Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm really starting to feel like Mitt Romney is the GOP's John Kerry.

I'd say a Nixon comparison is more apt. Besides, Kerry would've won if not for two things:

1) He had a 20 year legislative record to use against him.

2) We were in wartime. People are very reluctant to change commander-in-chief during war. Rove played that to Bush's favor brilliantly by painting Kerry as a pansy who would favor appeasement. Granted, it can be argued that we still are, but in 2004 the economy was not bad enough to outweigh fear. Now it is.

Remember, Romney doesn't have to be spectacular. He just has to be serviceable enough to let the economy derail Obama. Romney is a much smoother operator than Kerry could ever dream of being. You won't see any idiotic pictures of Romney throwing a football the wrong way or dressed as a condom crawling through holes. Romney is a much better politician than Kerry and his smart enough to realize that all he has to do is come off as somewhat intelligent and likable, avoid major gaffes and the economy will do the rest.
 
Last edited:
Obama is fed up with Huntsman. When the rumors popped up about him running while he was still Ambassador to China, the Administration pretty much sidelined him. Huntsman as Secretary of State for Romney though would be perfect for Romney. As Ambassador to both Singapore and China, Huntsman would deliver a much needed Sino-centric foreign policy.

I think Bill Richardson is Obama's most likely choice. The heat surrounding Richardson's pay-to-play scandal has died down plus he has the diplomatic background. If Obama wants to reach across the isle, he'd probably tap Colin Powell. Powell supported Obama in 2008 despite being a Republican, he was Secretary of State under the Bush Administration, and Obama probably wouldn't push him away like the Bush Administration did.

I dunno, maybe we'll see a change in Obama if he wins a second term and can finally stop campaigning (for the first time since 2004). But I don't think that we will. Obama, more than any other politician I've ever seen has this NEED to be liked. I think he will get over it and hire Huntsman if it means a pat on the back from the right.
 
I dunno, maybe we'll see a change in Obama if he wins a second term and can finally stop campaigning (for the first time since 2004). But I don't think that we will. Obama, more than any other politician I've ever seen has this NEED to be liked. I think he will get over it and hire Huntsman if it means a pat on the back from the right.

I don't see that changing. Despite proclaiming himself to be a uniter and his "attempts" to reach across the isle, Obama himself is one of the most partisan politicians to ever come into power. His record in the Senate and first two years in the Oval Office show that he has nothing but disdain for Republicans. I agree with you that he has a NEED to be liked. But only by the general populace, Republicans can just go **** themselves in his eyes.

Hell, appointing Huntsman as Ambassador to China was nothing but a purely partisan move on Obama's part. He got rid of a very capable political rival in sending him off to China. Huntsman would probably be doing much better in the polls if he was never Ambassador to China under the Obama Administration.
 
Hippie, I'm no Obama fan but from what I've seen, BO has tried everything the GOP has asked with them not budging on anything that he's asked. He has tried bipartisanship numerous times without any support at all. Again, I'm no BO fan because I think he got into office and either just straight up lied or didn't know what he was doing but to say that he hates Republicans is crazy because from what I've seen, he has tried his all to work with them but has gotten so much resistance that if he hated Republicans today, who can blame him?
 
I don't see that changing. Despite proclaiming himself to be a uniter and his "attempts" to reach across the isle, Obama himself is one of the most partisan politicians to ever come into power. His record in the Senate and first two years in the Oval Office show that he has nothing but disdain for Republicans. I agree with you that he has a NEED to be liked. But only by the general populace, Republicans can just go **** themselves in his eyes.

Hell, appointing Huntsman as Ambassador to China was nothing but a purely partisan move on Obama's part. He got rid of a very capable political rival in sending him off to China. Huntsman would probably be doing much better in the polls if he was never Ambassador to China under the Obama Administration.

I couldn't disagree more.
 
I couldn't disagree more.

Indeed, anybody who really doesn't think Obama has bent over backwards to try and compromise and appeal to Republicans--often to his political suffering--is so insulated in a partisan bubble that reality will not come through.
 
You can try to work with people and still not like them. And Obama doesn't like the other side.
 
Well he does a much better job of hiding it than his opponents who call him a "socialist," say "You lie," during joint sessions of Congress, said repeatedly since the FIRST MONTH, their first priority is not the country or economy, but to "make sure Obama is a one-term president," called him a "tar baby," said it's OK to believe he wasn't born in this country, and would rather give up true tax code reform and deficit reduction at the peril of the downgrade (which did happen) than be seen compromising with him.

