Page 43 of 56 FirstFirst ... 3339404142434445464753 ... LastLast
Results 1,261 to 1,290 of 1675

Thread: Life in the Trump Era, Part 2

  1. #1261
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    I take back all of my theories and now submit this one: The senior official who wrote the op-ed is John Barron, long time PR person for the president. But here is the twist, President Trump suffers from an undiagnosed multiple-personality disorder, and John Barron is one of his personalities.

    The guy who created Veep pitched this as a movie blockbuster, but maybe this is the real solution


    Armando Iannucci
    @Aiannucci


    Film pitch.. Trump drugged and moved to a replica Whitehouse, where he carries on thinking he’s governing. Millions spent on hiring actors to play his staff, Senators, news anchors, people at rallies.
    There you go. Studios, your highest bid please.
    4:17 AM - Sep 5, 2018

  2. #1262
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    This piece injects some reality into the excitement.

    7 points on the anonymous New York Times ‘resistance' op-ed

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...form=hootsuite

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  3. #1263
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    David French says it better than I could:

    "Let’s put this as bluntly as possible: If you’re actively defying the president to pursue your own preferred policies, you’re subverting an American presidential election. If you’re withholding from the American people actual hard evidence of presidential unfitness, then you’re placing your own career before your country. If you’re lying or badly exaggerating the facts for the thrill of constant media contact or the approval of your peers, then you’re just despicable.
    [...]

    "We have reached a miserable point in American democracy. Unelected public servants so distrust the political branches of government that they actually work to undermine elected officials or refuse to even attempt to utilize constitutional systems of checks and balances. If you’re telling the truth, there exist within the Trump administration people who believe that our nation is led by a man who’s too unstable to govern. Yet to these people, even that level of a national emergency doesn’t justify the risk to career and reputation inherent in resignation and public testimony? A nation once worth dying for is now only worth leaking for?"

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...l-open-letter/

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  4. #1264
    Administrator U-Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    5,526
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    David French says it better than I could:

    "Let’s put this as bluntly as possible: If you’re actively defying the president to pursue your own preferred policies, you’re subverting an American presidential election. If you’re withholding from the American people actual hard evidence of presidential unfitness, then you’re placing your own career before your country. If you’re lying or badly exaggerating the facts for the thrill of constant media contact or the approval of your peers, then you’re just despicable.
    [...]

    "We have reached a miserable point in American democracy. Unelected public servants so distrust the political branches of government that they actually work to undermine elected officials or refuse to even attempt to utilize constitutional systems of checks and balances. If you’re telling the truth, there exist within the Trump administration people who believe that our nation is led by a man who’s too unstable to govern. Yet to these people, even that level of a national emergency doesn’t justify the risk to career and reputation inherent in resignation and public testimony? A nation once worth dying for is now only worth leaking for?"

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...l-open-letter/
    I agree with French on this. It sets up a dangerous slippery slope where unelected officials can undermine any policy they don't agree with.

  5. #1265
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    This piece injects some reality into the excitement.

    7 points on the anonymous New York Times ‘resistance' op-ed

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...form=hootsuite

    I think my major beef with this piece is it is seemingly attempting to trivialize the seriousness of a president unhinged. I don't agree that tax cuts, bolstered military and a booming economy are bigger than a president who is alienating our allies, supporting corrupt leaders around the world and seemingly impulsive while holding nuclear codes.

    French's points are right (and along what I mentioned yesterday about my concerns about this 'senior official'). But even if this official is wrong doesn't mean that we the people and congress doesn't take serious steps into looking into the president's fitness. The anonymous senior needs to be outed, but that can be done the same time as we find out exactly what is going on in the White House.

    And hey, what is the downside for this person? If we can turn Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning into heroes, certainly this person will be too.

  6. #1266
    Five-O Diehard Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    4,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    I think my major beef with this piece is it is seemingly attempting to trivialize the seriousness of a president unhinged. I don't agree that tax cuts, bolstered military and a booming economy are bigger than a president who is alienating our allies, supporting corrupt leaders around the world and seemingly impulsive while holding nuclear codes.

    French's points are right (and along what I mentioned yesterday about my concerns about this 'senior official'). But even if this official is wrong doesn't mean that we the people and congress doesn't take serious steps into looking into the president's fitness. The anonymous senior needs to be outed, but that can be done the same time as we find out exactly what is going on in the White House.

    And hey, what is the downside for this person? If we can turn Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning into heroes, certainly this person will be too.
    I think you’re in the right track.

    Too much of this discussion is about the piece and who wrote it.

    Personally it should be about the general discussion of the Presidency itself.

