Democrats already playing "bipartisan" politics by saying they are going to wait to discuss any new rebate or stimulus programs until after BHO is installed as the 44st President so that BHO can get the credit.
Now how's that for being more bipartisan? Let's not do what we feel is good for the economy, let's do what is right for the Democratic Party.
That's real bipartisan, eh?
It's already started.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Oooorrrrr...
they now that the stimulus plan they think would be best for the country would be immediately vetoed by Bush, making their efforts pretty fruitless. Partisan in the sense that they want their plan and not Repub's plan, yes, but isn't that to be expected? I think it's more practical than anything else.
Stimulus packages do not work, Elizabeth, they are hand-outs and do not address the base reason for the current financial crisis which is the lack of oversight (not regulation) of the greed that capitalism tends toward when push out of shape by government intervention this time in form of the CRA of 1977 (President Carter's little social engineering experiment), and Rep. Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd's taking of Freddie/Fannie Mae lobbyist monies while blocking more oversight of these now-failed GSEs.
The current financial crisis was caused by simple greed, daughter, on BOTH sides: the Democrats blocking oversight and transparency legislation proposed by McCain (See US Senate Commerce & Banking Committee minutes in 2004) and the banks, government pension plans, and hedge funds that lacked the self-control to limit their desire for profits at all costs.
There is blame a-plenty, but they (the Democrats) should have put their plan up anyway and let it get vetoed to prove their desire is to help the country, not their own partisan ideology.
However, they were not sure that Bush would not sign it, so they didn't want to take that chance. They want BHO to get a base-hit out of the blocks. I understand, but it is still partisan and an indication of how they are going to play in 2009 and beyond.
We are going to have much to discuss, my daughter, as I am going to be able to say "ITYS" (I told you so) many times after Jan. 20, 2009.
All I ask is that Democrats have enough ethics to accept responsibility for what happens going forward just like they did to Bush in 2001.
Remember, what goes around comes around, and I intend on using all the Democratic "Bush-43 era" tactics for holding and pointing responsibility at the BHO and Democratic Congress.
It is going to be a very enjoyable next 4 years. Up for it, Liz?
Once last comment, daughter.
You said "...isn't that to be expected?"
I thought your BHO was "change we need", or "change we can trust..." or something like that?
Wasn't BHO always saying that he is coming to Washington to do things different?
If so, why is that to be expected? That assumes that present action has some pattern perpetrated in the past so a recognizable event is possible.
Than does not sound like change to me, but "politics as usual." Trust me, Liz, BHO and his Congress are the same old politics that is to be expected. Politics is politics and BHO is a politician and therefore in capable of changing how a politician acts.
Been like that for thousands of years until the governed rise up and force the change, and that is very rare indeed.
We did it in 1776, Russia did it 1989 but then failed to follow through. The Balkan states are probably the most recent example of what self-determination can do. That's why they all were for McCain since they have seen the politics of BHO before: they lived it under the USSR.
I'm more than up for the conversation as long as we agree to be reasonable. "Reasonable" being: not faulting each other for someone else's vote or opinion, limiting hyperbole as much as possible, and admitting when the other has a good point.
Too many liberal rules limiting freedom of speech already? :)
So, on to stimulus packages. My favorite thing about them is the check I get in the mail. Other than that, I agree. I can't think of how they actually makes sense other than purely theoretically. And even in theory they're kind of weak.
I'm not real up on my legislative history...why would the Dems block oversight legislation? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. In any case, it seemed the whole world was just so excited about getting rich that they made a lot of stupid mistakes.
As far as "change" goes, first off, Obama getting elected has nothing to do with what Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank do or say. She may be a good dresser and he may be a funny guy, but they're still two of the most partisan people I've heard speak in D.C. Secondly, when people hear "change" are they expecting Obama to suddenly turn the grass purple? I think he's pretty darn different, but not so different that he's not going to still pull some out of the playbook now and then. He is a politician, after all.
Sidenote: This definitely worries me. On NPR yesterday they were interviewing Obama voters on what they expect from him. OMG! One guy expected his tuition to go down and this other lady actually said, "I think he'll work some magic"! Scary stuff, man.
So yeah. I don't think "politics" will change that much. If you pour some vanilla in a mud pie is that actually going to make it appetizing?
What I do hope will change is the way America deals with the world and the way we make decisions going forward. It probably won't happen very soon, but I'd think it would be great if Republicans felt like Obama was listening to them and taking their perspectives seriously into consideration. We'll see. Maybe I'll be wrong, but I'd rather hope for the best.
As to your definition of "reasonable" I have to reject since of your education, and obtained licenses. Conversation must be spirited, direct, confrontational, and always "in your face," else we run the risk of speaking without passion or conviction. However, in all cases, I do not allow personal attacks which I define as irrelevant, non-issue or substantively directed towards the point being made but rather at the person making the point. This does not mean that comments made about who you are, who I am, my background, my education, my upbringing are off the table since these are very much who we are and very much part of the discussion. They must be made cogently and without personally directly insolence.
As to your comments about stimulus packages: first, my point exactly is that receiving the checks is why people like them but do not seem to understand that someone has to pay for them. There is no such thing as a free lunch. It may be delayed, but the costs are always paid by someone. My problem with stimulus packages is that they tend to provoke class dissatisfaction since the people that get the checks are NOT those that will be asked to pay for them. That is classic "wealth redistribution." No society has remained as a world power where personal property and wealth is not respected (fact).
Second, do a Google on Rep. Barney Frank's blockage of direct supervision of the GSE (Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae) in 2004 on the bill offered by Senator McCain the very same day he took over $10,000 from these GSE. BHO also did the same thing being the Congressman with the highest contributions taken from these two GSE's in his very short 143 days in the Senate all while voting absent or NO on any oversight of these now failed and nationalized mortgage behemoths. It is very simple: money talks and BS walks.
As for Pelosi/Frank/Reid pulling on the President, you simply have to go back read about what happened to Clinton during his first 2 years (1992-1994). The Democratic Caucus told him that he had better do what they want and no leaning across the aisle or they would bury his agenda. He did, they didn't, and we got the Republican Revolution of 1994 when the extremely liberal agenda (back then it was considered liberal) caused the American voters to take his Congress away in a resounding defeat for him in 1994.
Unfortunately, dear one, the manner in which the liberal/Democrats treated Bush-43 during his 8 years is going to come home to roast with respect to BHO. You (and I mean the liberal/Democrats - not you directly) can't do one thing and then expect others to treat you differently just because you are now in charge.
It is going to be a very contentious, sometimes even hate-filled BHO presidency since the Bush-haters of 2000-2008 are going find that they have given birth to the BHO-haters of 2008-2012/2016. It's the circle of life, I am afraid.
Post a Comment