Yes, I'd say on one side it is much more clear on.
 
Hippie, I'm no Obama fan but from what I've seen, BO has tried everything the GOP has asked with them not budging on anything that he's asked. He has tried bipartisanship numerous times without any support at all. Again, I'm no BO fan because I think he got into office and either just straight up lied or didn't know what he was doing but to say that he hates Republicans is crazy because from what I've seen, he has tried his all to work with them but has gotten so much resistance that if he hated Republicans today, who can blame him?

I couldn't disagree more.

But it's true.

Take a look at his voting record in the Senate:

- Remember the debt ceiling debacle where he scolded Republicans for not raising the debt ceiling. But he did the exact same thing in opposing raising the debt ceiling back in 2006. He voted against it. Here's his quote back in 2006 explaining why:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

He didn't even bother voting to raise the debt ceiling back in 2007 and 2008. The only time he voted to increase the debt ceiling under the Bush Administration was a second time in 2008 to authorize TARP.

- He consistently voted against Bush's appointees such as John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, John Bolton as the Ambassador of the United Nations, Michael Hayden as CIA Director, Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, multiple judges, etc. The only major Bush appointees he voted for were appointees that ended up with over 85 members of the Senate approving.

- He voted against the implementation of CAFTA, which created a free trade zone between the United States and Central America and opposed a free trade agreement with South Korea. He didn't even bother voting on a free trade agreement with Peru. But now that he's President he has fast tracked free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and wow....South Korea.

- Instead of finding a middle ground solution in regards to abortion, Obama decided to side himself with the extremist section of the pro-choice faction in the abortion debate. Even voting against reasonable legislation such as the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act which makes it illegal, excluding the minor's parents, to knowingly transport a pregnant minor across state lines in order to obtain an abortion, as a way to escape state laws requiring parental consent if the minor's life is not in danger.

- He has consistently voted on infringing the Second Amendment. Such as endorsing a ban on handguns in Illinois, holding gun manufacturers liable in things that aren't their fault, calling for a renewal in the Assault Weapons Ban, etc.

- He has consistently voted in favor of his labor allies such as authorizing the unionization of Air Traffic Controllers (even the very pro-union FDR opposed the unionization of federal employees).

- He was often ranked as one of the most liberal members in the Senate from both conservative and progressive groups. He was also called a rank and file Democrat and a Democratic loyalist.

Now take a look at how he's acted when he took over the Oval Office:

- Made no real serious efforts in courting Republican support for his major legislative goals such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. He had 256 member Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and a 60 member Democratic supermajority in the Senate. He didn't even need Republican support and any so-called efforts were political theater that weren't really taken seriously.

- Once again provides massive support for his big labor buddies by supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, giving the UAW ownership stakes in the new General Motors and Chrysler, preventing Boeing from opening a plant in a right to work state, allows more federal employees to unionize, etc.

- Tells Republicans to get in the back seat, even though it was conservative Democrats who derailed many of his goals such as the Employee Free Choice Act and the public option.

- Intentionally installs provisions that have no chance of passing in his jobs bill, effectively killing it, just so he can play political chicken with the Republicans.

- Acts like the only adult in the room during the debt ceiling debacle even though he was acting just as childish and ruined negotiations to the point where the Democrats sidelined him out of the negotiations.

- Have you seen his most recent behavior?

Now I'm not saying that Obama is incredibly guilty while the Republicans are innocent. Because the Republicans are almost just as guilty as Obama is. But it's pretty plain, clear and simple that ever since he has been in Washington back in 2005, Obama has been nothing but incredibly partisan and shown nothing but disdain for the Republicans. Someone in his political ideology cannot be a uniter.
 
Well he does a much better job of hiding it than his opponents who call him a "socialist," say "You lie," during joint sessions of Congress, said repeatedly since the FIRST MONTH, their first priority is not the country or economy, but to "make sure Obama is a one-term president," called him a "tar baby," said it's OK to believe he wasn't born in this country, and would rather give up true tax code reform and deficit reduction at the peril of the downgrade (which did happen) than be seen compromising with him.

Yes, I'd say on one side it is much more clear on.

He never even bothered compromising to begin with. The only difference is like you say, Obama in the first couple of months of his Administration was much better at hiding while the Republicans made their intentions flat out blatant.
 