    Republicans complained Obama had too much power for 8 years. Now we’re seeing multiple reports of senior staff trying to keep Trump from screwing everything up

    In 2018 has the Presidency outgrown the built in checks and balances? I think there’s an argument it has. I certainly think it’s a discussion the people should be having.

  7. #1267
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    This piece injects some reality into the excitement.

    7 points on the anonymous New York Times ‘resistance' op-ed

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...form=hootsuite
    I don't think the first two points are correct. The letter doesn't concede that Trump's accomplishments are big. It argues that they - the resistance - have accomplished good things in spite of President Trump. And the complaints are not small. They are pointing out what we've all known from day 1 - that Donald Trump is unfit for the office of president. That's not small.

  8. #1268
    Quote Originally Posted by Diehard Ute View Post
    In 2018 has the Presidency outgrown the built in checks and balances? I think there’s an argument it has. I certainly think it’s a discussion the people should be having.
    At a minimum, the balances are out of alignment. I think the legislative has gradually given away power to the judicial and executive.

  9. #1269
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    David French says it better than I could:

    "Let’s put this as bluntly as possible: If you’re actively defying the president to pursue your own preferred policies, you’re subverting an American presidential election. If you’re withholding from the American people actual hard evidence of presidential unfitness, then you’re placing your own career before your country. If you’re lying or badly exaggerating the facts for the thrill of constant media contact or the approval of your peers, then you’re just despicable.
    [...]

    "We have reached a miserable point in American democracy. Unelected public servants so distrust the political branches of government that they actually work to undermine elected officials or refuse to even attempt to utilize constitutional systems of checks and balances. If you’re telling the truth, there exist within the Trump administration people who believe that our nation is led by a man who’s too unstable to govern. Yet to these people, even that level of a national emergency doesn’t justify the risk to career and reputation inherent in resignation and public testimony? A nation once worth dying for is now only worth leaking for?"

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...l-open-letter/
    Like the others, I mostly agree with French. But this idea that the letter writers should come forward with "hard evidence" of presidential unfitness is silly. There's never been a shortage of evidence; we've been aware of the president's lack of fitness since before he was elected.

    Republicans in power will only move against the president if they believe that is what will get them re-elected. The letter writers could resign. It would be noble, but it would not accomplish anything.

    Writing this letter was probably a dumb, ego-driven decision, but these people are seemingly separating us from the full incompetence of the president. I'd rather have them there than have them retire to no effect.

  10. #1270
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Sometimes the circus moves from the White House to Capitol Hill:


    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  11. #1271
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Sometimes the circus moves from the White House to Capitol Hill:

    I've felt like Booker and Harris have used the SCOTUS nomination as a political stunt.

    Her question to him about his discussion with the law firm about the Mueller investigation smacked of Harry Reid's made up accusation that he had a "credible source" that Mitt Romney did pay his taxes.

    I'm personally not jumping for joy over Kavanaugh but as far as I can see there is nothing that makes him not fit to serve.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #1272
    Administrator U-Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    5,526
    This is a fair point.


  13. #1273
    Five-O Diehard Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    4,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    I've felt like Booker and Harris have used the SCOTUS nomination as a political stunt.

    Her question to him about his discussion with the law firm about the Mueller investigation smacked of Harry Reid's made up accusation that he had a "credible source" that Mitt Romney did pay his taxes.

    I'm personally not jumping for joy over Kavanaugh but as far as I can see there is nothing that makes him not fit to serve.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Both sides have turned the last two openings into stunts.

    You can’t refuse to even hold hearings then gripe about the other side. That’s the problem with our system, both sides only see what they hate about the other....and never see they do the exact same crap.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #1274
    Quote Originally Posted by Diehard Ute View Post
    Both sides have turned the last two openings into stunts.

    You can’t refuse to even hold hearings then gripe about the other side. That’s the problem with our system, both sides only see what they hate about the other....and never see they do the exact same crap.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I'm a registered Democrat not a Republican, so I'm not griping about the 'other side'. Although I'm pretty disgusted with both parties and have been for a long time, so I'm probably more aptly described as an independent, despite my party registration.

    Regardless, you could argue the Republican refusal to hold hearings wasn't a stunt, but a political action actuating the so-called 'Biden Rule' (although I think it is a despicable one). Whereas Booker and Harris's was merely a pointless stunt and aimed at getting their rising star noticed on the national scene in a run up for a potential run for POTUS.

  15. #1275
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    I'm a registered Democrat not a Republican, so I'm not griping about the 'other side'. Although I'm pretty disgusted with both parties and have been for a long time, so I'm probably more aptly described as an independent, despite my party registration.
    It's time to free yourself, Rocker! It feels so good!

