a missile system to placate the Russians without tangible reward. We all are threatened by a nuclear Iran. Afghanistan as a failed state is a threat to the world. We need look no further than Madrid or the school in Russia to see that THEY have a vested interest in helping us. I don't think that they have done so. Obama's fault? No. I think he felt his world apology tour would achieve that help though.

Quote:

Just my two cents, and I definitely appreciate the well thought out and articulated response.

Ditto.

ilphotog · Dec 17, 2009, 10:42 PM

Some mentioned this above, here is an article, I cannot stand Schumer, to me he is a whiney bit@#.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12...t-define-us%2F

Illinell · Dec 17, 2009, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Not sure I get this. TARP (bailout) was mostly under Bush. I think it could have been handled better but clearly slowed the plunge enough to allow the economy a chance to recover. The Stimulus was all Obama and the Dems in Congress and I think it was a bloated fiasco, slow to be implemented, overly costly considering the meager jobs results and poorly targeted IMO.

Good call out.

I was referring to both, but did not properly delineate between the two. Ultimately the statement applies to both, but moreso to stimulus spend.

TARP - Bad assets are just that, bad. I don't think the gov. should have jumped in to assist at all. After that, I don't think BHO should have instituted the $500K pay limit. It is like saying, "we will save you, but drive away your talent".

Also, I thought further assistance was given to Freddie and Fannie May under BHO. I could be wrong on that though.

Stimulus - Almost the same points as above, but the results are TBD. I don't know where all of the money is/was, and I will not be surprised if the audit trail reveals a ton of gaps, unethical spending.

In short, the government should stay out of the way of financial markets. Bush and BHO have both stuck their fingers in a lot of pies.
The difference in my mind is that a lot of the problems were born under Bush's reign, while BHO was responding to a bad situation that to a large part he inherited.

Illest · Dec 17, 2009, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Absolutely. Republicans have sensed that Obama without Any Republican support has his hands full. They have done little to be bipartisan. I still think that if Obama embraced ANY conservative idea, he could more accurately be portrayed as reaching out.

See, the thing is that Obama has incorporated Republican ideas. For instance, Republicans called for the stimulus to come in the form of tax cuts. In fact, a larger fraction of the stimulus package is slated to go to tax cuts (37%) than to federal government purchases (35%). But you'd never know as much from the media dialogue, which is designed to highlight differences rather than points of agreement.

Illinell · Dec 17, 2009, 10:55 PM

Interesting.

Even more interesting is that I bet I won't see a penny of those tax cuts.

AAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH.

*Grabs another beer from the fridge*

DaytonIllini · Dec 18, 2009, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illest

See, the thing is that Obama has incorporated Republican ideas. For instance, Republicans called for the stimulus to come in the form of tax cuts. In fact, a larger fraction of the stimulus package is slated to go to tax cuts (37%) than to federal government purchases (35%). But you'd never know as much from the media dialogue, which is designed to highlight differences rather than points of agreement.

That is interesting illest. Thanks for letting me know that. I don't think that has me believing he is a centrist but it helps shape my opinion somewhat.

DaytonIllini · Dec 18, 2009, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illinell

Interesting.

Even more interesting is that I bet I won't see a penny of those tax cuts.
AAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH.

*Grabs another beer from the fridge*

I actually will (maybe). We bought a very expensive computer system that nobody wanted or needed so that we could computerize medical records. We are supposed to get a chunk of that back in 2011. Even though we bought it, I voted against it but lost. My rationale is that they will decide that money is stupidly spent to incentivize people to do things they have already done. I look for that part of the stimulus money to be...reallocated.

AK Illini · Dec 18, 2009, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illest

See, the thing is that Obama has incorporated Republican ideas. For instance, Republicans called for the stimulus to come in the form of tax cuts. In fact, a larger fraction of the stimulus package is slated to go to tax cuts (37%) than to federal government purchases (35%). But you'd never know as much from the media dialogue, which is designed to highlight differences rather than points of agreement.

very true and why so many on the left are disappointed, the stimulus i was ok with, but not another trickle down reagan like, lets dump billions on the rich and hope they fix thigs, which is what we did. Don't forget his unwillingness to address don't ask don't tell.

As for my personal position, i'm about as far left as possible socially and center fiscally, though i'd put both parties well right of center in the means they go through to bend over backwards for big business.

What this country needs in the worst way, is major campaign finance reform, until that happens, don't expect anything different from either party.