Yeah, keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense, hiring Huntsman as an ambassador, going time and again to the US House on the Stimulus, pushing the Baucus version of HCR over Pelosi's (which was more moderate than what we got) in an effort to court Grassley, Snowe and Collins only for them to call them death panels and/or vote for it in committee but not on the floor, agreeing to extending the Bush Tax Cuts for 2 years and trying to get $4 trillion in deficit reduction, so long as $1 trillion worth of tax breaks for the wealthy, hedge fund managers and oil companies....

wow he really didn't try and just hated them. You're right. :oldrazz:

Y'know even if you do think he is as petty as them, at least he's repeatedly made tough decisions trying to help the country as opposed to his 2012 campaign strategy back in 2009, 2010 and even in our summer of "debt crisis." Oh well.
 
In all fairness, even if Gates is a registered Republican he has always been rather apolitical.
 
I don't see that changing. Despite proclaiming himself to be a uniter and his "attempts" to reach across the isle, Obama himself is one of the most partisan politicians to ever come into power. His record in the Senate and first two years in the Oval Office show that he has nothing but disdain for Republicans. I agree with you that he has a NEED to be liked. But only by the general populace, Republicans can just go **** themselves in his eyes.

Hell, appointing Huntsman as Ambassador to China was nothing but a purely partisan move on Obama's part. He got rid of a very capable political rival in sending him off to China. Huntsman would probably be doing much better in the polls if he was never Ambassador to China under the Obama Administration.


Good call.
Agreed.

I couldn't disagree more.


Really? :huh:
 
Gates has always been an apolitical figure in government with a reputation of being effective, and enjoyed massive bipartisan support. He was approved almost unanimously. Doesn't change the fact that Obama opposed almost all of Bush's appointees the same way Republicans have opposed his for no real reasons.

Jon Huntsman was sent to China for Obama to get rid of a potential 2012 rival. And it worked. Huntsman would be doing much better in the polls right now if it weren't for his stint in China. He would have started his campaign much earlier, he could have developed a lot more support, wouldn't have working for the Obama Administration dragging him down, and probably be a serious contender. And he would have most definitely beaten Barack Obama in the general election.

And Obama was an initial supporter of universal health care. But he knew it can't get passed. So he went for the public option, but that couldn't get passed. Any attempts to get his health care bill passed wasn't to get Snowe, Collins, and Grassley on board. He had no interest in Republican support. He needed the support of conservative Democrats: Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landreau, Tom Carper, Joe Lieberman, Mark Pryor, Mark Begich, Mark Warner, Jim Webb, Max Baucus, and Kent Conrad who were not fond of the public option or flat out opposed to it. He needed to get members of his own party to support HCR, not Republicans.
 
Last edited:
Gates has always been an apolitical figure in government with a reputation of being effective, and enjoyed massive bipartisan support. He was approved almost unanimously. Doesn't change the fact that Obama opposed almost all of Bush's appointees the same way Republicans have opposed his for no real reasons.

All true, but there is no denying keeping Gates at the Pentagon was meant to show a sense of respect and continuity to Republicans still mad the guy who "pals around with terrorists" was elected. However, it seems to have not worked. Even after success in getting Bin Laden, al-Awlaki, dismantling the original al-Qaeda group, New START Treaty, getting UN sanctions on Iran, Trade Deals with South Korea and preventing a killing field while simultaneously getting rid of Gaddhafi without losing a single American life....Romney to Bachmann still run on Obama being a weak, feckless, and appeasing American apologist .

Jon Huntsman was sent to China for Obama to get rid of a potential 2012 rival. And it worked. Huntsman would be doing much better in the polls right now if it weren't for his stint in China. He would have started his campaign much earlier, he could have developed a lot more support, wouldn't have working for the Obama Administration dragging him down, and probably be a serious contender. And he would have most definitely beaten Barack Obama in the general election.

Fair enough, but it was still a bipartisan decision. What is it Don Corleone would say? Keep your friends close....

And Obama was an initial supporter of universal health care. But he knew it can't get passed. So he went for the public option, but that couldn't get passed. Any attempts to get his health care bill passed wasn't to get Snowe, Collins, and Grassley on board. He had no interest in Republican support. He needed the support of conservative Democrats: Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landreau, Tom Carper, Joe Lieberman, Mark Pryor, Mark Begich, Mark Warner, Jim Webb, Max Baucus, and Kent Conrad who were not fond of the public option or flat out opposed to it. He needed to get members of his own party to support HCR, not Republicans.

