Obama!!!

Republicans love to talk about abolishing the Department of Education. Reagan wanted to abolish it. It is still here and not going anywhere. They might slash the budget, but there will always be a Department of Education and tea party can't undo it.

Obama announced today that he's giving a speech tomorrow.

It's most likely about the Republicans taking over the House. Maybe he's finally going to drop his elitist status and actually try and work with the Republicans instead of bashing them and seperating the parties even more.

I remember before he took office he said he was going to stop the partisan bickering between the parties and bring them closer together.

Then he pulls a John Kerry and flip flops, dividing them further than they'[ve ever been before. You know, with his whole "Republicans put the car in the ditch/they can't have the keys/they can come along but they have to sit in the back/they're the enemies" rhetoric.

Then again this is also the man who said he would bring race relations in this country closer together as well...only to let the New Black Panthers off the hook after they failed to show up to court for voter intimidation.

__________________
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and like it, never really care for anything else thereafter." - Ernest Hemingway

What a load of nonsense.

George W. Bush also was elected as some one who would work with the other party. "I am a uniter, not a divider." Remember how well that worked? The problem is the two parties are polarized and particularly on domestic issues there is little middle ground where they can agree. Cooperating doesn't mean Obama has to accept the Republican's agenda because he won't, just as Democrats never would have accepted Bush's plan to privatize parts of Social Security. Both men were sincere in saying they would work with the other party. The reality is it isn't easy to achieve when both parties have few moderates that could find common ground.

Do they really? I haven't heard anyone in any party say anything about that in, oh, decades. The only way to get rid of any government program or office is to block it being formed in the first place. Once they're formed and staffed, they become part of the systemic turf wars with their own areas of influence and can never be eliminated. That's a basic rule of politics, no matter what party is in power.

But one needn't dismantle a department to get rid of it. The House can simply block its funding or designate that none of the department's budget can be used to fund this or that program. The president also can simply refuse to nominate a head of a department or to fill certain appointive offices. The Senate can confirm or deny the president's nominees for government appointments, but they can't make him nominate anyone. As Obama has demonstrated, he also can create new positions of authority who are not required to be approved by the Senate. There are lots of ways for skinning all sorts of cats in Washington, D.C.

it's the same... old song... but with a different meaning since you've been gone

One thing I learned long ago from close observation and coverage of both parties is that politicians will say whatever you want to hear in order to get your vote. It has gotten worse since the Kennedy-Nixon race put television and the sound-bite at the center of political campaigns and elections. I think we had better representation when politicians had to work crowds and knit together political support from general interest groups like labor, business, ethnic groups, various races, to get in office. Now there are too many single-interest groups out there who care only how the candidate stands on a single issue--abortion, textbooks, gun ownership, Unions, military spending, the environment, etc. If one can promise to support enough of these single interests, one can get the money and votes to win office without necessarily representing one's constituents as a whole. Worse of all, these are all either-or issues. On a political front, either you're for abortion or you're against it. You take a stand and are locked into it even before the ballots are cast, and then you're stuck with it for your term in office. You can't support a fellow elected official on one issue where you both agree because he's for abortion and you're against it, or he's for gun-ownership and you're against it, so your differences on these major issues prevent you from working together on minor issues on which you agree. If voters would allow elected officials to be against pollution yet for full employment and US investments and immigration, it would allow the necessary wiggle room for legislators to work out compromise agreements. But if they lock politicians in to where they have to oppose pollution at no matter what cost, then there's no wiggle room and no compromises allowed.

The primary requirement in a democracy and the thing we Americans used to do better than anyone else was to compromise on major issues. Historian and writer Shelby Foote used to say that the worst period in our history, the Civil War, was a direct result of American voters and politicians refusing to compromise. If everyone digs in their heels and refuse to give an inch on "principles," then we end up fighting in the streets.

I don't like the guy at all. I think it is a great milestone for the african american community that a black man made president but his policies are communist-like.

Transparency? None found.

Passing....scratch that, forcing through a healthcare "plan" so you can garner votes from irresponsible people that don't take care of their health is unconstitutional, against the law IMHO.

His wife going ona trip to Spain and spending 4000+ dollars per day during a reccession is ridiculous.

His utter lack of respect to the family of robert krentz, a rancher that was believed to have been murdered by an illegal alien is disgusting.

His golf trip during the BP oil disaster is disrespectful.

His illegal alien aunte given special treatment and being allowed to stay here after her visa expired is BS, especially considering she is not working and living on taxpayer funded housing.

His unkept promise to overhaul illegal immigration within his first two years.

His "stimulus" package that did not create any private sector jobs and only created a few government sector jobs.

Like I said though, its nice a black man made president but I believe it was just another tactic to hypnotize the american public while our government took advantage of their power. Americans need to stop believing that whatever they see on tv to be truthful or good for them.

I'll be looking forward to voting him out come next election.

/\ perfect just perfect.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

i hate this thread.

A lot of us didn't like it much about two years ago, when it was just one big celebration. So it goes.

And what a bang up job they have done so far! There are legions of undereducated morons streaming out into society as we speak! Go, DoE!

__________________

I don't care. Throw the rascals out. Then throw the new rascals out.

wait, so you didn't, and now you do because... of the Elections? i think my reasoning is better because my hatred is consistent.

Oh, you mean you hate it in general, and not just because of the timing? If so, please disregard my comment.

You nailed it, brother.

sometimes i enjoy reading the good arguments on here, even if i don't agree with them, because they are well-informed and insightful and something for me to bounce around in my head. but i hate the gross generalizations and prejudice that arises from that. but it's inevitable...

Yeah, that's generally my feeling. I have a love-hate relationship with most political or religious threads, but I guess I've just accepted that there's no way to have an open, insightful disagreement with someone without leaving open the possibility of others generalizing or saying something ignorant. It still irks me, but sheer repetition has deadened the annoyance over the years.

That sounded a lot more depressing than I meant it to.

The Republican hard line stance on immigration cost them the Nevada Senate race and lost them California back in the Pete Wilson days when Hispanics were becoming increasingly Republican. It probably cost them the Hispanic vote nation wide as Bush was making serious gains among them getting almost fifty percent in his second term.

When you say illegal aliens, Hispanics think you're using racial code terms directed st them. They don't like the rhetoric.

Yeah, that's dead-on, and it's really depressing, as a conservative. I know the Republican party is on the wrong side of this issue -- though only usually, because there's plenty of dissent about it within the party, thank goodness -- and it's particularly galling given Bush's appeal to Hispanic voters. It feels like a missed opportunity, on top of being, well, technically wrong.

The idea of someone crossing the border to do a (probably) tough job and secure a better life for their family is so quintessentially American that it seems like conservatives should love it. Not to mention that Mexico is a very Catholic nation and shares plenty of social values with many conservatives. It's a great fit, but I think a lot of Republicans have convinced themselves that they're all leeching off of social programs, or "stealing jobs," or something else like that. I think it's generally more ignorance than bigotry, because I'd probably feel differently about immigration if I honestly thought those things were true. I just don't.