Originally posted by lrprn
View Post
Mea culpa - missed that - thanks for the correction.
Since there's been so much in the media since Obama's election, I didn't want to be insulting posting examples of his bipartisan efforts. However, since you appear to be residing in a carefully censored news world, here you go:
- Kept a Republican, Robert Gates, as his Secretary of Defense -
- Asked a Republican, New Hampshire senator Judd Gregg, to be his Secretary of Commerce. Gregg accepted then withdrew himself - http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/...rce/index.html
- Here's an excellent 2/17/09 non-partisan article from Forbes (a conservative publication) that brings balance to the "Is Obama bipartisan?" discussion. Even this writer recognizes that Obama was trying to reach across party lines but was being rebuffed by the other side over ideology differences - http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/17/dem..._gerstein.html
"Obama knows as well as anyone that America is facing a profound crisis of confidence--not just in our economy, but even more so in our political and business leaders. And he knows that to get through this tenuous period whole, we can't afford to have half the Congress opposing him at every step and half the country questioning the legitimacy of every solution that moves on the Hill. Forget about gridlock--that's a recipe for meltdown.
That's why Obama continued to reach out to Republicans even when it appeared that almost all of them would vote against the stimulus bill. He knows that he can't close the trust deficit outside Washington if it persists and possibly worsens in it. And he knows that changing the hard-dying habits of hyper-partisanship, as he suggested at his prime-time press conference, will be a long-term proposition."
Hmmmm....not correct. Quoted from the Congressional Quarterly's 'Republicans Urge Obama to Amend Stimulus Plan' on Jan 27, 2009 *BEFORE* the stimulus plan went to a vote:
"House Republican leaders, who earlier blasted the $825 billion stimulus package the House is about to tackle, emerged from a meeting with President Obama on Tuesday praising his willingness to consider their ideas for changing it.
Their Senate counterparts, always less vociferous in their attacks on the plan, also welcomed Obama's efforts to court the minority. He met with them for nearly an hour after a 75-minute session with House GOP members."
Obviously Obama did not (as you put it) "refuse to consider any Republican proposals". Obama listened. Some Republican suggestions from the meeting actually were included in the stimulus plan - the tax cuts for 95% of Americans, for example.
Proof to you and extreme right-wing conservatives, perhaps. Still don['t see any collaborative, independent sources that support your opinion. Of course, you are entitled to believe whatever you wish. Just don't jump to the conclusion that because you believe it, it must be so.
For me, your points of view are just more mouthing of Republican right-wing extremist talking points that are, at best, carefully edited and scripted exaggerations, and at worst, deliberate, deceptive lies to maintain the status quo of destructive partisanship.
A conservative who just happens to state a belief in many of the same talking points that right-wing Republican extremists believe fervently too. Hmmmm....walks like a duck, talks like a duck....all too often it's ends up being a duck
On this we agree. The problem is that the original conservative priniciples we were founded on have morphed into the 'conservative principles' the Republican party touts now. The current conservative movement in the US started as a political ideology in the early 1950s, not in the 1790s. Read all about the history of the conservative movement in this country across many parties and changes in beliefs over the last 200+ years here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conserv..._United_States
It's never too late to learn that things are not always exactly as we would like them to be. I do my very best to be open and pay attention to opposing views to mine, even when it's hard to do so. I dislike the false comfort of cementing my beliefs to the point that when legitimate, objective proof does present itself that my belief is flawed or my opinion not correct, I'm so shut down I'm not willing to listen.
I've listened respectfully to you, OhioFiler, agreed with some of what you said, and provided proof that some of your beliefs are not correct....now have you listened as respectfully to me?