IntenselyOrange · Dec 18, 2009, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Interesting take. I agree that the TWO party system has outlived its usefulness. I share illest's stated concerns that many parties leads to inordinate power held by small splinter far Right or far Left parties. OTOH, that appears to be our current condition with the Democrats held enthrall to the California brand of Democrat (moveon, Kos, Olberman, the truly wacky) and the Republicans held enthrall to the vocal lunatic fringe.

As for a viable Republican candidate, I rather like what I have heard from Judd Gregg though I don't see him running and from Tim Pawlenty who will run but probably does not have the name recognition to win the primary.

I think most of us are in agreement here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

As for Obama. I give him a D.

I think I'd give him a D also, and for perspective that's about the same grade I'd have given Bush.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

(1) He squandered his goodwill with the people by overestimating his mandate and utterly failing to attempt bipartisanship. Sure he invited the Republicans to watch the Super Bowl and to vote for HIS plans but I saw no effort to bring Republican ideas into the debate.

I'm with you here. Illest points out a compromise - sure there have been some but on health care for example he has seemed to completely avoid any discussions with republicans. Of course like you I was unaware that tax cuts made up such a large portion of the stimulus, so maybe I'm wrong. Also, Illest, can you give me a link to describe the distribution of those tax cuts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

(2) Iraq - I would give him a B on this. He has continued the progress that Bush, Petraeus and the Surge/negotiations with Sunnis created. Deaths went from 904, 314, 150 in the years 2007, 2008, 2009 so obviously the trend was sharply down before he came into office and continues to improve.

I give him an A in this area. He's stood strong continuing on the path of the previous administration and avoided giving in to his vocal far left base. Good work Mr. President. And as a result I think, maybe I hope, that Iraq will be stabilized and independent in the not too distant future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

(3) Afghanistan - utter failure. He has increased the war, taken forever to come up with a couple widely disparate and poorly articulated plans. The death rate has accelerated rapidly since he took office. 117, 155, 305 in 2007, 2008, 2009. Interestingly while a surge in Iraq seemed to decrease the danger, the opposite is true in Afghanistan.

I think his approach has been bad but for different reasons. I like that he took time to make the decision. I'm sick of rash decisions from politicians. However, I've heard more than one military man on the radio claim that the rules of engagement in Afghanistan are costing us many lives of American soldiers. I don't know the specifics, in fact I don't even know if it's true because I've never seen detailed information myself, but it seems that in an effort to save the lives of Afghan civilians that the terrorists are using as human shields we are really handicapping ourselves. I know that bombings have gone down dramatically compared to last year but I don't know what the other limitations are. Basically though, if we're not doing everything we can to put American lives as priority number 1 we need to get out. It's great to be morally superior but not at the cost of the lives of Americans who volunteer for work that most of us would never even consider.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

(4) Economy - I for Incomplete. Personally I think his stimulus spending was wildly reckless and CLEARLY unecessary. With the vast bulk of this added spending remaining UNSPENT and the claim that the economy has turned the corner, one could easily surmise that we could have avoided spending the money committed but not yet spent. Further, it is unclear that TARP alone would not have handled the problem. I also feel strongly that his strongarm tactics with bondholders in the GM situation was brutish and dictatorial.

I fail him. I see little evidence that what he did is working. Even Krugman argues that it isn't, he argues because he thinks Obama needs to spend more but that is beside the point. The point is that what has been done is giving us very little (if any) bang for the buck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

(5) US presige - he made a big deal about this but it is not apparent in any meaningful way that he has improved anything. On the contrary Iran and North Korea seem to be more belligerent. Venezuela is just as bad as they were. We are not getting obvious concessions from Asia or Europe. His administration has been extremely poor at handling protocol, bowing and scraping there way across the globe in an effort to portray the US as being just as average as the rest of the nations of the globe. Lastly, he has been downright insulting to some of our allies including the UK, France and Israel.

I thought it was naive of him to think this would work. I'll give him that at least he is sticking to his guns and doing what he thinks is the best approach. I think it's at least worth a try because the Bush approach certainly did not work either.

(6) Health Care - his sceding control of this important issue to the Congress is inexcusable. He should have hammered out broadly acceptable guidelines with a bipartisan commission and then implemented that plan. The farce that is occurring currently, while excellent theater, is absurd. The current bills are so complex that they are no longer understood by any single individual. Truly an epic failure and quite possibly the downfall of his presidency if he doesn't make a dramatic turnaround quickly. Approval ratings of 44-50% depending on the poll but ALL polls headed DOWN.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, fail for the mere fact that a president that started with record approval did not take the task himself. He's poorly articulated what he would like to see, probably because what he really wants - a single payer system - is unpopular. Additionally he's been less than honest with regards to rations and death panels. The names are ugly but they are reality. Give them a different name, describe their importance, and then move forward. Lying is not acceptable in my opinion.

