Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

the point the commentators seemed to be making was that President Obama is not likely to make any further progress with attempts at bi-partisanship with the GOP

Again, that was Smiley's take. Scarborough's had a different twist. He said that Obama has never tried to be bipartisan. Instead, Obama initially tried to push through a liberal agenda (the Pelosi plan) but it was stymied by the moderates and Blue Dogs. It was only then that he tried to placate both sides of the Democratic Party. Obama hasn't paid any attention to the Republican viewpoint except where it overlapped with that of the Blue Dogs.

If you follow Scarborough's beliefs about health care, you would know that the last thing that he would ever want to see happen is for Obama to start playing hardball with his own party and push through the liberal plan. He has been very critical of Obama playing to the left on all the other issues such as Cap and Trade, the bloated budget bill and a stimulus bill that was nothing more than an early Christmas present for the far left.

Originally Posted by Bucco

...I think I am closer to correct than you by a long measure THUS FAR on how we both felt on election day.
MUCH MUCH CLOSER...

Great! I hope you feel better as the result of your deep thinking about how this President has performed versus how you predicted he'd perform. Maybe it's just a self-fulfilling prophesy. Just leave me out of it, please.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Great! I hope you feel better as the result of your deep thinking about how this President has performed versus how you predicted he'd perform. Maybe it's just a self-fulfilling prophesy. Just leave me out of it, please.

Actually, I feel lousy about it frankly, and while your memory is convenient you must recall me saying many times during the campaign and since that I hope you are right and I am wrong !

Trust me VK, you, even though you dont think so, are not the only one who thinks about what is going on and reads and pays attention...you are much better at conveying it on here but you are not the ONLY informed person around....there are others of us who pay close attention.

I want the country to succeed, not any one man.....and while you feel that any criticism of our President is something that is ....well, so ordinary.....I have not changed since before he was even a candidate and there are many many others who see the lying and deception that is going on.

Originally Posted by NJblue

...Obama has never tried to be bipartisan. Instead, Obama initially tried to push through a liberal agenda (the Pelosi plan) but it was stymied by the moderates and Blue Dogs. It was only then that he tried to placate both sides of the Democratic Party. Obama hasn't paid any attention to the Republican viewpoint except where it overlapped with that of the Blue Dogs....

There's no sense debating what the two guys said on TV this morning. Little to be gained, I think, in parsing the words they said.

On the issue of the Obama "liberal agenda", I assume you're talking about healthcare reforms. It's been pretty widely reported that the White House never really sent a detailed plan to the Congress, only a set of guiding principles (100% coverage, public option, preventive medicine, etc.). The various bills floating around have been created by the House and Senate committees in response to one another. Somewhere along the line, 161 amendments suggested by the GOP were accepted and became a part of the Senate Finance Committee's version of the proposed legislation. If that's not at least some bi-partisanship, I don't know what it should be called. But even with all that input, the leaders of the GOP caucus say their members will vote 100% NO to any kind of proposed reform legislation unless any new insurance provided to those not now insured will be provided by the for-profit insurance companies. There has been some discussion of an "insurance co-operative", but at last count the GOP leadership has said even that would be unacceptable.

What I think will happen is what the two guys on Meet The Press said was possible--that the POTUS concentrates his efforts on getting agreement within his own party, then any form of the reform legislation desired by the Democrats can and probably will be passed. I wouldn't be surprised if most of those 161 amendments agreed to by the Democratic-controlled committees weren't stripped out of the final legislation as the result of the continued deep divide between the parties. That will set off another several weeks of moaning and wailing by the GOP, whose suggestions will probably be spurned.

If it plays out this way, I won't be surprised. From the GOP standpoint, the downside is that few of their ideas will be included in the final legislation. The upside, I suppose, is that the bill will be purely a Democratic product. They will be totally responsible for how it works out. The U.S. electorate can then decide whether they like it or not when making their voting decisions next year and in 2012.

The whole process works a lot better when there are some real statesmen in Congress. Where oh where have they all gone?

Somewhere along the line, 161 amendments suggested by the GOP were accepted and became a part of the Senate Finance Committee's version of the proposed legislation. If that's not at least some bi-partisanship, I don't know what it should be called.

When looking at quantitative numbers there are enough amendments to fool the casual observer into thinking that a bipartisanship effort was made. However, when you scratch below the surface, most of the amendments were technical in nature (minor wording changes, etc.) Also, there were many hundreds of amendments from the GOP that were rejected. I'm sure the Dems had it calculated to put a bi-partisan face on a bill that they essentially kept lockstep with their ultimate objectives. You may not know what it is called other than bipartisanship, but to me it looks like window dressing to give the media some talking points to use against the Republicans.

Originally Posted by NJblue

...to me it looks like window dressing to give the media some talking points to use against the Republicans.

At the end of the day, I think whatever healthcare reform bill is passed will be almost completely what the Democrats want. There will be a lot of GOP wailing about the absence of bi-partisanship. But when you think about it, why should there be any? The Democrats won a 78 seat majority in the House and a 60-40 majority in the Senate. If one wants to talk about a "public mandate", the Democrats got one in 2008...big time. Talking about seeking the input of the opponent is a real nicety, but nothing more. Whatever party wins that kind of a majority really doesn't have to listen to what their opponents say or want at all. That's simply the way the game is played. If the public wants something different, they have a chance to change it in 2010 and again in 2012. In the meantime, why waste time wailing about not being consulted? Politics isn't practiced by Mr. Niceguys, either before or now.

