Now that Republicans have won in November*

Pages

Republicans have spent the past 20 years whining about everything. There's a 24-hour news channel that is essentially dedicated to republican complaints about everything. It's worked great for them.

Tanglebones wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:

"He is whining, and no one likes a whining president"

This part has some truth to it, though..

Funny, since it sure sounded like Graham was being a big crybaby over nothing.

Jayhawker wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:

"He is whining, and no one likes a whining president"

This part has some truth to it, though..

Funny, since it sure sounded like Graham was being a big crybaby over nothing.

Not disagreeing with that either

Holy jimminy... This is why I can't understand the President's continuing desire to roll over for the Pubs at every chance. Even when it goes against his own party, bi-partisan commisions, public opinion and economic sense he gives them what they want only to screamed at by everyone, including the people he just gave the free gift to.

Maybe this is just how the media's playing it but I'm definitely getting that impression. Every time I turn around it seems like Obama is caving on some Republican demand even when it's counter-productive and giving in serves no point. They keep demanding that Obama give them an ice cream or they'll punch him in the face. He gives them one and they immediately punch him. Ten minutes later they ask for the same thing and he gives it to them again. I mean, seriously, is he not sensing a trend here?

When was the last time we had a President that came across as being this weak?

IMAGE(http://www.classroomhelp.com/lessons/Presidents/presimages/carter.jpg)

Jimmy Carter is practically W compared to Obama.

IMAGE(http://www.welcomehomeday.org/_images/presidents/fordportrait.jpg)

DSGamer wrote:

Jimmy Carter is practically W compared to Obama.

I was young at the time, but I remember Carter having a terrible time in office dealing with republicans and Congress. The dude even had to fend off a primary challenge from within his own party.

I was wondering if Carter met the criteria but I was only a few years old when he was in office. Oddly I wasn't paying attention to much politics at the time. It's hard to tell about past Presidents because so much gets revised. I mean, by the year 2250 we're probably going to have holdeck programs where you can relive a part of history and fly as co-pilot in W's jet that blew up Saddam's nuclear-powered mech that was attacking Washington back in 2002.

Ballotechnic wrote:

IMAGE(http://img3.visualizeus.com/thumbs/10/01/04/pulp,fiction,samuel,jackson-f11ce3a6178a6c2dddf6d7e4aad6a16a_m.jpg)

I fully realize it would be political and potentially personal suicide but I l would love to see Obama go all Samuel Jackson:

"I am sick and tired of these motherf*cking Republicans messing up my motherf*cking congress"

"Whut did he say"? said John Boehner

"SAY WHAT ONE MORE TIME"!!!!

"Say filibuster again! I dare you! I double dare you!"

You know what's funny is that a news outlets are saying Obama was the winner in these negotiations. Middle class gets tax cuts extended, unemployment gets extended plus something. A chunk of republicans are venting on how unfair it is before the vote.

karmajay wrote:

A chunk of republicans are venting on how unfair it is before the vote.

It was the same thing with healthcare. Pubs got almost all of the changes they wanted and still complained about how bad it was. It seems the only time they're willing to praise a piece of legislative action is when something Obama likes doesn't pass.

I do like, however, how many Pubs and Dems are standing up and calling them out on this proposal. For the last few years everyone has been screaming about our spending and now what are we proposing to fix it? To cut taxes and increase spending. That's not a bipartisan compromise, that's magical thinking.

The incoming head of the House Financial Services Committee promises change in D.C. under the new regime:

Bachus, in an interview Wednesday night, said he brings a "main street" perspective to the committee, as opposed to Wall Street. "In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks," he said.

I give the guy credit for being honest about this. But honesty is not favored in D.C., so.....

He later clarified his comment to say that regulators should set the parameters in which banks operate but not micromanage them.

I always overflow with confidence when the guy in charge of financial policy speaks in empty catchphrases and platitudes that other people pounded into the dust two years ago. Maybe he'll assure us that he won't be a jive turkey next?

I don't know whether to laugh at, or be insulted by his claim that deregulation is the "Main Street Not Wall Street" solution. Yeah, all those banks will be all "Oh noes, less oversight? You've foiled us again, Main Street! Damn your down-to-earth common sense!"

In the wake of the election, Obama is moving to ingratiate himself with the business community.

President Barack Obama will name Jeffrey Immelt, General Electric Co.’s chief executive officer, to head his outside panel of economic advisers, replacing former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

Link. Personally, we're 30 years into a process of the banks and business community all but running economy policy. Looks like this will continue under Obama. I guess we can argue about whether this is a good thing, but the whole Obama "hope and change" idea is dead to me. Turns out he's a retread of the corporate-friendly, cynically triangulating politics of Bill Clinton. Same staffers, same outlook. This is maybe the least revolutionary administration since...I don't know. Truman? The expectation seems to be that by doing what Clinton did, we'll have the same economic growth. I doubt it will work out like that.

It's amazing how little of the "hope" and "change" stuff actually made it to the presidency. It's the greatest bait and switch in history. I'm not sure even John McCain would have been this cozy to big business.

