Kudos on Christie for pointing out the people holding up Sandy aid were Boehner and the Republicans in the House, and again, for his noting that President Obama had been working closely with him from the very beginning.
Why is it that the far left loon Obama is willing to bend over backward for the governor of a state, that same man who actively campaigned against him just a month prior, but Boehner and his bunch cannot pass a No-Brainer (or is that No-Bohner…) bill like Sandy relief? When it’s politically neutral or positive and can pass easily and actually help people?
It’s bad when your own party is so partisan that it cannot cooperate with itself. That seems like a contradiction in terms, but somehow, Boehner made it happen.
Seriously, Christie is about to be called all kinds of RINO and whatever for this. But I remember this is the guy who strongly advocated for a Romney Presidency at the RNC. This guy is dyed-red Republican. But he’s right. He’s completely right.
I’m sensing there’s Republicans worth salvaging in the Senate, and in Governorships. Not in my state, but in others. But I can’t say there’s as many in the House. And Speaker Boehner has long been my least favorite of the bunch.
So… positive thing I can say…
There are Republicans that are *sane *in our government? Sadly, I feel they will be flushed out in the next election cycle.
They seem to be well groomed, and (voters here, not pols) better behaved at public functions. They take instructions well, do what they’re told (as long they respect the person who does the telling) better, and maintain their cars more regularly.
Has been far better on terrorism than I anticipated. He has waged the war on extremists well and killed many of them. He hasn’t closed Gitmo and approved the raid to get Bin Laden.
Up until the last month I would have said he has been good on gun rights.
Romney writes a nice fat check to his church every year. Not that I approve of his church and not that Romney can’t afford it, but still it does take some character to take tithing seriously in his income bracket.
Gerald Ford was a decent guy and pardoning Nixon was actually good for the country. We needed to get Watergate behind us and Ford knew it would torpedo his election prospect, but he did the right thing.
George W. Bush should be commended for his African policies and helping them fight AIDS.
George HW Bush was perhaps the most complete resume of any president and his term wasn’t a bad era.
Reagan didn’t let politics prevent him from being friends with Democratic leaders.
Sorry, but I can’t think of a single Republican politician who is worth a can of
warm spit, and they should be happy I didn’t say a can of some other warm liquid.
FDR was a great president who inspired and led the country during some of its darkest hours. He established humane programs that were genuinely useful and of tremendous benefit while still allowing their recepients to maintain and/or acquire personal dignity rather than eventually expecting seemingly permanent generational government dependence. He was also able to convince the media that freedom of the press came with some responsibilities beyond personal career advancement.
Since it was immediately what I thought of when I saw the thread title, I’ll add to the voices praising GWB for his efforts against AIDS in Africa. You’d have to be a brainless ideologue to not respect that. I also agree Chris Christie seems like a decent guy, not beholden to the loonier elements of his party.
I will admit I tried to come up with something nice to say about Reagan, but drew a blank.
So the Social Security Act, which established unemployment insurance, government aid for dependent children and included benefits to relatives at death, was a program enabling personal dignity, whereas… Medicare and Medicaid induce permanent dependence?
I have nothing nice to say about either of the main US political parties, which is why I’m not registered as a member of either. There are individuals on both sides of the political fence who have done good things, even when it has not been in their interest to do so, but the parties themselves are and have always been foul and corrupt.
I’ve said enough positive things (as well as negative) about Obama on this board already so I think little else needs to be said there. And for all the things I hated about the last Bush administration, I do think he got bullied by Cheney and company for most of his time in office; his last efforts to improve his legacy - the amnesty program and the disease-fighting work in Africa, most notably - suggest that he was not as heartless as some of his administration’s policies made him appear. And I haven’t forgotten Boehner’s commitment to refuse earmarks, as trifling as that may be (and subject to quibbling over what an earmark is).
I’d love to elaborate on my post, but the guidelines set up for this thread make that a difficult proposition. I’ll say that FDR’s administration gave the nation and world many positives, but some of the things I consider positives have been corrupted bevond recognition since 1945 by other members of his party. Further elaboration would not serve this thread’s purpose.
Maybe I should have praised JFK’s dedication to America’s space program. I don’t feel the need to watch my step when I say something nice about that.
Former Registered Republican here (now that California has open primaries, I changed my registration once again to some flavor of Independent).
I commend Obama for slowly unwinding our military presence, without just tossing out the baby in the process. He has shown that Democrats can be trusted with National Security. I don’t mean that as a snark - that is in comparison to the cold war era reputation the Democratic party had.
I like Jerry Brown in California. He has been practical (as he can be), and is really trying to help the state out of its mess.
I agree with many of the values and goals of the Democratic party. I generally disagree with Democrats because I think the methods they choose to achieve those goals are wrong-headed, unfair, inefficient, wasteful, ineffective, etc., not because I think there is anything wrong with the goals themselves.