DaytonIllini · Dec 18, 2009, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK Illini

very true and why so many on the left are disappointed, the stimulus i was ok with, but not another trickle down reagan like, lets dump billions on the rich and hope they fix thigs, which is what we did. Don't forget his unwillingness to address don't ask don't tell.

As for my personal position, i'm about as far left as possible socially and center fiscally, though i'd put both parties well right of center in the means they go through to bend over backwards for big business.

What this country needs in the worst way, is major campaign finance reform, until that happens, don't expect anything different from either party.

AK - It was hardly trickle-down. The tax cuts were aimed at the middle class not the rich.

Illini1956 · Dec 18, 2009, 09:05 AM

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/inde..._disagree.html

WASHINGTON -- Congress and the White House have signaled that they envision sharply different futures for NASA and its manned space mission.
At an aerospace luncheon, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said President Barack Obama wants the agency to embrace "more international cooperation" after the space-shuttle era ends in 2010 and hinted that its Constellation moon-rocket program could see major changes.

"We are going to be fighting and fussing over the coming year," Bolden told an audience of aerospace executives and lobbyists Wednesday. "Some of you are not going to like me, because we are not going to do the same kind of things we've always done."

But hours earlier, congressional appropriators reached a different conclusion, approving legislative language declaring that any change to Constellation, which aims to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 but is running well behind schedule, must first get the approval of Congress

obama wants to be the international president. We need a President acting in the USA best interests. Kennedy builds a space program and obama is trying to kill our technical advantage.

Illini1956 · Dec 18, 2009, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK Illini

very true and why so many on the left are disappointed, the stimulus i was ok with, but not another trickle down reagan like, lets dump billions on the rich and hope they fix thigs, which is what we did. Don't forget his unwillingness to address don't ask don't tell.

As for my personal position, i'm about as far left as possible socially and center fiscally, though i'd put both parties well right of center in the means they go through to bend over backwards for big business.

What this country needs in the worst way, is major campaign finance reform, until that happens, don't expect anything different from either party.

We need to enforce our laws on donations. China and Hammas funding to Clinton and obama should be stopped.

Why can Soros spend so much money that is hurting our country?

Dec 17, 2009, 12:36 PM	#1
DaytonIllini Posts: 14,896	I was going to post this in the health care thread, then in the global warming thread, then in the bankrupt thread, then in the Obama thread. It really transcends all of those threads though. Is there anything more fun than watching a political party self-destruct? I watched the Republicans self-destruct on several occasions and now I am watching the Left lose their minds. We are seeing that when a minority party holds together in opposition to everything (as the Democrats did for the first 6 yrs of the Bush administration) and as the Republicans have done for the first year of the Obama administration, that the ruling party must obtain nearly unanimous consensus to move any bills. Unfortunately for both parties they have varying constituencies and so any movement one way or the other on any issue, tears apart the coalition by alienating the other end of the spectrum. We now know that Obama's approvals are at a record low level and VERY likely to drop as the rabid left gets alienated by the President's attempt at placating the centrists of his party. We know the country is really growing tired of Democrats in general as the economy has hurt them and their generic poll numbers have fallen. This article is hilarious showing how loons like Dean, KOS, Arriana and Olberman are now attacking the President. http://www.politico.com/news/stories...737_Page2.html Good Stuff!! __________________ "To forbid us anything is to make us have a mind for it." Michel Eyquem de Montaigne