McCain is kind of an odd duck, because he's very emotional and vindictive. He can be extremely cozy with businessmen, but if it strikes his fancy he can go ballistic on individual companies. Obama is a much cooler head. I suppose he would say that he never promised to be a revolutionary figure in the same way that, say, Bush was for republicans. But liberals heard the rhetoric of hope and change and felt like he could explain why liberal policies have value. But Obama turned out to be like Bill Clinton: he wants to straddle the fence and get himself re-elected.

Bush promised to be a "uniter, not a divider." Then as soon as he was elected, he went on a right-wing, revolutionary rampage through the government that made Reagan look like Karl Marx. So maybe liberals felt Obama would turn out to be more liberal than he ever intended to be.

Obama amply showed his weakness throughtout the Democratic Primaries. Most liberals/Democrats/Left were too wrapped up in what he represented to see what he would be when he became President. None of anything that Obama has done or not done has been a surprise to me. Hilary should be POTUS today.

Edit: Also, Obama's unwillingness to engage/commit on tough issues is amply shown in his IL State Senate record.

Dirt wrote:

Hilary should be POTUS today.

Hilary was Obama's mentor in the senate and once explained to someone that you had to compromise with conservatives if you wanted to get anything done in Washington. She would have hired from the same pool of Team Clinton staffers as Obama has. They are very similar in their outlook, which may be why we haven't seen any kind of conflict between them playing out behind the scenes.

Hilary would not make the same compromises as Obama. And Hilary is more of a fighter. Obama is more of an appeaser.

Dirt wrote:

Hilary would not make the same compromises as Obama. And Hilary is more of a fighter. Obama is more of an appeaser.

You may be right (we'll never know), but I question this. I'm not questioning that Clinton's more of a fighter, I'm questioning if that mindset would've been effective 2008-2010. It's possible, given the Team Blue majorities in the house/senate, but she really would've had to whip her team to giving her the vote she needed to get stuff through.

I don't think she would've gotten healthcare done, for example.

Dirt wrote:

Hilary would not make the same compromises as Obama. And Hilary is more of a fighter.

She is? I didn't see any evidence from her time in the senate. Her vote on the war, for example, was made purely as political calculation. At a time when it was important to stand up and be counted, she took the easy route.

On compromising with republicans in general, this story appeared in Jan. 2007 at the beginning of the last cycle:

At a conference devoted to “big ideas” for the nation’s future, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said this morning that compromise need to be “a goal – not a dirty word” in politics and government, remarks that reflect her own pragmatic style but that are more moderate than the views of some of her rivals and hard-core elements of the Democratic primary electorate.

As I said, she and Obama were known to be tight prior to the election, and they shared a similar power base within the democratic party. It was what made them arguing against each other during the campaign so odd, because they shared a lot of the same views. Her republican senate colleagues had very nice things to say about her attitude towards working with those across the aisle.

Funkenpants wrote:

Bush promised to be a "uniter, not a divider." Then as soon as he was elected, he went on a right-wing, revolutionary rampage through the government that made Reagan look like Karl Marx. So maybe liberals felt Obama would turn out to be more liberal than he ever intended to be.

Well, not as *soon* as he was elected. He didn't get the necessary approval ratings and support -- and he might not possibly had the motivation either -- for his revolutionary rampage until 9/11 happened. Otherwise we would've been a highly contentious one term president.

Anyway, Obama. His business as usual administration might be disappointing, but for the love of God don't romanticize McCain. Caving in to the basest parts of the right showed him to be utterly without principles, and the ramshackle operation he called a campaign showed him to be useless as an administrator too. Don't forget that he's the man responsible for unleashing Sarah Palin on the world. That alone should disqualify him from any higher office.

If a three-legged dog had somehow been nominated for the Democratic candidacy and chosen as his running mate a gopher with a penchant for monocles and Victoriana, anyone in their right mind would have worn his "Tripod/Lord Whiskerkins '08" button with pride and pulled the lever with cheerful alacrity.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:

If a three-legged dog had somehow been nominated for the Democratic candidacy and chosen as his running mate a gopher with a penchant for monocles and Victoriana, anyone in their right mind would have worn his "Tripod/Lord Whiskerkins '08" button with pride and pulled the lever with cheerful alacrity.

I would vote for this pair no matter what, I may even write them in next presidential election. I was actually laughing out loud.

I wish I could take credit for it, but I can't. I have to admit stole it wholesale.

Mitch McConnell points out how negotiating will go in the new spirit of bipartisanship and working together to make America more competitive, etc:

"If the president is willing to do what I and my members would do anyway, we're not going to say no," McConnell told an audience of journalists and political insiders at a breakfast meeting hosted by Politico in Washington today.

Also..

WASHINGTON – A White House official says President Barack Obama will call for a five-year freeze in non-security, discretionary spending during his State of the Union address....The official says Obama will also call for lawmakers to back a five-year plan put forth by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to save $78 billion in defense spending.

Wow, a whole $15 billion a year out of our giant defense budget?

Pages