  16. #1276

  17. #1277
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    Could it be? This article is fairly persuasive

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...mpression=true
    Hmmm...I think the Slate has a low bar for what it considers "flamboyantly erudite."

  18. #1278
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    My wife just read it, and said she thinks it is someone trying to appease their conscience because of trump's treatment of McCain. She thinks more than one person wrote it and agreed to go public-'maybe Kelly, Coats and Mattis together.
    No self-respecting retired military officer would go anywhere near this.
    "It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant

  19. #1279
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    At a minimum, the balances are out of alignment. I think the legislative has gradually given away power to the judicial and executive.
    Do you think Congress gave power away when Mitch McConnell vowed (and succeeded pretty well) to block everything Obama attempted to do, or when it refused to hold hearings on the Garland nomination? During Obama's last six years Congress ceded any effort to produce anything, but certainly was active in trying to neuter the Executive branch.

  20. #1280
    Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
    Do you think Congress gave power away when Mitch McConnell vowed (and succeeded pretty well) to block everything Obama attempted to do, or when it refused to hold hearings on the Garland nomination? During Obama's last six years Congress ceded any effort to produce anything, but certainly was active in trying to neuter the Executive branch.
    Good point. As was the Freedom Caucus.

  21. #1281
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726

    Life in the Trump Era, Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
    Do you think Congress gave power away when Mitch McConnell vowed (and succeeded pretty well) to block everything Obama attempted to do, or when it refused to hold hearings on the Garland nomination? During Obama's last six years Congress ceded any effort to produce anything, but certainly was active in trying to neuter the Executive branch.
    I think divided government is the best way to produce good policy. During the Reagan administration, he and Tip O’Neill managed to make some pretty good policy. During Clinton‘s administration, he faced a Republican majority in Congress for six of his eight years in office, just as Obama did. They still got a lot done. The difference was a willingness to work together and compromise. Reagan was willing to do that, and so was Clinton. Obama, I am sorry to say, as much as I admire him as a person, governed as a hard-core doctrinaire liberal who pretty much refused to work with the Republicans. The Republicans did not cover themselves in glory either, because they were unwilling to work with Obama. It is difficult to know exactly how to apportion the blame, but it is not all on the Republicans. I’m tempted to say it was 50-50.

    The Freedom Caucus, especially during the Trump era, has been horrible, by the way. Like many Democrats, they would rather have an issue then a solution.

    Obama is, despite his other fine characteristics, an arrogant person who believes he is right about everything. He lectured the country, and especially his opponents, all the time about the rectitude of his positions and the error of theirs. He attacked straw men repeatedly and made a mockery of honest political debate by doing so. He was a disaster as a leader, in terms of getting things done.

    The ACA is probably the shining example of his failure as a leader. He rammed it through on a straight party line vote, just as a mayor of Chicago might steamroll his political opposition. The Medicare Act, by contrast, drew the votes of almost half of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate and the House, as did the Social Security Act in the 1930s. Both have endured for decades. That’s how strong social policy must be made. But we are still fighting about the ACA, and probably will be for years to come. That’s because of the way it was enacted.

    Was it the Republicans’ fault that Obama couldn’t do that? Was it Obama’s fault? I think both are to blame, but in our system only the executive can really initiate compromise.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  22. #1282
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I think divided government is the best way to produce good policy. During the Reagan administration, he and Tip O’Neill managed to make some pretty good policy. During Clinton‘s administration, he faced a Republican majority in Congress for six of his eight years in office, just as Obama did. They still got a lot done. The difference was a willingness to work together and compromise. Reagan was willing to do that, and so was Clinton. Obama, I am sorry to say, as much as I admire him as a person, governed as a hard-core doctrinaire liberal who pretty much refused to work with the Republicans. The Republicans did not cover themselves in glory either, because they were unwilling to work with Obama. It is difficult to know exactly how to apportion the blame, but it is not all on the Republicans. I’m tempted to say it was 50-50.

    The Freedom Caucus, especially during the Trump era, has been horrible, by the way. Like many Democrats, they would rather have an issue then a solution.

    Obama is, despite his other fine characteristics, an arrogant person who believes he is right about everything. He lectured the country, and especially his opponents, all the time about the rectitude of his positions and the error of theirs. He attacked straw men repeatedly and made a mockery of honest political debate by doing so. He was a disaster as a leader, in terms of getting things done.

    The ACA is probably the shining example of his failure as a leader. He rammed it through on a straight party line vote, just as a mayor of Chicago might steamroll his political opposition. The Medicare Act, by contrast, drew the votes of almost half of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate and the House, as did the Social Security Act in the 1930s. Both have endured for decades. That’s how strong social policy must be made. But we are still fighting about the ACA, and probably will be for years to come. That’s because of the way it was enacted.