And you know, sometimes it's just fine to agree to disagree and move on too
Since there's been so much in the media since Obama's election, I didn't want to be insulting posting examples of his bipartisan efforts. However, since you appear to be residing in a carefully censored news world, here you go:
- Kept a Republican, Robert Gates, as his Secretary of Defense -
- Asked a Republican, New Hampshire senator Judd Gregg, to be his Secretary of Commerce. Gregg accepted then withdrew himself - http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/...rce/index.html
- Here's an excellent 2/17/09 non-partisan article from Forbes (a conservative publication) that brings balance to the "Is Obama bipartisan?" discussion. Even this writer recognizes that Obama was trying to reach across party lines but was being rebuffed by the other side over ideology differences - http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/17/dem..._gerstein.html
"Obama knows as well as anyone that America is facing a profound crisis of confidence--not just in our economy, but even more so in our political and business leaders. And he knows that to get through this tenuous period whole, we can't afford to have half the Congress opposing him at every step and half the country questioning the legitimacy of every solution that moves on the Hill. Forget about gridlock--that's a recipe for meltdown.
That's why Obama continued to reach out to Republicans even when it appeared that almost all of them would vote against the stimulus bill. He knows that he can't close the trust deficit outside Washington if it persists and possibly worsens in it. And he knows that changing the hard-dying habits of hyper-partisanship, as he suggested at his prime-time press conference, will be a long-term proposition."
Hmmmm....not correct. Quoted from the Congressional Quarterly's 'Republicans Urge Obama to Amend Stimulus Plan' on Jan 27, 2009 *BEFORE* the stimulus plan went to a vote:
"House Republican leaders, who earlier blasted the $825 billion stimulus package the House is about to tackle, emerged from a meeting with President Obama on Tuesday praising his willingness to consider their ideas for changing it.
Their Senate counterparts, always less vociferous in their attacks on the plan, also welcomed Obama's efforts to court the minority. He met with them for nearly an hour after a 75-minute session with House GOP members."
Obviously Obama did not (as you put it) "refuse to consider any Republican proposals". Obama listened. Some Republican suggestions from the meeting actually were included in the stimulus plan - the tax cuts for 95% of Americans, for example.
Proof to you and extreme right-wing conservatives, perhaps. Still don['t see any collaborative, independent sources that support your opinion. Of course, you are entitled to believe whatever you wish. Just don't jump to the conclusion that because you believe it, it must be so.
For me, your points of view are just more mouthing of Republican right-wing extremist talking points that are, at best, carefully edited and scripted exaggerations, and at worst, deliberate, deceptive lies to maintain the status quo of destructive partisanship.
A conservative who just happens to state a belief in many of the same talking points that right-wing Republican extremists believe fervently too. Hmmmm....walks like a duck, talks like a duck....all too often it's ends up being a duck
On this we agree. The problem is that the original conservative priniciples we were founded on have morphed into the 'conservative principles' the Republican party touts now. The current conservative movement in the US started as a political ideology in the early 1950s, not in the 1790s. Read all about the history of the conservative movement in this country across many parties and changes in beliefs over the last 200+ years here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conserv..._United_States
It's never too late to learn that things are not always exactly as we would like them to be. I do my very best to be open and pay attention to opposing views to mine, even when it's hard to do so. I dislike the false comfort of cementing my beliefs to the point that when legitimate, objective proof does present itself that my belief is flawed or my opinion not correct, I'm so shut down I'm not willing to listen.
I've listened respectfully to you, OhioFiler, agreed with some of what you said, and provided proof that some of your beliefs are not correct....now have you listened as respectfully to me?
And you know, sometimes it's just fine to agree to disagree and move on too
Bipartisan "efforts" are not bipartisan. Window dressing doesn't qualify as bipartisanship. Obama refused to bend on his stimulus plans and asserted he won the election and didn't have to bend.
I am not in favor of bipartisanship at all. I find it distasteful and fraught with surrendering one's ideology. Why would anyone do that? As an example, why would I vote to support federal funding of abortion if my core beliefs are pro-life? That would mean I have no core.
History will prove me correct as it proved Ronald Reagan correct.
I'm happy to agree to disagree. One thing I'm passionate about is politics yet I have no problem setting politics aside when it comes to anyone. I don't hold one's political opinion against them. I merely recognize that as liberals they are wrong in that regard.
I can sit and have a beer with anyone, including those I find their politics scary. I'd sit with anyone on this site and enjoy a beer and enjoy their company regardless of their politics.
Comment