This is the real reason I'm responding. That is a flat out distortion of history. Obama's support for "universal healthcare" was in name only and he never campaigned on a single-payer/medicare-for-all plan. He did support the public option and it did end up out of the bill because of Blue Dogs like Liebermann, Nelson, Lincoln and Landreau. However, that was about crossing the final barrier in December. The first NINE months of his presidency, he did not publicly campaign/demand a public option nor did he strongly endorse Pelosi's House Bill that passed in July 2009. Instead, he repeatedly said what he wanted to see was something like what was coming out of the Finance Committee (the Baucus Bill) and was in countless meetings and personal negotiations with Grassley, Snowe and others in the Committee and in the middle. What happened? After the Tea Baggers started swarming congressmen in August calling it "death panels" and "government takeovers" like Palin, Beck, Hannity, Ducey, et. al told them to do on Fox News, Grassley said Obama "wants to pull the plug on Grandma."

Only then did they quit courting Republicans because they showed they weren't interested in reforming health care. They were interested in weakening Obama, as Jim DeMint said "This could be his Waterloo!" Yet, Snowe still voted for the bill in committee to get it out, even though she made it clear she wouldn't vote for it on the floor. By doing so she saved a bill that she obviously supported, but would vote against passing simply because of partisan politics trying to slay their Napoleon. Then the bill became more liberal and robust between October and December than what Grassley and co. had negotiated out of Baucus....albeit still not as liberal as the base or rational thinking people would have liked because of the aforementioned Blue Dogs. But to ignore the first nine months of what happened is disingenuous and inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
All true, but there is no denying keeping Gates at the Pentagon was meant to show a sense of respect and continuity to Republicans still mad the guy who "pals around with terrorists" was elected. However, it seems to have not worked. Even after success in getting Bin Laden, al-Awlaki, dismantling the original al-Qaeda group, New START Treaty, getting UN sanctions on Iran, Trade Deals with South Korea and preventing a killing field while simultaneously getting rid of Gaddhafi without losing a single American life....Romney to Bachmann still run on Obama being a weak, feckless, and appeasing American apologist .
It's not so much of showing respect and continuity but more along the lines of Gates being the best man for the job. It wasn't about trying to get Republican support, it was about making sure that someone who knew what he was doing was in the job. If there is one thing that Obama deserves credit for, it's for running the War on Terror effectively.

Fair enough, but it was still a bipartisan decision. What is it Don Corleone would say? Keep your friends close....
I wouldn't call it bipartisan when the primary motive was to get rid of your most dangerous rival.

This is the real reason I'm responding. That is a flat out distortion of history. Obama's support for "universal healthcare" was in name only and he never campaigned on a single-payer/medicare-for-all plan. He did support the public option and it did end up out of the bill because of Blue Dogs like Liebermann, Nelson, Lincoln and Landreau. However, that was about crossing the final barrier in December. The first NINE months of his presidency, he did not publicly campaign/demand a public option nor did he strongly endorse Pelosi's House Bill that passed in July 2009. Instead, he repeatedly said what he wanted to see was something like what was coming out of the Finance Committee (the Baucus Bill) and was in countless meetings and personal negotiations with Grassley, Snowe and others in the Committee and in the middle. What happened? After the Tea Baggers started swarming congressmen in August calling it "death panels" and "government takeovers" like Palin, Beck, Hannity, Ducey, et. al told them to do on Fox News, Grassley said Obama "wants to pull the plug on Grandma."

Only then did they quit courting Republicans because they showed they weren't interested in reforming health care. They were interested in weakening Obama, as Jim DeMint said "This could be his Waterloo!" Yet, Snowe still voted for the bill in committee to get it out, even though she made it clear she wouldn't vote for it on the floor. By doing so she saved a bill that she obviously supported, but would vote against passing simply because of partisan politics trying to slay their Napoleon. Then the bill became more liberal and robust between October and December than what Grassley and co. had negotiated out of Baucus....albeit still not as liberal as the base or rational thinking people would have liked because of the aforementioned Blue Dogs. But to ignore the first nine months of what happened is disingenuous and inaccurate.
You're blind to the facts if you think he genuinely courted the Republicans. He never needed Republican support for the first two years of his Presidency. He made demand after demand that the Republicans would never support. But you know what? I really don't blame him. Sure it was a tad bit stupid in the long run because throwing the Republicans to the side is biting him the ass big time now that they hold a small amount of power. But he didn't need them at all. It was probably the only time for him to push what he really wanted and believed in.