    Was it the Republicans’ fault that Obama couldn’t do that? Was it Obama’s fault? I think both are to blame, but in our system only the executive can really initiate compromise.
    Obama tried to work with Republicans on immigration issues and got burned badly on it. As far as the ACA goes, he had the example of Clinton's efforts to get a bipartisan health bill through Congress to learn from. Do you think McConnell and Republicans suddenly became less willing to work with Obama after they became the majority? Obama rightly knew that his first two years might be the only opportunity to get major health care reform passed for a long time. Proof of that is the alternatives to the ACA that Republicans have proposed.
    Sadly, Obama didn't have a Congress of the mid sixties. Do you think the Congress of 2010-2016 would have passed the various Civil Rights Acts if Obama would have proposed them?

  23. #1283
    Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
    Do you think Congress gave power away when Mitch McConnell vowed (and succeeded pretty well) to block everything Obama attempted to do, or when it refused to hold hearings on the Garland nomination? During Obama's last six years Congress ceded any effort to produce anything, but certainly was active in trying to neuter the Executive branch.
    I do think if the congress' only action is in trying to neuter the executive branch, the executive becomes more powerful while the legislative wanes.

  24. #1284
    Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
    Obama tried to work with Republicans on immigration issues and got burned badly on it. As far as the ACA goes, he had the example of Clinton's efforts to get a bipartisan health bill through Congress to learn from. Do you think McConnell and Republicans suddenly became less willing to work with Obama after they became the majority? Obama rightly knew that his first two years might be the only opportunity to get major health care reform passed for a long time. Proof of that is the alternatives to the ACA that Republicans have proposed.
    Sadly, Obama didn't have a Congress of the mid sixties. Do you think the Congress of 2010-2016 would have passed the various Civil Rights Acts if Obama would have proposed them?
    Yeah, times have changed. The examples LA sites may not be possible anymore. They certainly haven't been for the past decade.

    LA, you need to reserve strong words like "disaster as a leader" for situations that truly deserve them. Otherwise, you have no adequate descriptions when the true disaster happens.

    Is it true that "only the executive" can initiate compromise? Has it always been true?

  25. #1285
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I think divided government is the best way to produce good policy. During the Reagan administration, he and Tip O’Neill managed to make some pretty good policy. During Clinton‘s administration, he faced a Republican majority in Congress for six of his eight years in office, just as Obama did. They still got a lot done. The difference was a willingness to work together and compromise. Reagan was willing to do that, and so was Clinton. Obama, I am sorry to say, as much as I admire him as a person, governed as a hard-core doctrinaire liberal who pretty much refused to work with the Republicans. The Republicans did not cover themselves in glory either, because they were unwilling to work with Obama. It is difficult to know exactly how to apportion the blame, but it is not all on the Republicans. I’m tempted to say it was 50-50.

    The Freedom Caucus, especially during the Trump era, has been horrible, by the way. Like many Democrats, they would rather have an issue then a solution.

    Obama is, despite his other fine characteristics, an arrogant person who believes he is right about everything. He lectured the country, and especially his opponents, all the time about the rectitude of his positions and the error of theirs. He attacked straw men repeatedly and made a mockery of honest political debate by doing so. He was a disaster as a leader, in terms of getting things done.

    The ACA is probably the shining example of his failure as a leader. He rammed it through on a straight party line vote, just as a mayor of Chicago might steamroll his political opposition. The Medicare Act, by contrast, drew the votes of almost half of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate and the House, as did the Social Security Act in the 1930s. Both have endured for decades. That’s how strong social policy must be made. But we are still fighting about the ACA, and probably will be for years to come. That’s because of the way it was enacted.

    Was it the Republicans’ fault that Obama couldn’t do that? Was it Obama’s fault? I think both are to blame, but in our system only the executive can really initiate compromise.

    This, of course, is wildly overstated. As Washington irving points out, tip O'Neill never had a freedom caucus, or at least he was able to control it. The ACA itself was an attempt at compromise--because it was a Republican idea forged by the Heritage Foundation and enacted by Romney. That is why the Dems went with it. Left to their druthers on a party line vote, the Dems would have enacted single payer. The Repubs have never wanted any kind of health insurance--as evidenced by the fact that there has never been any "replace" in the "repeal and replace" mantra. What was the compromise that Obama missed by "ramming it through" like a Chicago pol?

