Quoting DrJBHL, reply 126Despite the fact he Obungled quite a bit, M. McConnell's stated aim to make him fail and the total 'no' certainly helped his inability to get things done.
Seth, it strikes me that when the GOP says no, that it is perceived they are somehow .. 'the party of no'
In my estimation, they are anything but.. The way I see it, you say no, when you disagree with the law, policy, spending etc.
If turning this country into a culture of dependency would have been the end result, yeah, I'm damn glad.. they said no.
If Obama wanted to 'get things done'.... he should have put forth bills with far more bipartisan support.
and lets face it, he had the golden ticket for 2 solid years, while the GOP could do nothing... and here we are.. broke, unemployed, and hungry.
Time for a real change... and it's coming.
No, John. It was quite deliberate and the motivation? Well, believe as you will but the sting of defeat certainly had a good deal to do with it. Human nature and the determination to show their base that they would remain strong, as well. There may have been other motives, but let that rest.
There was no effort to go to a "culture of dependency" but that is indeed a disgusting result of the polarization of the population and 'appeal'/power base of each party... another thing which must change if there is to be any progress.
The numbers, John. The numbers. "he had the golden ticket for 2 solid years, while the GOP could do nothing" (except say no) and among the 60 were Dixiecrats...remember? Let's not rewrite history. I mentioned the numbers before because of the relevancy to this point exactly. At least the Democrats showed more diversity and less 'discipline'. That has always been true and more reassuring than 'lockstep'.
And let's forget compromise. That is heresy. Unfortunately it's the only way to conduct a Democracy.
"and here we are.. broke, unemployed, and hungry". The blame for that spreads fully through our society. Not just Wall St., and not just Bush or Clinton; but the people who were irresponsible and includes the public (selling the value of their homes for vacations, speculation, toys and nonsense) as well as deregulation and approving investment and credit instruments as well as mortgages which were faulty.
Recovery will have to come from manufacturing and export. That will take time, and Obama said so from the get go. He inhereted several major catastrophes and while I wish he could have done better, I don't think he shirked... he could have tried harder for the Public Option and that really would have driven the cost of health care and insurance down. It's clear who opposed that with untruths and the motives behind the scare tactics and shouting representatives down. So, now pay the price...
As to who will win and why? I have seen very little evidence of clear, critical thought in the public during my 44 years of adult life. I doubt it will start now.
Quoting DrJBHL, reply 126Me? I'm voting for Stephen Harper.
You can't have him.
Who's asking. How I love that man. A truly morally upright leader. In every sense of the word. I hope Canada treasures him. He deserves it.