Does Barack Obama want to be re-elected in 2012?

[HAL 9000 96]

Or maybe some people have honest objections to the solutions that he is offering and they don't want to go along with it. Who is to say that Obama is offering anything that will progress us to a better place. Some people just don't believe that progress will happen if he is given what he wants. That isn't obstructionists, it is a difference of opinion on the correct way to go. Painting people that disagree as obstructionist is just another form of name calling and marginalizing those of different viewpoints. What you see as obstruction others see as preventing a worse outcome. Unless you are advocating giving the government dictitoral powers then compromise is needed.

An objection doesn't last as long as this. They should be offering solutions, not waiting for the few weeks before the mid-term elections to say something for fools to buy into before entering a booth.

Keep it in context if you are able.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

An objection doesn't last as long as this. They should be offering solutions, not waiting for the few weeks before the mid-term elections to say something for fools to buy into before entering a booth.

Keep it in context if you are able.

The context is that the opposition has zero power right now to offer or to enact any of their ideas. The only tool they have is to make sure things they see as destructive do not happen. After the election when the reps have the power then it is up to them to put forth their ideas and the dems turn at making sure none of it happens. In the end no one will get things done and we will continue to decline. That is the context.

[HAL 9000 96]

The context is that the opposition has zero power right now to offer or to enact any of their ideas. The only tool they have is to make sure things they see as destructive do not happen. After the election when the reps have the power then it is up to them to put forth their ideas and the dems turn at making sure none of it happens. In the end no one will get things done and we will continue to decline. That is the context.

Filibustering is power. Campaigning to the public with solutions to the problems the nation faces, is power. Obstructionism, is power.

That is not only the context, but its the reality. The only one they have done is stand in the way of progressing as a nation.

If your claim is that you need to be in power as in governing with a majority to get the program of government executed, then why have minority legislators? They should then just give up and see how the majority rules.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Filibustering is power. Campaigning to the public with solutions to the problems the nation faces, is power. Obstructionism, is power.

That is not only the context, but its the reality. The only one they have done is stand in the way of progressing as a nation.

If your claim is that you need to be in power as in governing with a majority to get the program of government executed, then why have minority legislators? They should then just give up and see how the majority rules.

We have become an all or nothing government. Those in power have no desire to cooperate with the minority. That is the real evil that has become our two party system. I doubt anything will change any time soon. Our only hope is that both parties fracture and we end up with 4 or 5 parties. If that happens then everyone will be required to work together because no one party will have absolute power. I want to see a tea party. I also want to see a progressive party. I would love to see a moderate party. I would think that is the only way to get things done in this country is smaller parties were forced together and had to cooperate because no one party should ever call all the shots.

[HAL 9000 96]

We have become an all or nothing government. Those in power have no desire to cooperate with the minority. That is the real evil that has become our two party system. I doubt anything will change any time soon. Our only hope is that both parties fracture and we end up with 4 or 5 parties. If that happens then everyone will be required to work together because no one party will have absolute power. I want to see a tea party. I also want to see a progressive party. I would love to see a moderate party. I would think that is the only way to get things done in this country is smaller parties were forced together and had to cooperate because no one party should ever call all the shots.

And here all this time I though Obama was letting his more liberal fan base down due to so many attempted compromises with Republicans that were not interested in compromising for the good of the nation. I guess I was wrong then. [/sarcasm]

[JohnSmith2007 353]

And here all this time I though Obama was letting his more liberal fan base down due to so many attempted compromises with Republicans that were not interested in compromising for the good of the nation. I guess I was wrong then. [/sarcasm]

What compromise? There hasn't been any. The only attempts at compromise have been with his own party. It seems to be overlooked that the dems had all the votes they needed to pass anything they wanted without a single rep vote. Well, that time has passed. Yes, you were wrong.

[HAL 9000 96]

What compromise? There hasn't been any. The only attempts at compromise have been with his own party. It seems to be overlooked that the dems had all the votes they needed to pass anything they wanted without a single rep vote. Well, that time has passed. Yes, you were wrong.

Uhhhhh huh...

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Uhhhhh huh...

Name me anything they needed the reps for. They had a fillibuster proof majority in the senate and a solid majority in the house. The only thing they needed from the reps was political cover. They needed to be able to say they had a bi-partisan bill so when it all went south they could at least spread the blame around. The dems were not interested in working with the reps, all they needed were a few defectors so they didn't have the whole thing on their shoulders. They reps saw that and denied them that cover. The compromise was all in trying to get the blue dogs on board. That is where they had to water down their agenda, not because of the "party of no".

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I got 50 bucks that says he wont be.

[웃 910]

But who knows. If the Rebublicans drop the ball after their sweeping victories this fall, he may actually get enough votes to get re-elected. It really, now, will be up to the Republicans if he gets re-elected.

According to Steven: "as we approach the November elections, the Republicans in Congress are actually faring worse than Obama or the congressional Democrats."

Edited August 24, 2010 by Lord Infamous

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

According to Steven: "as we approach the November elections, the Republicans in Congress are actually faring worse than Obama or the congressional Democrats."

[HAL 9000 96]

Name me anything they needed the reps for. They had a fillibuster proof majority in the senate and a solid majority in the house. The only thing they needed from the reps was political cover. They needed to be able to say they had a bi-partisan bill so when it all went south they could at least spread the blame around. The dems were not interested in working with the reps, all they needed were a few defectors so they didn't have the whole thing on their shoulders. They reps saw that and denied them that cover. The compromise was all in trying to get the blue dogs on board. That is where they had to water down their agenda, not because of the "party of no".

They could easily just vote on the bills in order to avoid the obstructionist label. If you haven't noticed, we've spent most major bill since Obama took office clearing [Republican] hurdles one by one set by procedural obstructions, not Blue Dog concerns- although that is also a factor in the watering down of legislation in order to get to the votes- compromise-style. Like I said, put things into the context they belong to, not such a black and white vision of a political world that does not exist.

[alienlovechild 75]

Name me anything they needed the reps for. They had a fillibuster proof majority in the senate and a solid majority in the house. The only thing they needed from the reps was political cover. They needed to be able to say they had a bi-partisan bill so when it all went south they could at least spread the blame around.

You're never going to get straight answer from HAL on this one. The reality one party runs things and the other party acts as a watchdog. As I've said before a president who can demonstrate competence which translates into popularity and political power. Obama has earned nothing beyond his original mandate to run the White House. He had the honeymoon period in the polls and squandered it.

It's also unlikely that a party is going to dump its beliefs just to play nice. They want their share of power and Obama apparently hasn't offered enough to offset the rising tide of voter discontent.

Edited August 24, 2010 by alienlovechild

[HAL 9000 96]

You're never going to get straight answer from HAL on this one. The reality one party runs things and the other party acts as a watchdog. As I've said before a president who can demonstrate competence which translates into popularity and political power. Obama has earned nothing beyond his original mandate to run the White House. He had the honeymoon period in the polls and squandered it.

It's also unlikely that a party is going to dump its beliefs just to play nice. They want their share of power and Obama apparently hasn't offered enough to offset the rising tide of voter discontent.

Its only not straight if you're not reading the posts.

[slim 1,525]

I am more concerned he may declare that the elections would disrupt his agenda

I'm concerned if he were to suspend elections folks would take up arms.