    The stimulus was a product of compromise, limited by the Repubs refusal to create any more. So was the auto bailout. Both occurred before the Freedom caucus. Obama and Boehner had a "grand bargain" but Boehner's negotiating position was pulled out from under him by the Freedom caucus. That always happened to Boehner and Paul Ryan. Why did Boehner say his party was harder to deal with than Obama was (or something to that effect)?

    What happened to the gang of eight? Your guy Rubio disavowed his own attempt at immigration reform because the far right would have cut him to pieces. That is what happened to any Republican who attempted to work with the Dems. The Repubs said time and again they would never work with Obama, and their goal from day 1 was to make him a one term president. Hard to cut deals when the other side starts from that position. Your assertion that Obama never tried to compromise is just complete b.s.
    Last edited by concerned; 09-08-2018 at 08:56 AM.

  26. #1286
    Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
    Sadly, Obama didn't have a Congress of the mid sixties. Do you think the Congress of 2010-2016 would have passed the various Civil Rights Acts if Obama would have proposed them?
    Great point.

    Obama was strong and disciplined on message, to the point of being perceived as arrogant, or even more infuriating, he defied the stereotype by being unflappable. DeMint, McConnell & other Southerners from a bygone era thought they could pressure Obama into collapse, into becoming the stereotypical angry black man.

    Obama just wouldn't play along... even to Democrats.

    Returning to the Illinois Legislature to talk with the Democratic caucus, an older white Democrat noted the opposition he faced, based on racial resentment. Obama rejected that framing of the situation, saying he had to leave race out of how he interacts with Republican opponents, because if he succumbed to viewing things through that prism, "they've won". To insulate himself from those pressures, he basically out-sourced dealing with McConnell to Biden, knowing McConnell was an old school southerner, ala Trent Lott.

    "No drama Obama" was deliberative to the point of inaction - eg, Syria. (Though is appears more & more that Syria has no good answers.)

    Beyond his initial election being a milestone for the nation, Obama getting *re-elected* was just as big, given that the opposition was impressively uniform in opposing anything and everything he advocated.

  27. #1287
    Not only would the Civil Rights Act not have passed if Obama proposed them, neither would the Social Security Acts and related 1930's legislation. Paul Ryan would quote from Ayn Rand, and that would be that.

  28. #1288
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I think divided government is the best way to produce good policy. During the Reagan administration, he and Tip O’Neill managed to make some pretty good policy. During Clinton‘s administration, he faced a Republican majority in Congress for six of his eight years in office, just as Obama did. They still got a lot done. The difference was a willingness to work together and compromise. Reagan was willing to do that, and so was Clinton. Obama, I am sorry to say, as much as I admire him as a person, governed as a hard-core doctrinaire liberal who pretty much refused to work with the Republicans. The Republicans did not cover themselves in glory either, because they were unwilling to work with Obama. It is difficult to know exactly how to apportion the blame, but it is not all on the Republicans. I’m tempted to say it was 50-50.
    Bob Woodward gave more blame to Obama since, as president, he supposedly had more power. For the same reason, Woodward gave more credit to Reagan and Clinton than to Tip and the GOP Congress of the 1990s.
    Last edited by USS Utah; 09-08-2018 at 09:58 AM.
    "It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant

  29. #1289
    Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
    Obama tried to work with Republicans on immigration issues and got burned badly on it. As far as the ACA goes, he had the example of Clinton's efforts to get a bipartisan health bill through Congress to learn from. Do you think McConnell and Republicans suddenly became less willing to work with Obama after they became the majority? Obama rightly knew that his first two years might be the only opportunity to get major health care reform passed for a long time. Proof of that is the alternatives to the ACA that Republicans have proposed.
    Sadly, Obama didn't have a Congress of the mid sixties. Do you think the Congress of 2010-2016 would have passed the various Civil Rights Acts if Obama would have proposed them?
    Speaking of Obama's style, what did the WSJ and Washington Examiner have to say about Obama's comments yesterday.
    What may come across as arrogant lecturing to one may come across as making critical points to another. I never thought of Obama as arrogantly lecturing at the time. I guess I'd have to see a body of examples (not a few anecdotes) before I even understood the claim.

  30. #1290
    Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
    Speaking of Obama's style, what did the WSJ and Washington Examiner have to say about Obama's comments yesterday.
    What may come across as arrogant lecturing to one may come across as making critical points to another. I never thought of Obama as arrogantly lecturing at the time. I guess I'd have to see a body of examples (not a few anecdotes) before I even understood the claim.
    Agree
    It is the difference in our political perspectives. I see Obama as inspiring, invoking the better angels of our nature, LA Ute sees him as self righteous and condescending. Lots of people are on opposite sides of that fundamental divide.
    Last edited by concerned; 09-08-2018 at 11:13 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •