I knew I was right.
Not as right as I would like to be, but still right.
Wendy and I have had this discussion before, and I was sure I had posted it here, but not in the way that I had hoped.
Here's what I said on the blog.
http://kingfatty.blogspot.com/2008/02/i-endorse-hilary-clinton.html
"Likeability – A lot of people think that the Republicans will hate Hilary and do anything they can to obstruct her progress once she gets in office. A nice wake up call by a columnist at the NYTimes pointed out it doesn’t matter which dem gets into the White House. The Republicans will hate them and do anything they can to obstruct any progress and bad mouth the President at every opportunity. Bill Clinton ran on a platform of bipartisanship, invited Republicans to dinner and meetings and got kicked in the face for his trouble.
What? You think Rush Limbaugh and Hannity are going to treat Obama fairly if he gets the nomination? You think they will treat him with any more respect than they do anyone? Don’t kid yourself."
And in the past month I have been proven exactly right.
A lot of people pulled for Obama because they actually thought bipartisanship was possible. It isn't with today's Republicans or pundits. They do not care if the country is suffering, they will do anything they can to get back in power and obstruct the president. As has been shown already in Obama's Presidency.
(You can't say the same about the democrats who, disasterously, supported many of Bush's bills.)
You think Hilary would have lobbied hard for Republican support for her stimulas package? She would have been out there with a whip and speech. She would have been quite happy to let the public know long ago that the Republican senators not passing this bill are only doing so for political gain. She knows how they work. Bipartisanship my ass.
That's not going to work buddy.
Hilary wouldn't have had republicans at her super bowl party (like Obama did, trying, like Bill Clinton, to reach across the aisle) thinking they were going to make nice with her in the days ahead. No matter what Obama does, republicans will do everything they can to undermine him, and Hilary learned that lesson long ago.
The sooner Obama learns this lesson the better.
Wendy and I have had this discussion before, and I was sure I had posted it here, but not in the way that I had hoped.
Here's what I said on the blog.
http://kingfatty.blogspot.com/2008/02/i-endorse-hilary-clinton.html
"Likeability – A lot of people think that the Republicans will hate Hilary and do anything they can to obstruct her progress once she gets in office. A nice wake up call by a columnist at the NYTimes pointed out it doesn’t matter which dem gets into the White House. The Republicans will hate them and do anything they can to obstruct any progress and bad mouth the President at every opportunity. Bill Clinton ran on a platform of bipartisanship, invited Republicans to dinner and meetings and got kicked in the face for his trouble.
What? You think Rush Limbaugh and Hannity are going to treat Obama fairly if he gets the nomination? You think they will treat him with any more respect than they do anyone? Don’t kid yourself."
And in the past month I have been proven exactly right.
A lot of people pulled for Obama because they actually thought bipartisanship was possible. It isn't with today's Republicans or pundits. They do not care if the country is suffering, they will do anything they can to get back in power and obstruct the president. As has been shown already in Obama's Presidency.
(You can't say the same about the democrats who, disasterously, supported many of Bush's bills.)
You think Hilary would have lobbied hard for Republican support for her stimulas package? She would have been out there with a whip and speech. She would have been quite happy to let the public know long ago that the Republican senators not passing this bill are only doing so for political gain. She knows how they work. Bipartisanship my ass.
That's not going to work buddy.
Hilary wouldn't have had republicans at her super bowl party (like Obama did, trying, like Bill Clinton, to reach across the aisle) thinking they were going to make nice with her in the days ahead. No matter what Obama does, republicans will do everything they can to undermine him, and Hilary learned that lesson long ago.
The sooner Obama learns this lesson the better.
Despite the need for some kind of action, a popular president, and pressure from their own party, seven democratic members of Congress voted their conscious by voting against what they saw as a bad bill. Why is it so hard to believe that the republicans, who (despite their actions during the last administration) are the party opposed to big government, just voted their conscious as well? There doesn't need to be anything partisan about it. The bill has a lot of problems, and I wouldn't want my name on it either. It makes sense that those who voted against the bill, republican and democrat alike, did so because they believe that the Congress could do better for the American people.
