i would argue it's in the GOP's best intrest to stonewall Obama.

One could certainly come to that conclusion based on an analysis of the last 2 years.

One could certainly come to that conclusion based on an analysis of the last 2 years.

 

But now they have a mandate and had a historic surge! Presumably, they will be held accountable if they do not accomplish anything on the jobs front and instead focus on "exploratory committees" and repealing legislation that they have no real hope of repealing.

But now they have a mandate and had a historic surge! Presumably, they will be held accountable if they do not accomplish anything on the jobs front and instead focus on "exploratory committees" and repealing legislation that they have no real hope of repealing.

Or, if employment doesn't improve, will the blame fall on the President? I'd bet it would.

i would argue it's in the GOP's best intrest to stonewall Obama.

There is no stonewalling Obama - its Obama that would do the stonewalling, as he is the last stop along the path. The House is now Republican.

 

And I see no win in doing that. If the GOP takes that path - spending all their time posturing and not actually passing any legislation - then they are in trouble in 2012.

 

The GOP can make themselves look good here by making changes to health care, but keeping all or virtually all of the Bush tax cuts, and by cutting spending where they can. They need Obama to do that.

 

Obama can look good here by holding onto at least parts of the health care bill, and getting an energy bill done, etc., and he needs the GOP to do that.

 

If nothing gets done, the party that just swept the election will be seen as a failure.

 

Or, if employment doesn't improve, will the blame fall on the President? I'd bet it would.

 

From Republicans, yeah of course. From the rest of the population, eh, I dunno. That depends on what actually happens policy wise and if the Dems remain generally weak and ineffective.

There is no stonewalling Obama - its Obama that would do the stonewalling, as he is the last stop along the path. The House is now Republican.

 

And I see no win in doing that. If the GOP takes that path - spending all their time posturing and not actually passing any legislation - then they are in trouble in 2012.

 

The GOP can make themselves look good here by making changes to health care, but keeping all or virtually all of the Bush tax cuts, and by cutting spending where they can. They need Obama to do that.

 

Obama can look good here by holding onto at least parts of the health care bill, and getting an energy bill done, etc., and he needs the GOP to do that.

 

If nothing gets done, the party that just swept the election will be seen as a failure.

 

I will guarantee that no energy bill that isn't ridiculously friendly to coal, oil and gas and does nothing to price or otherwise curb carbon emissions and lacks any real funding for alternative energy sources* gets passed.

 

*They may push for nuclear funding, which I'm in favor of, but not at the expense of ignoring/denying the real problems we face.

I will guarantee that no energy bill that isn't ridiculously friendly to coal, oil and gas and does nothing to price or otherwise curb carbon emissions and lacks any real funding for alternative energy sources* gets passed.

 

*They may push for nuclear funding, which I'm in favor of, but not at the expense of ignoring/denying the real problems we face.

Cap and Trade is definitely off the table for the next couple years. But I can easily see other things going on in an energy bill that makes allowances for oil and gas, but also puts money into alt energy.

 

Employee Free Choice Act is also off the table for a while. Not sure it was on the table the past two years even.

 

Employee Free Choice Act is also off the table for a while. Not sure it was on the table the past two years even.

Sounds good to me.

 

Employee Free Choice Act is also off the table for a while. Not sure it was on the table the past two years even.

It never really was. This was Obama's "supermajority": 57 Democrats (with several DINOs), a socialist that was a pretty reliable vote, a Republican desperately trying to hold onto his seat, and Joe Lieberman.

Am I missing something?

You need someone to explain it?

See my post in the other thread. Boehner has said nothing of the sort - that was McConnell. And at this point, I am not so sur they belong that/close together. I think another dynamic will play out here.

 

See, if the GOP, or Obama for that matter, try the fighting route here, not only will they lose every effort, but they will lose support from a frustrated public who wanted something done. No one wins if these people just yell at each other over a brick wall, including them.

 

Right, Boehner said "no compromise"

My buddy has turned me to the website What the F*ck has Obama Done so far.com

 

Fix the cuss word in your browser. Sorry.

Edited November 5, 201015 yr by Brian

Keith Olberman has been suspended from MSNBC for contributing to political campaigns without gaining prior approval from NBC News.

Keith Olberman has been suspended from MSNBC for contributing to political campaigns without gaining prior approval from NBC News.

 

Frankly, that's the way it should be.

Frankly, that's the way it should be.

I disagree, I think people should be able to contribute to anyone they'd like (within the legal limits), and their employer should have no say in it whatsoever.

 

I disagree, I think people should be able to contribute to anyone they'd like (within the legal limits), and their employer should have no say in it whatsoever.

 

If it can affect their job performance, then that might change some things.

If it can affect their job performance, then that might change some things.

In this case it did not. He said he did not "privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns nor to any others in this election."

I disagree, I think people should be able to contribute to anyone they'd like (within the legal limits), and their employer should have no say in it whatsoever.

NBC's official policy was that people were not prohibited from making political contributions, but their on-air employees were required to notify management beforehand.

 

If he didn't notify his superiors beforehand, he definitely violated company policy and probably explicitly violated his contract.

NBC's official policy was that people were not prohibited from making political contributions, but their on-air employees were required to notify management beforehand.

 

If he didn't notify his superiors beforehand, he definitely violated company policy and probably explicitly violated his contract.

There's no doubt he screwed up. I just dont like the policy. (Keith isn't a news host as most people think of it. He's, in many ways, a political commentator.

There's no doubt he screwed up. I just dont like the policy. (Keith isn't a news host as most people think of it. He's, in many ways, a political commentator.

I don't see anything that could plausibly be viewed as wrong for a media company to want to know beforehand whether or not their hosts are making political donations. That's not a prohibition, that's them asking to be informed. The information on large political donations always becomes part of the public record. They're going to know about it eventually, a requirement to tell them first is a smart move.

I don't see anything that could plausibly be viewed as wrong for a media company to want to know beforehand whether or not their hosts are making political donations. That's not a prohibition, that's them asking to be informed. The information on large political donations always becomes part of the public record. They're going to know about it eventually, a requirement to tell them first is a smart move.

I wouldn't mind if they had to disclose it, but the "beforehand" part bothers me, because it suggests the possibility of reaction by the company. I understand he violated his contract, but really, its a contract that could probably be successfully overturned in court. Of course, that might void the entire contract, so its not likely he'd go down that road. if he had donated and followed the rule, if MSNBC tried to take any action as a result whatsoever, I think that would be terrible.

 

I wouldn't mind if they had to disclose it, but the "beforehand" part bothers me, because it suggests the possibility of reaction by the company. I understand he violated his contract, but really, its a contract that could probably be successfully overturned in court. Of course, that might void the entire contract, so its not likely he'd go down that road. if he had donated and followed the rule, if MSNBC tried to take any action as a result whatsoever, I think that would be terrible.

I'm not sure I;d want to disclose that I donated to a Dem if I worked for Fox News.

I doubt anything big will come out of this. In a week, he'll be back at the anchor desk. He's one of two people on that network that can attract a million viewers at a time, and MSNBC doesn't exactly have a deep talent bench.

I wouldn't mind if they had to disclose it, but the "beforehand" part bothers me, because it suggests the possibility of reaction by the company. I understand he violated his contract, but really, its a contract that could probably be successfully overturned in court. Of course, that might void the entire contract, so its not likely he'd go down that road. if he had donated and followed the rule, if MSNBC tried to take any action as a result whatsoever, I think that would be terrible.

Pat Buchanan, for example, has a long history of donations to Republican candidates while working for NBC. Presumably there's a standard procedure established there that Olbermann chose not to follow.