Thread: The Myth Of Obama Bi-Partisanship

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Yet, is that the reality, or conservative opinion? Perhaps we need to look at the regulations again, and see if some were stupid, not needed. I am sure there are some. Obama said as much recently. The repubs should push him on that, IF he wins in Nov. Perhaps something can get done in his second term, since the party of NO will not serve anything by retaining that stance. No use in it.

The issue for me is all the new regulations with high costs. In addition, the discretionary holding up of private sector projects over environmental or labor concerns, such as the Boeing plant in South Carolina. Apparently, we not only need protection from foreign goods, we also need protection from Southern goods.

Originally Posted by adaher

I'd say Obama has been very bipartisan, if you consider the Blue Dogs a separate party. But he's never reached out to the GOP the way Bush reached out to Democrats.

As for how Obama has governed, to get anything passed he needs Blue Dogs, so he governs like a Blue Dog on legislative matters. On executive matters, he's been very left-wing, with all sorts of ultraliberal appointments.

Yes, Obama has reached.

Invited Boehner and company over for breakfast, but found something more important to do that day than meet with the POTUS.

See, the thing with the baggers is, they can't meet with Obama, since that would legitimize that he's actually the POTUS. And they have to appear favorable to birthers and racists in the GOP.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Well, one of us is playing dopey right now and it ain't me.
BD is constantly posting about the Clinton/GW/Obama Free Trade/WTO betrayal of the American worker.
Are you sure you actually read our postings?

These guys really don't read my posts. They grab one line, that they THINK says something, when it most cases it isn't saying what they THINK.

I am for the average guy, the common man, the working american, the middle class. ANYTHING that hurts this group gets my attention. Which means that the conservative republicans get all of my attention, given that I think they could give a shit about anyone but the elites of this nation.

I do not like any democrat, like clinton that aided this party. He was one of them, and not a traditional democrat, in standing up for the average guy. Because when gov't does not stand up for the average guy, the average guy gets crushed. Like today.

Originally Posted by adaher

The issue for me is all the new regulations with high costs. In addition, the discretionary holding up of private sector projects over environmental or labor concerns, such as the Boeing plant in South Carolina. Apparently, we not only need protection from foreign goods, we also need protection from Southern goods.

What regulations are you referring to? Labor concerns, I understand, and I fear the current trend is one that will lower wages, when they should not be going backwards. But of course we do have the "wage leveling" going on, with globalization, so that we can get the world's wages here in america, or I should say china's wages here in america. That is the plan, isn't it? To have american live like the chinese? So that the ones at the top can gain more wealth than in the history of the world? That is old hat,sir, the blight upon civilization, that has been with us since day one. We just have a shiny new package for doing that....globalization. The new way to send wealth to the top. I reckon I am one of the few who isn't fooled by it.

Was there bi-partisanship in the putting together of Obamacare? Did Obama consult with Rs before issueing EOs?

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Yes, Obama has reached.

Invited Boehner and company over for breakfast, but found something more important to do that day than meet with the POTUS.

See, the thing with the baggers is, they can't meet with Obama, since that would legitimize that he's actually the POTUS. And they have to appear favorable to birthers and racists in the GOP.

I've only turned attention to Obama's presidency on February 2009, with the health care debate. To be honest, since this thread has been created, I've spent hours and hours looking at the stimulus - from January 20 to February 13 - the different versions, the different discourses and the resulting perspectives. I tried the same with health care but it spans from April 2009 to March 2010, it's just too wide to study.
So first, I'm afraid to ask but kind of have to, who you designate with that "baggers" or "birthers and racits". If it's all of the GOP, some personalities, a distinct group... and I'm especially interested to know that for the stimulus period I consider.
Second, even if the press at that time was undeniably favorable to Obama - I'm not saying they were partisan, but... - while I've no difficulty to find the republican perspective it's really hard to get the democrat perspective on those events. How they reacted to the House version of the stimulus, then to the Senate version, their opinion on the eventual deal, pretty much everything they said along the process... if you have or remember anything about it...