"A Washington Post-ABC News survey found that fewer than half of Americans — 49 percent — say they believe the president will make the right decisions for the country. That's down from 60 percent at the 100-day mark in his presidency.

The poll shows Obama's overall approval is 57 percent, 12 points lower than it was at its peak in April. Fifty-three percent disapprove of the way he's handling the budget deficit and his approval on health care continues to deteriorate."


For years the libs screamed about bi-partisanship when they weren't in power. Now you're saying we don't need it? Let's see what they say about bi-partisanship when the balance of power changes in 2010.

Originally Posted by dklassen

"A Washington Post-ABC News survey found that fewer than half of Americans — 49 percent — say they believe the president will make the right decisions for the country. That's down from 60 percent at the 100-day mark in his presidency.

The poll shows Obama's overall approval is 57 percent, 12 points lower than it was at its peak in April. Fifty-three percent disapprove of the way he's handling the budget deficit and his approval on health care continues to deteriorate."


For years the libs screamed about bi-partisanship when they weren't in power. Now you're saying we don't need it? Let's see what they say about bi-partisanship when the balance of power changes in 2010.

DK: I agree with you that there will be a change in 2010. I hope the change is significant. What I dread is all the mudslinging we will be subjected to over the next two years. I am tired of hearing the deficit is so high because things are much worse than we expected.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

At the end of the day, I think whatever healthcare reform bill is passed will be almost completely what the Democrats want. There will be a lot of GOP wailing about the absence of bi-partisanship. But when you think about it, why should there be any? The Democrats won a 78 seat majority in the House and a 60-40 majority in the Senate. If one wants to talk about a "public mandate", the Democrats got one in 2008...big time. Talking about seeking the input of the opponent is a real nicety, but nothing more. Whatever party wins that kind of a majority really doesn't have to listen to what their opponents say or want at all. That's simply the way the game is played. If the public wants something different, they have a chance to change it in 2010 and again in 2012. In the meantime, why waste time wailing about not being consulted? Politics isn't practiced by Mr. Niceguys, either before or now.

So, the only reason we vote for people is not their capacity to see what's in the best interests of their district, we just want to find people who can toe the line as dictated by the DNC or RNC! After all, the DNC and RNC know what's best for us, and whichever party has the majority just tells us which "NC" should be dictator-for-a-term.

Say, why bother having a Congress at all where elected folk represent districts? We could just count noses and then simply turn over all "congressional stuff" to the party "leaders" at either 430 S. Capitol Street SE or 310 First Street, Washington, DC 20003. After all, what the party leadership think is right is all that matters.......

There will be a lot of GOP wailing about the absence of bi-partisanship. But when you think about it, why should there be any? The Democrats won a 78 seat majority in the House and a 60-40 majority in the Senate. If one wants to talk about a "public mandate", the Democrats got one in 2008...big time.

That's the mistake that every majority makes - thinking that they won a mandate on every single issue. That is simply not the case. Many people voted Democratic because of the war, others because of the economy, others because they were disillusioned with deficit spending by the Republicans, others because of social issues, others because they didn't like Palin, etc., etc. If health care had been the single major issue of the campaign, then the Dems would be correct in assuming that they had a mandate. It was not and they do not. If they were astute they would look at the polling data to see that the public is not behind their position.

Originally Posted by JUREK

DK: I agree with you that there will be a change in 2010. I hope the change is significant....

By the way, just like you and DK, I too hope there is a major league turnover in the Congress in 2010. I know I'll be doing my small part to make it happen.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

So, the only reason we vote for people is not their capacity to see what's in the best interests of their district, we just want to find people who can toe the line as dictated by the DNC or RNC!...

Not necessarily true, but that seems to be the end result. New high-minded people get elected to Congress and they are immediately whipsawed into following the orders of the party leaders. Those are the guys and gals who got their positions as the result of being re-elected so many times that they know the ins and outs of how to beat the newbies into submission.

Is this the system that the founding fathers had in mind?

Originally Posted by NJblue

That's the mistake that every majority makes - thinking that they won a mandate on every single issue. That is simply not the case. Many people voted Democratic because of the war, others because of the economy, others because they were disillusioned with deficit spending by the Republicans, others because of social issues, others because they didn't like Palin, etc., etc. If health care had been the single major issue of the campaign, then the Dems would be correct in assuming that they had a mandate. It was not and they do not. If they were astute they would look at the polling data to see that the public is not behind their position.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Not necessarily true, but that seems to be the end result. New high-minded people get elected to Congress and they are immediately whipsawed into following the orders of the party leaders. Those are the guys and gals who got their positions as the result of being re-elected so many times that they know the ins and outs of how to beat the newbies into submission.

Is this the system that the founding fathers had in mind?

If the nation has so degenerated that our representatives are nothing but party hacks who respond like Pavlonian dogs when their masters riign the campaign contribution bell - and we as voters accept this conduct - then the next amendment to the US Constitution should change the Preamble to read "We, The Sheeple"

Is this the legacy we leave behind?