@CoastalRat,
Quote:
What is wrong with your party, regardless of which it is, being the party of no, particularly when the bills being discussed are so far left (or right as the case may be) that they cannot be reconciled with core values of your side?
Well, that sounds nice, but it doesn't match the current situation in Washington at all, or the bills being put forth by the Democrats.
The Dems recently proposed a small-business tax cut bills, EXACTLY like those championed by Republicans in the past; the bill was filibustered by the Republican party.
There are no bills being put forth which are 'so far left' that they cannot be reconciled with the Republican party. I mean, can you name one?
The Stim bill was 40%
tax cuts.
The Health Care Reform bill included the individual mandate and State Exchanges - both REPUBLICAN ideas for how to handle health care, not Democratic ones. It also included some elements of tort reform, a Republican idea for lowering hospital costs.
It is simply erroneous to say that the Dems are putting forth legislation that far to the left. They are not. There have been no bills put forth which cannot be reconciled with the Republicans' worldview.
Quote:
The problem is that Obama and his admin is seen (emphasize seen) as so far left that little of what he wants is palatable to the right.
This is because your politicians and media specifically are portraying him that way for their personal gain. I mean, can't you see this?
Quote: And he has not been able to or willing to find common ground. So be it. But even Clinton managed to find common ground (and it is why I think of his presidency as being successful, even with the Lewinsky scandal.)
It's hard for me to reconcile your claim that he is 'unwilling' to find common ground with the facts of the past congress. Let us take the HCR bill:
Quote: When Barack Obama informed congressional Republicans last month that he would support a controversial parliamentary move to protect health-care reform from a filibuster in the Senate, they were furious. That meant the bill could pass with a simple majority of 51 votes, eliminating the need for any GOP support for the bill. Where, they demanded, was the bipartisanship the President had promised? So, right there in the Cabinet Room, the President put a proposal on the table, according to two people who were present. Obama said he was willing to curb malpractice awards, a move long sought by the Republicans and certain to bring strong opposition from the trial lawyers who fund the Democratic Party.
What, he wanted to know, did the Republicans have to offer in return?
Nothing, it turned out. Republicans were unprepared to make any concessions, if they had any to make.
Stim bill - Republicans were unwilling to compromise on anything. Financial Reform: Republicans were unwilling to compromise on anything. Where is your opprobrium towards the REPUBLICAN party for refusing to work with the majority on a single issue?
Right now we have a gigantic crisis in the courts, because there are hundreds of positions which can't be filled due to individual senators blocking nominees from coming to a vote. Coburn has placed a 'hold' on ALL legislation in the Senate, for god's sake! Does that sound like what the country needs, to move forward?
Cycloptichorn