ReplyDeleteAdd to this the fact that not a single member who voted for (or against) the bill actually read the entire thing. How can you vote in favor of the biggest spending bill in the nation's history without even reading it? They had only 12 hours, overnight, to read more than 1000 pages of legislation. I accept that an elected representative may hold convictions that prompt him or her to vote for legislation that I do not agree with, but to vote for a bill this huge without even knowing what is in it is beyond irresponsible. It is a betrayal of the American people, and each member that voted in favor of it should be ashamed.
When you draw party lines and pressure members to vote against their conscious, you neuter the representative’s power to protect those that they were elected to represent from bad legislation. If every member who knew in their heart that this bill stunk (or at least though that they needed more time to examine it) voted against it, this bill would not have passed. When Congress is free to vote down bad bills, it stands to reason that the bills that do pass will be better. That is why partisanship is bad on both sides, and both parties are guilty of it.
Typical republican slander and even then having the courage to tag it anonymous. Bravo.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans have voted to spend anything Bush wanted for 8 years without reading or researching anything. As Wendy said last night, even tax breaks are a form of spending. That is money not coming into the government. We've now spent more on the Iraq war than we will on the stimulus package.
ReplyDeleteRepublican solution? More Tax Breaks for the rich! Yeah, cause that's worked so well under Reagan and Bush.
They haven't cared about spending for eight years as they racked up record deficits. Their protests just seem fake and partisan to me. And I've seen their protests. It's pathetic the things they are saying.
I get enough of this he said she said political ranting from other sites. I am sure there are 1000 other things you could write about. You like feedback and this is my feedback. I still love you though.
ReplyDeleteBobby Young
Why is it that, since I am all flu-ridden right now, I'm more filled with hatred and bile towards the GOP?
ReplyDelete...Odd, that.
Oh, and hate @ you, 'Bobby Young'. Who writes like 3 chapters of generic politburo jibber-jabber in a blog comment? You are one of the reasons skinheads kick people in the womb. (I'm only guessing here, but I feel confident in that assertion.)
I wrote the original post, and I wrote it as an American, not as a republican. Joshie, I'd ask you to identify the slander you refer to. I identified the fact that no one (republican or democrat) read the entire bill before voting, and merely suggested an alternative explanation of the motivations of the members who voted against the bill, as opposed to the motivations that Jamie imputed to the republicans in his original post. None of us can know the true motivations of those who voted last Friday, of course, but imputing bad motives to your opponents demonstrates a weakness of your argument, not a strength. If the question is whether the stimulus bill is good or bad for America, the strengths or failings of the bill itself is of more importance than the unknowable motivations of the bill’s supporters or opponents.
ReplyDeleteJamie's response was to point out that the republicans don't have a good track record when it comes to spending during the last eight years. I agree, and I believe that the shift of control in Congress is evidence of the poor job that the republican members have done during this time. That said, poor governance by the republicans in the past does not excuse the same poor governance being continued by the democrats in the present. Do you think that the stimulus bill is a good one, Jamie?
When it comes to lowering taxation being a form of spending, I guess it depends on who you think is entitled to the fruits of one’s own labor. If the default position is that the money that I earn belongs to me, the government has to take my money from me in order to spend it. A tax cut means that more of what belongs to me stays within my control. If the default is that what I earn belongs to the government, then I guess passing a tax cut could be thought of like spending, but then any taxation scheme of less that 100% would have to be considered spending as well.
Another way to look at the difference between tax cuts and spending is the result. More spending results in a larger federal government and less money in your pocket, while less taxes results in a smaller federal government and more money in your pocket. Which alternative you prefer may depend on who you think makes better use of, or has a superior right to, the money that you earn.
That's a very nice post that throws out a lot of buzz words and makes false connections.
ReplyDeleteActually my Dear Friend, Jamie, during the Clinton administration the National Debt was subdued and actually froze while slowly trickled downwards. This ended when the heels of Bush came into office.
ReplyDeleteHowever it does not take a historian or economist to explain that wars cost money. And the rising costs of living that never meets wages of society will burden all taxpayers.
So if any blame was to be specifically put on a person, in which it cannot, it should be aimed at Nixon, Ford and Carter for which it started its upward slant toward heartbreaking proportions.
The fault does not lie one person's back, but surely it does lay on ours.
Sincerely,
Shawn J. Houtsinger
Houts