Well that's my problem with this. America didn't resoundingly elect a Democratic executive and legislative branch to make incremental change. We want sweeping change.

You say "we" and you're only speaking for the hard left, which is a minority. Obama's the president of everybody, and he's looking at being re-elected. "Sweeping change" (whatever that is) is just not realistic. I'm more concerned with effectiveness.

 

Definition of "left" and "right":

Left - describes those who are often "left" out of the political process due to their extreme, uncompromising, and therefore often irrelevant positions

Right - those who believe they rule by divine "right," and everyone else must follow without question because everything they say is "right"

You say "we" and you're only speaking for the hard left, which is a minority. Obama's the president of everybody, and he's looking at being re-elected. "Sweeping change" (whatever that is) is just not realistic. I'm more concerned with effectiveness.

 

Definition of "left" and "right":

Left - describes those who are often "left" out of the political process due to their extreme, uncompromising, and therefore often irrelevant positions

Right - those who believe they rule by divine "right," and everyone else must follow without question because everything they say is "right"

 

Great point. Obama didn't win this because of the hard left.

Great point. Obama didn't win this because of the hard left.

Exactly. The far left was going to vote for him anyway, and will again in 2012. His ability to pull in moderates was his key.

 

And you can't govern from the far left anyway. Bush tried to govern from the far right, and he showed how disastrous that can be as well.

 

The people have spoken. We elected a liberal president. The most liberal person in history if you ask some of the conservatives on this site. And we also elected a majority of liberals in Congress. That's why liberals are annoyed that the president-elect is creating what appears to be a not-so progressive looking cabinet.

 

Actually, the Democrats have ran a lot of fairly conservative Democrats in the past couple elections to get their big majority in the Senate. The only really crazy liberal to run was Franken, and a lot of Obama voters in Minn didn't even punch the ticket for him.

Actually, the Democrats have ran a lot of fairly conservative Democrats in the past couple elections to get their big majority in the Senate. The only really crazy liberal to run was Franken, and a lot of Obama voters in Minn didn't even punch the ticket for him.

I blame the Lizard People.

 

I blame the Lizard People.

 

who doesn't?

You say "we" and you're only speaking for the hard left, which is a minority.

 

But a majority of Americans voted for the most liberal Senator in Congress to lead us. So yeah, we.

Actually, the Democrats have ran a lot of fairly conservative Democrats in the past couple elections to get their big majority in the Senate. The only really crazy liberal to run was Franken, and a lot of Obama voters in Minn didn't even punch the ticket for him.

Rahm Emmanuel's idea.

But a majority of Americans voted for the most liberal Senator in Congress to lead us. So yeah, we.

You, me, and NSS (to give examples of people in this thread right now) all voted for the same guy. The three of us all have different political views and reasons for voting for him. Politics isn't simple black and white like that (no pun intended).

Edited November 24, 200817 yr by lostfan

But a majority of Americans voted for the most liberal Senator in Congress to lead us. So yeah, we.

Not true, that was a GOP rally cry. He's pretty liberal, but there are others further left. And yet others in the House.

 

The most liberal or most conservative President will barely push America a little to the left or a little to the right. We have too many checks and balances to allow for anything more.

Ah yes, when the heat goes on, blame Bush. Its going to be a long 4 years.

 

I wonder how many Obama voters will be happy when they receive their draft notice.

I wonder how many Obama voters will be happy when they receive their draft notice.

 

Ain't gonna happen. Remember all that royalty in congress? This will not allow their sons and daughters to be drafted.

I wonder how many Obama voters will be happy when they receive their draft notice.

That was kind of random.

 

That was kind of random.

 

He's on a roll . . .

 

It is interesting that many GOPers believe Obama will accomplish far more of his "alleged" agenda than any other President in the history of the US. From taking all our guns, turning us into a Muslim country, allowing terrorists to take over the US, instituting a draft, etc. They have more confidence in Obama than most Obama supporters. Quite amazing.

That was kind of random.

 

Call it a prediction.

Call it a prediction.

I understood that. But what exactly are you predicting? What new war will we be engaging in?

 

He's on a roll . . .

 

It is interesting that many GOPers believe Obama will accomplish far more of his "alleged" agenda than any other President in the history of the US. From taking all our guns, turning us into a Muslim country, allowing terrorists to take over the US, instituting a draft, etc. They have more confidence in Obama than most Obama supporters. Quite amazing.

 

If they get that 60th senate seat, he'll effectively have a blank check to do implement any and all of his 'agenda'.

If they get that 60th senate seat, he'll effectively have a blank check to do implement any and all of his 'agenda'.

I think its highly unlikely he gets both the GA and MN seats. Maybe a 50/50 shot on MN, but a less that 10% chance in GA, if I had to guess.

 

And even if it happened, its not really a fully blank check. The dems won't all agree with everything he does.

 

If they get that 60th senate seat, he'll effectively have a blank check to do implement any and all of his 'agenda'.

 

And throughout our history, even in that situation, the in party still bows to the out party and there is always compromise. Plus, they have to answer to the voters. Put in a draft, and they will be out in two years and the new Congress will over turn the draft.

If they get that 60th senate seat, he'll effectively have a blank check to do implement any and all of his 'agenda'.

It's actually fairly remarkable how small the difference would likely be between 59/41 and 60/40 if you have a strong President setting the agenda and a press willing to treat the filibuster as a "bad, obstructionist thing".

 

Remember...2010 is 6 years after the 2004 elections. In other words, there's 1 last group of Bush/9/11 Senate Republicans who have to face the voters in 2 years.

It's actually fairly remarkable how small the difference would likely be between 59/41 and 60/40 if you have a strong President setting the agenda and a press willing to treat the filibuster as a "bad, obstructionist thing".

 

Remember...2010 is 6 years after the 2004 elections. In other words, there's 1 last group of Bush/9/11 Senate Republicans who have to face the voters in 2 years.

 

In other words, the MSM that is supposed to be non-partisan would actually be willing to label a filibuster as a "bad, obstructionist thing"?

 

Oh, surely not.

In other words, the MSM that is supposed to be non-partisan would actually be willing to label a filibuster as a "bad, obstructionist thing"?

 

Oh, surely not.

 

But if a GOP Senator said "bad, obstructionist thing", shouldn't it be printed?

Haven't the two "furthest from the center" presidents in recent memory been Carter and Bush 43? (despite government spending in his time, he's still a far righty). To me, that's as great an example as any that being far from the center as preisdent has it's downfalls, as those two both did an awful job. I actually am a fan of the cabinet Obama is putting together. He's pretty far to the left, and HE can represent that voice in cabinet meetings. In fact, I bet Obama is thinking that as well as he puts his cabinet together.

Edited November 26, 200817 yr by whitesoxfan101

But if a GOP Senator said "bad, obstructionist thing", shouldn't it be printed?

 

If a GOP filibuster occured, sure it should be reported. That doesn't make it a bad, obstructionist thing. Of course, that is exactly the way it will be reported.