The hyperpartisan president

[ProdigalHorn]

Want to know why we can't get anything done? Seriously, and he makes this speech in front of the AP, and they eat it up!In reply to:

---

---

---

---

 

[ShinerTX]

What is this budget you speak of? I think we quit doing the budget thing.

 

[I35]

It is obvious you can lie all you want when you are pandering to the stupid.

 

[Satchel]

The President finally, has tired ot kissing right wing ***. It's about time.

 

[I35]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Aces_Full]

LOL Satchel. Keep running trillion dollar deficits. That's smart. I wish I could run unlimited deficits with my personal budget, but for some reason the creditors eventually cut me off.

 

[Bronco]

I was going to start a thread about this but will just chime in here. I agree that BO is the most partisan president we have ever had. Lots of people can debate the plusses and minuses of policy. It is fine for BO, or any pres, to have strong opinions on policy. What they can't do is fail to lead. That, in a nutshell, is BO's biggest failure. he just doesnt know how to be a leader.

I watched him on CNN yesterday blasting the repubs and their budget. is it possible to be any more hypocritical??? BO proposed a budget that was so ******* bad it got defeated 414-0. Yet he has the gumption to critisize the repub bill!!!

It sems obvious that he really doesnt want anything to change. He realizes his best chance at reelection is to actually accompolish nothing and blame the other side. hell, it has worked for him all of his political life.

he should have never left the senate. In the senate you can be hyper partisan and critisize everybody and it is almost acceptable. Presidents cant do that and be effective.

Anyone remember Clinton's big state of the union spoeech when his first words were "the era of big govt is over". Clinton changed. Clinton compromised. Clinton LEAD. And the country was so much the better for it.

 

[ShinerTX]

We do have a critical leadership void. I thought Boehner could fill the void. Not so much.

 

[Seattle Husker]

All these comments coming from the President in spite of a very flexible non-partisan Republican partner.

I'm curious what non-partisan site you pulled this from?

 

[ShinerTX]

Seattle, I would challenge you to name a President who was dealt a more favorable congressional hand than this one. He's controlled the Senate his entire presidency, a portion of that time with a "Supermajority". He has controlled the House for half. Most presidents don't have it that good.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

The Link

My apologies, forgot the link.

SH, the fact remains that as the article points out, Obama has been the one to pull the rug out from under attempts to compromise. Obama and Reid have been the ones who have inserted items into bills that have made acceptance impossible and irresponsible. I don't deny that both sides have bowed their backs, but when the President opens his tenure with statements like "we won, you lost" and "they need to get out of the way and let us drive"... when his first major legislation is done with absolutely no GOP input, then excuse me if I refuse to see this is a problem where both sides share equal blame.

This is the presidency he has wanted from the beginning - cooperation doesn't give him anything to campaign against.

 

[Hornius Emeritus]

Fortunately, either Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum will save us.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Michtex]

But of course after Commander Codpiece said this after eking out two elections, you and all the other bedwetters probably didn't see that sort of attitude as problem then, right?

In reply to:

---

---

 

[ShinerTX]

Michtex, good quote. That was a leader who could actually build bipartisan coalitions. We're really lacking in that regard today.

 

[Hornius Emeritus]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[I35]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[ShinerTX]

Pretty much how Al Gore ran away from Bill in 2000. It happens after 8 years -- unless you're Reagan.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Michtex]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[majorwhiteapples]

Bush and Obama's attitude toward the other party are night and day, if you can't see that, then you are a very sad individual.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Leftwith]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[I35]

If some of these people were smart and knew he was pandering to the stupid, You would think they would recognize it and not want to be in that group that worships him and defends every lie he tells. Then again if they don't recognize the pandering, then they aren't that smart to begin with. Very sad

 

[dheiman]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Michtex]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[BuffaloBayouBevo]

A quick review of history will reveal that neither Bush nor Obama have been the most partisan presidents. Both are among the most polarizing, but that is largely a reflection of the times we live in.

 

[Seattle Husker]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Crockett]

Bush went to Washington on a theme of being "A uniter, not a divider" and while in Texas back in the days when it was a two-party state, he did an admirable job of bringing folks together to accomplish worthwhile goals. It certainly wasn't all his fault that it was much harder to build concensus in Washington.

Obama too has reached across the aisle. His health care reform as patterened after Republican-advanced plans that kept private-sector insurance and stressed accountability at the individual level, where almost all of us buy health care, even if we don't all buy insurance. Admittedly the Republican Party that was advancing an "everybody-get-insurance" model has shifted considerably to the right since the mid-1990s.

 

[Satchel]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Leftwith]

In reply to:

---

---