Dec 17, 2009, 09:27 PM	#12
DaytonIllini Posts: 14,896	Interesting take. I agree that the TWO party system has outlived its usefulness. I share illest's stated concerns that many parties leads to inordinate power held by small splinter far Right or far Left parties. OTOH, that appears to be our current condition with the Democrats held enthrall to the California brand of Democrat (moveon, Kos, Olberman, the truly wacky) and the Republicans held enthrall to the vocal lunatic fringe. As for a viable Republican candidate, I rather like what I have heard from Judd Gregg though I don't see him running and from Tim Pawlenty who will run but probably does not have the name recognition to win the primary. As for Obama. I give him a D. (1) He squandered his goodwill with the people by overestimating his mandate and utterly failing to attempt bipartisanship. Sure he invited the Republicans to watch the Super Bowl and to vote for HIS plans but I saw no effort to bring Republican ideas into the debate. (2) Iraq - I would give him a B on this. He has continued the progress that Bush, Petraeus and the Surge/negotiations with Sunnis created. Deaths went from 904, 314, 150 in the years 2007, 2008, 2009 so obviously the trend was sharply down before he came into office and continues to improve. (3) Afghanistan - utter failure. He has increased the war, taken forever to come up with a couple widely disparate and poorly articulated plans. The death rate has accelerated rapidly since he took office. 117, 155, 305 in 2007, 2008, 2009. Interestingly while a surge in Iraq seemed to decrease the danger, the opposite is true in Afghanistan. (4) Economy - I for Incomplete. Personally I think his stimulus spending was wildly reckless and CLEARLY unecessary. With the vast bulk of this added spending remaining UNSPENT and the claim that the economy has turned the corner, one could easily surmise that we could have avoided spending the money committed but not yet spent. Further, it is unclear that TARP alone would not have handled the problem. I also feel strongly that his strongarm tactics with bondholders in the GM situation was brutish and dictatorial. (5) US presige - he made a big deal about this but it is not apparent in any meaningful way that he has improved anything. On the contrary Iran and North Korea seem to be more belligerent. Venezuela is just as bad as they were. We are not getting obvious concessions from Asia or Europe. His administration has been extremely poor at handling protocol, bowing and scraping there way across the globe in an effort to portray the US as being just as average as the rest of the nations of the globe. Lastly, he has been downright insulting to some of our allies including the UK, France and Israel. (6) Health Care - his sceding control of this important issue to the Congress is inexcusable. He should have hammered out broadly acceptable guidelines with a bipartisan commission and then implemented that plan. The farce that is occurring currently, while excellent theater, is absurd. The current bills are so complex that they are no longer understood by any single individual. Truly an epic failure and quite possibly the downfall of his presidency if he doesn't make a dramatic turnaround quickly. Approval ratings of 44-50% depending on the poll but ALL polls headed DOWN. __________________ "To forbid us anything is to make us have a mind for it." Michel Eyquem de Montaigne Last edited by DaytonIllini; Dec 17, 2009 at 09:31 PM.

Dec 17, 2009, 01:05 PM	#2
illinirazorback Banned Location: Savoy, IL Posts: 3,195	I, too, find it funny. They deserve it, though, just as the Republicans did before. They came in with a "screw you" attitude, making it clear they were going to pass their agenda and not include the opposing party in their discussions since they theoretically didn't have to. Therefore, I can't blame the Democrats then or the Republicans now for universally opposing everything the other party is doing, because contrary to what they may say, neither party outwardly included the other party. It's just funnier this time because BHO and the dems campaigned on how they were going to be different, when in reality they were exactly the same. I'm still looking forward to the concept becoming a reality. If a majority party in power actually outwardly tried to get ideas from the minority party, good bills may actually get passed. Problem is, that probably won't ever happen.

Dec 17, 2009, 02:00 PM	#3
KBLEE Location: Montgomery, IL Posts: 6,243	I was going to post something earlier today about Sen. Chuck Schumer calling a flight attendant a beeotch, but then I realized that I didn't care to start another thread. Thanks for posting...we need a political "catch all" thread.

Dec 17, 2009, 05:42 PM	#6
Illest Posts: 6,517	Obama's in a tough spot. His base sees 60 Senators and a sizable majority in the House and expects him to pass their Christmas list. On the other side, in this media environment, he was never going to get prolonged support from conservatives, regardless of what policy choices he made. When everybody thinks your policy choices are either too conservative or too liberal or too cautious or too radical, you have to count on getting news that everyone can agree is good -- economic growth, capturing/killing bin Laden, that kind of stuff. But, even with optimal management of the economy, unemployment is going to be ugly for a while, and the choice to escalate our effort in Afghanistan virtually guarantees that there will be war casualties on the nightly news for the foreseeable future. And he's pursued health care reform, which everyone anticipated would be a political nightmare long before the debate started. In short, Obama's approval ratings, both by circumstance and by choice, are going to go through a rough patch for a while. If his administration turns out to have taken successful approaches on the really big issues (economy and national security), his ratings will eventually work their way back up again, probably in time for him to get re-elected. If things don't work out, then we'll see his approval continue to sink. That's the way politics works. A year or two into their terms, both Bushes looked unbeatable, and Clinton and Reagan both looked very vulnerable. Point being, it's far too early to pronounce Obama either doomed to unpopularity or destined for re-election.