All attempts to weaken HCR were attempts to woo Democrats who were wary of supporting it. You're absolutely right that the Republicans villainized HCR (rather effectively IMO), but they aren't the ones who killed stronger versions of the bills. But that's all they could really do. Conservative Democrats killed it. Any attempts to woo Republicans were never genuine. That is fact.

And yes, during his campaign he called for universal health care. He wanted universal health care. His original intentions were to design a bill that would eventually lead to a universal health care system. He dialed down his demands whenever he realized that such things would not pass.
 
CANTOR STUMBLES ON FOX NEWS ABOUT HOUSE GOP HAVING NO PLAN TO CREATE JOBS
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/96375/cantor-republican-jobs-moodys-stimulus-obama

I saw this on politico yesterday that reported it better, but this came up in the google search first and still has the transcript.

These guys must think that most Americans are idiots. Their jobs plan basically says that they should reduce federal regulations, reform the tax code to favor businesses, pass the trade agreements with Columbia, Panama, and South Korea (something that was already done last week), tort reform, drill baby drill, and pay down the national debt. So you make it easier for businesses to do business, but if there is no demand for their goods. How are they going to create jobs and what is going to stop them from shipping them overseas?
 
Last time I checked, don't free trade deals typically lead to I dunno....less jobs.
 
Just don't forget dnno, Clinton was the one who signed NAFTA and both he and his wife have been very loud supporters of free trade agreements. And our president while in the Senate voted yes on free trade agreements with Oman and while he voted no on CAFTA, he also made it clear that it is only because he wishes to enter free trade agreements with each country individually rather than an all-encompassing treaty like CAFTA. In fact, didn't Obama just sign three free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama today, agreements that his administrations has been pushing to get passed?

It's not just Republicans who vote yes on free trade. Democrats do too. They're both corporate slaves. The only difference between the two major parties right now is that most Republicans just drink the kool-aide and accept what they are, where as Democrats are in denial and some how think that their politicians are better.
 
You're blind to the facts if you think he genuinely courted the Republicans. He never needed Republican support for the first two years of his Presidency. He made demand after demand that the Republicans would never support. But you know what? I really don't blame him. Sure it was a tad bit stupid in the long run because throwing the Republicans to the side is biting him the ass big time now that they hold a small amount of power. But he didn't need them at all. It was probably the only time for him to push what he really wanted and believed in.

That is BS. He courted Republican Senators for almost the whole of 2009 and they screwed him over...twice. So, in 2010 he ignored them. It was not ideological differences that chased away Snowe, Collins, Grassley, Luger, etc. it was a partisan decision to turn HCR into "Waterloo" and make McConnell's first priority of making "Obama a one term-president" a reality. This sort of partisanship is BS because "Obamacare" is nothing but a national version of "Romneycare" which was viewed as good policy for Gov. Romney in 2006 because it was the Dole counterproposal to "Hillarycare" in 1993 hatched by the Heritage Foundation. Obama did not throw down an inedible piece of "socialism." He proposed a conservative solution and they decided to paint it as socialism in hopes of hurting him in 2012....and while the bill became law, politically they may have won. It was cynical ******** on the Republicans part and only blind partisanship would pretend otherwise.

All attempts to weaken HCR were attempts to woo Democrats who were wary of supporting it. You're absolutely right that the Republicans villainized HCR (rather effectively IMO), but they aren't the ones who killed stronger versions of the bills. But that's all they could really do. Conservative Democrats killed it. Any attempts to woo Republicans were never genuine. That is fact.

Not true. It actually became stronger in its finished form than the Baucus Bill because Republicans balked and walked away in August-September 2009 because of cynical games they were playing with millions of Americans lives. It wasn't as strong as Pelosi/the House or progressives in the base wanted, but it was still more liberal and "invasive" than Republicans could have gotten if they chose to govern instead of prepare for the 2010-2012 cycles from the first day of the 111th Congress.

And yes, during his campaign he called for universal health care. He wanted universal health care. His original intentions were to design a bill that would eventually lead to a universal health care system. He dialed down his demands whenever he realized that such things would not pass.

His main proposal didn't even have an individual mandate like Hillary's did and was not medicare-for-all. In fact, outside of no public option and an individual mandate, we pretty much got what he campaigned on in those years.
 
The Republicans have destroyed any ounce of credibility they had.

The 2011 deficit is the second highest in history, with them in the house while gaining ground in the Senate. Get rid of these imbeciles now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,325
Messages
22,085,908
Members
45,886
Latest member
Shyatzu
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"