I must admit, I'm blinded on the issue. Even if true evidence was under my muzzle I would still deny the slightest possibility that Obama could be partisan. And I know to some extent I'm necessarily wrong but as said, this is a core, dumb belief.
My theory is that Obama was in 2009 in the position of Boehner in 2010 (the debt deal), willing to compromise and compromised by his base. Democrats, with their majorities, had little to no incentive to reach out, the same way the Tea Party for their own reasons have every incentive to be partisan. Basically Obama couldn't offer more without losing too many democrats, the same way Boehner couldn't offer anything without losing almost all of the House. That's my theory, but I still need to know how much pressure democrats exerted on Obama, before concluding he balked like Boehner did.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Yes, Obama has reached.

Invited Boehner and company over for breakfast, but found something more important to do that day than meet with the POTUS.

See, the thing with the baggers is, they can't meet with Obama, since that would legitimize that he's actually the POTUS. And they have to appear favorable to birthers and racists in the GOP.

Right again... as usual...



And as I illustrated in the OP, if in fact Obama ever did 'reach out' he did it with far less success than George W Bush did... so Obama is once again, a failure.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Right again... as usual...



And as I illustrated in the OP, if in fact Obama ever did 'reach out' he did it with far less success than George W Bush did... so Obama is once again, a failure.

Uh, later on, Boner refused to go. Can't remember shit syndrome T? I don't reckon he liked the pastries? A bacon and eggs man, I suppose.

By the way, old Mitch McDonald there in you pic reminded me just how much I dislike this jackwag. He was the first one I heard to say his job was to keep obama to one term. Crossed his arms and said NO from the getgo. (ok, I know his last name isn't McDonald, but he reminds me of that clown)

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Uh, later on, Boner refused to go. Can't remember shit syndrome T? I don't reckon he liked the pastries? A bacon and eggs man, I suppose.

By the way, old Mitch McDonald there in you pic reminded me just how much I dislike this jackwag. He was the first one I heard to say his job was to keep obama to one term. Crossed his arms and said NO from the getgo. (ok, I know his last name isn't McDonald, but he reminds me of that clown)

And I hate the cunt across the table from him. You got a point to make in there somewhere?

BTW: anybody got a link for that breakfast Boehner turned down?

Originally Posted by tsquare

And I hate the cunt across the table from him. You got a point to make in there somewhere?

BTW: anybody got a link for that breakfast Boehner turned down?

A cunt? Wow, you are as bad as the far left loony tunes T. I only call em jackwags.

No link, but I recall the news story. Fox ran it into the ground, in their glee. I think the tea people had something to do with it.

The point about McDonald was he isn't fit to serve in congress. This guy needs to retire so he can hate his wife and kids for awhile. He really does love to hate, IMO. His countenence says it real loud. Then he opens his mouth.

Originally Posted by tsquare

And I hate the cunt across the table from him. You got a point to make in there somewhere?

BTW: anybody got a link for that breakfast Boehner turned down?

A cunt? Wow, you are as bad as the far left loony tunes T. I only call em jackwags.

No link, but I recall the news story. Fox ran it into the ground, in their glee. I think the tea people had something to do with it.

The point about McDonald was he isn't fit to serve in congress. This guy needs to retire so he can hate his wife and kids for awhile. He really does love to hate, IMO. His countenence says it real loud. Then he opens his mouth.

Thanks for the pic of obama, reid and nancy.

Originally Posted by tsquare

And I hate the cunt across the table from him. You got a point to make in there somewhere?

BTW: anybody got a link for that breakfast Boehner turned down?

Happened on January 2011: Politico - Boehner declines State dinner invite. Quickly looked at the article, nothing interesting for me.

Originally Posted by Vuld Edone

Happened on January 2011: Politico - Boehner declines State dinner invite. Quickly looked at the article, nothing interesting for me.

Declining a State Dinner invite is different than refusing to meet with Obama over a working meal to get a deal made.