Dec 17, 2009, 06:10 PM	#7
Illinell '03 IMPE All Star Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 552	The truly sad part about this IMHO is that I cannot think of a good Republican leader for our country (now or in a few years)..............and I consider myself to be fairly conservative. I am thoroughly convinced that we will never have a successful political system as long as we only have the two current parties to choose from. The hyper-polarized state of our nation (see "Obama O-one B-big A-ass M-mistake A-America") will continue to force the bullwhip-type cyclicality of our "leaders". The majority of Americans no longer vote by merit or actions, but by the team (political party) they root for. The independents that change sides based upon the information they are fed by Fox News and CNN are what cause the pendulum to move. Sorry for the rant, but I am tired of watching the perpetual and predictable trainwreck that is our leadership. But I do have to say I think Obama is actually doing an okay job considering what he inherited. He hasn't accomplished nearly what I would like, but I don't know if anyone could given the current state of affairs. Pheww steps of of soapbox

Dec 17, 2009, 07:19 PM	#9
Illinell '03 IMPE All Star Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 552	Why the ??? 4ever? I consider myself conservative, but don't necessarily vote by party lines. Oh, and I didn't vote for Obama.

Dec 17, 2009, 10:04 PM	#13
Illinell '03 IMPE All Star Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 552	OTOH, that appears to be our current condition with the Democrats held enthrall to the California brand of Democrat (moveon, Kos, Olberman, the truly wacky) and the Republicans held enthrall to the vocal lunatic fringe. Absolutely agree!!! On to the other points: 1. I understand the point, but would comment that it goes both ways. I will admit that the problem with that is that he is the president, and it is his job to cross the chasm. 2. Fair. I think Petraeus (or more likely the team that came up with the approach) deserve the bulk of the credit. 3. Not so sure. From what I have read and heard from friends, the rising death toll could be attributed to the rather flat approach taken by the US (Bush, Obama, I don't care). Al Qaeda et al fled to other countries initially, but crept back in and began attacking weaker positions. 4. Ideally, I would have liked to see all held accountable and the gov stay out of it. But, because I don't think any politician would allow that to happen, I accept how TARP funds have been spent. Granted, ideally construction projects and other job driving efforts would have been a greater focus, but I believe the spending has had a significantly positive impact on the issue. I cannot speak to GM situation, but I am fine with the company going bankrupt. 5. Interesting point that I will have to do a little research on. I think Iran, Venez, and N. Korea are all in trouble without the US intervening, and I don't really know what BHO could have done in the first year to curtail their activities. WRT Asia and Europe, Japan's economy is as bad as ours, China has a huge chunk of our debt, and I'm not sure what concessions we could want from the EU. Also, I think the UK is the only ally of ours that deserves blind loyalty. France has been playing with us for the last ten years, and I am not aware of any ill treatment towards Israel. Just my two cents, and I definitely appreciate the well thought out and articulated response.

Dec 17, 2009, 10:42 PM	#15
ilphotog The camera never lies Location: Champaign Posts: 6,201	Some mentioned this above, here is an article, I cannot stand Schumer, to me he is a whiney bit@#. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12...t-define-us%2F

Dec 17, 2009, 10:55 PM	#18
Illinell '03 IMPE All Star Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 552	Interesting. Even more interesting is that I bet I won't see a penny of those tax cuts. AAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH. Grabs another beer from the fridge

Dec 18, 2009, 09:05 AM	#24
Illini1956 Banned Location: Ohio Posts: 5,758	http://www.cleveland.com/nation/inde..._disagree.html WASHINGTON -- Congress and the White House have signaled that they envision sharply different futures for NASA and its manned space mission. At an aerospace luncheon, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said President Barack Obama wants the agency to embrace "more international cooperation" after the space-shuttle era ends in 2010 and hinted that its Constellation moon-rocket program could see major changes. "We are going to be fighting and fussing over the coming year," Bolden told an audience of aerospace executives and lobbyists Wednesday. "Some of you are not going to like me, because we are not going to do the same kind of things we've always done." But hours earlier, congressional appropriators reached a different conclusion, approving legislative language declaring that any change to Constellation, which aims to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 but is running well behind schedule, must first get the approval of Congress obama wants to be the international president. We need a President acting in the USA best interests. Kennedy builds a space program and obama is trying to kill our technical advantage.