I didn’t vote for Obama so that he could continue the stupid ultra-partisan governance we’ve had lately. I heard about how skilled he was at forging compromise over contentious issues, and that’s one of the reasons I was enthusiastic in my support. I expect him to work with Republicans, and take good ideas from their side of the aisle instead of shutting them out completely just for the sake of flexing his political muscle.
It also gives evidence that he is willing to genuinely work with opponents/former opponents…like say the Islamic world.
The one thing I know I DON’T want to see/hear is Obama saying he won’t even listen to dissenting viewpoints, or even allow them to be expressed. Saw enough of THAT over the past 8 years. . . :rolleyes:
(Emphasis ruefully added)
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/01/27/ap5973551.html
Offered without needless comment.
Just in case I was misunderstood…
If I was Islamic and distrustful of the U.S…I might be cautiously optimistic about Obama…but would have to see before I believed. Their seeing him genuinely trying to work with Republicans, listening to them and even coming up with a compromise even when the Repubs weren’t needed would give me some evidence that Obama could be someone I could work with.
That works for me. Obviously he doesn’t have a mandate to pursue Democratic policies come hell or high water, but when there’s a deadlock based on nothing more than ideological differences, then it should come down in his favor. The election showed that more people would prefer to see Obama’s policies enacted than the GOP’s, so when a compromise can’t be reached, it’s reasonable that he should win out. But a compromise should be sought first.
The other thing is, say to the opposition “Look, I’m not going to sacrifice my goals to give you 100% of what you want. But if you give me something I can work with, maybe you can get more of what you want than just waiting/hoping for a time when you are in the majority.”
I agree, duck. On an international level, I can’t imagine it hurts to portray himself as at least being willing to listen. Hope he early on makes a point of making some concessions - even if minor and/or largely symbolic. And clearly say he changed his original position as the result of Repub input. Sure, can largely be theater, but can be effective on any number of levels.
I’ve experienced any number of times that even if you know you are getting screwed by policy, it is of at least some cathartic value for the decision-makers to allow you an opportunity to express your views. Even if you both know down deep that in the end they are going to just do whatever they damn well please. IMO the WORST approach is to start off by indicating you are going to do exactly what you want and nothing else, and aren’t even going to allow anyone else the opportunity to express their opinions. And that is pretty much the impression I got of the prior administration most of the time. I know how much I disliked it when I was in the minority. I have no desire for an administration that more closely reflects my views to act in such a crappy manner simply because they are now in power.
And that’s just among his own base! <rim shot>
I presume it’s the same with GOP legislators in other states?
On average have at least some concern for the country. Which is something the Republicans take advantage of; such as the Democrats’ attempt to be bipartisan after 9-11; they decided to compromise in a time of crisis, while the Republicans saw 9-11 simply as an opportunity to push their agenda and took ruthless advantage of the Democrats. Nor do you see Democrats pushing ideas like “Starve the beast”, which boils down to “wreck the economy so bad and rack up debt so high that the government has no choice but to eliminate all social programs”. The Republicans are willing to essentially torch the country to get what they want.
Am I the only one who is naive enough to think that Obama genuinely wants to see if there is any common ground with the Republicans on the stimulus. That doesn’t necessarily mean giving in to their demands, but he strikes me as being genuinely curious and wishing to hear out their potential objections.
No, you’re not naive. That’s what he appears to be doing. But I think that may mean Obama is naive.
Or maybe it’s clever in some Machiavellian way, I don’t know.
Actually I think the Republicans are the ones being naive, here.
I don’t think they’re being naive. I think they’re playing for all the marbles. The package passed the house on a straight party-line vote (said the crawl on the TV I passed in the mall an hour ago), without a single GOP vote. They clearly want to hang the package around Obama’s neck. This is a high-risk strategy; if, in two years, things have gone further into the dumper, they can claim the Dems have failed, and try to retake Congress. The argument will be even more compelling in four years. But if things do get turned around, and the GOP can be effectively labeled as the party that interfered with and obstructed recovery, they have consigned themselves to an additional decade of irrelevance, at best. At this point, they have apparently chosen a high-stakes game of chicken with the future, believing that Obama will fail and the country will continue to suffer (perhaps hoping, per Limbaugh’s reprehensible broadcast of a few days ago), because it will be the foundation on which they rebuild their political fortunes. Naive? No: a knowing roll of the dice.
Yep, not one Republican voted for it!
Congress is going to have to pass a health appropriations bill to help pay for all the twisted arms on capitol hill.
Bill passes with no GOP votes and 12 Democrats voting against it.
Cervaise is right, this looks like high stakes poker. I hope Obama knows what he is doing with the economy.
Funny how the Democrats get a real opposition party while the GOP had the Democrats.
They phrase it nicely over at daily kos:
This is what I was talking about earlier. Obama bends over backwards to include some Republican proposals and then they turn around and unamimously vote against the bill anyways. Obama needs to tell them to go fuck themselves.
Educate me… how stimulative were those Republican proposals? Or were they just pork?
… and the few things that were dropped so far? Stimulative or a good example of “not letting a serious crisis go to waste”?
Perhaps I’m naive … is the bill about “stimulus” or is that a marketing ploy?
Speaking of marketing… I find it interesting that most of the news folks refer to the House bill as “Obama’s Stimulus Plan”… which it isn’t. Sure sounds nice though, doesn’t it?