Reply With QuoteI see you.Originally Posted by Fe 26
I see you.
Shifting demographics and vehement opposition from an obstinate opposing party also applied in New Deal and New Society days, but the presidents then didn't get a pass and had to do more than just adopt a scolding tone and appease the other side. Why is this president being Reaganized, where he gets so much credit and so little blame?
The system has worked fine for well over 200 years, and we have probably enacted more sweeping change in less time than any other Western republic in the same time period. Strom Thurmond filibustered, too. People wanted to kick the legs out from under FDR, too.
Hell, just looking at Chicago politics, at a man President Obama knows a lot about, I'm sure: Harold Washington, the city's first African-American mayor faced a comical amount of opposition but he was never given a pass like this.
Last edited by Nick; 18 Apr 2013 at 03:23 PM.
can't wake up
Obama defers way too much to Congress. And Congress is not an institution that should be deferred to. We saw that with both Dubya and Clinton.
I can't get inside Obama's head so I can't say why. I think he is sincere when he says he wants to find common ground, how could he not be? He has given R's a lot of what they want in negotiations, they still say no.
I also think, for better or worse, he is afraid of coming off as the "angry black guy."
Part of the problem is unlike in the past you have an entire party that utterly refuses to compromise. That is what has fucked things up so bad. I don't want democrats to get their way nor do I want republicans to. Things are at their best if the two parties have to meet in the middle ground. But there is no middle ground when one side outright refuses to compromise in any way
You sir, are a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.
It's the same reason ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC aren't covering the Kermit Gosnell trial. We essentially don't have independent media anymore. Everything is covered with a very consistent filter.
Another very timely example is that the Saudi "person of interest" from the Boston bombing may be deported on national security grounds. That possibility should absolutely outrage everyone, since we haven't gotten to the bottom of it yet and sure aren't getting him back once deported, but I haven't seen it anywhere. Obama had an unscheduled meeting with the Saudi Prince two nights ago, which is being spun as a discussion on Syria, but the timing sure is interesting.
Last edited by Yoshi; 18 Apr 2013 at 03:28 PM.
can't wake up
Still though, Presidential power is limited in domestic affairs. Studies have shown that parties have polarized a great deal since Strom Thurmand - the most liberal Republican is less liberal than the most conservative Democrat. And Republicans have moved farther to the right than Democrats have to the left. Absent something like 9/11, Obama is dealing with a much harsher political climate than Nixon or LBJ or Reagan or Clinton did.
I agree that Obama gives up way too much and I also think he could really stand to be a lot more of a schmoozer, based on what I've read about him.
I think the modern Republican Party is awful, but I don't think this is a unique time in that regard. Presidents have come up against this before. The country has been bitterly divided before.
I wonder if the fact that it's far easier to scrutinize your Congressional delegate's behavior now plays into it? Are we seeing more extreme voting because no one wants to come off as a great capitulator?
Except for the fact that oh look he's not being deported. You should try not taking your news from idiots like Glenn beck
You sir, are a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.
I have literally never listened to Glenn Beck, thank you.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks