President Obama: What's next?

[Inanna]

The Republicans do not want to be seen at odds with a currently popular president - if Obama's plans do well, I doubt their constituency is going to be happy about their representatives being against Obama and his policies. Thus, the "Pelosi, not Obama stance".

However, I do agree that if Obama really wants bipartisanship, he should use some of his current capital to get the house & senate democrats to cooperate with the republicans. Otherwise, this will simply happen again and again.

[yovargas]

Random thought: Do ya'll think "bipartisanship" and "compromise" mean the same thing?

[Inanna]

Random thought: Do ya'll think "bipartisanship" and "compromise" mean the same thing?

Good question.

Think of it as a marriage... compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Frelga]

Random thought: Do ya'll think "bipartisanship" and "compromise" mean the same thing?

Compromise is a part of bipartisanship, sure. But really, I think it should mean both sides taking their blinders off and trying to figure what is best for the country. And as applied to Republicans, maybe asking themselves whether their ideology might perhaps have one or two flaws in it, seeing where following it got us lately.

[yovargas]

But really, I think it should mean both sides taking their blinders off and trying to figure what is best for the country.

I like to call that no-partisanship. If only!
(And there's little reason to single out the Reps as the guiltier party, imo),

[sauronsfinger]

There is a fairly good column written in the online National Journal by Ronald Brownstein. In it he discusses the Stimulus Plan of President Obama and compares the opportunity to the start of the Reagan presidency.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazi ... 1_4685.php

Of late, we have seen many articles focusing on a line or paragraph of the large bill proclaiming "do you know whats in this?" and then proceed to tell us about a water park or resodding of a lawn. We are suppose to feign outrage that the lawn needs resodding periodically and we have to pay people to do it. The WSJ has one such article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

Brownstein however, does the opposite and looks at the big picture. It is well worth reading.

Put both together and it gives you both sides of the issue.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And as applied to Republicans, maybe asking themselves whether their ideology might perhaps have one or two flaws in it, seeing where following it got us lately.

That's pretty darned partisan, Frelga.

[sauronsfinger]

Frelgas point may indeed be judged by some as partisan - but it is also an important one. It is difficult to discusss this topic frankly and honestly without tinges of partisanship popping up.

The election results were barely in when scores of columns from pundits all across the land were written asking about the direction and future of the Republican Party. I started such a thread right here. In the three months since the election, most of those questions have been answered.

The Republicans, despite forward thinking leaders such as Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, have opted to not examine any changes needed in idealogy. Instead, a clear picture has emerged of what they believe is their path to future power and success.

They must return to the days of Ronald Reagan. They must be the financially responsible party. They must be the party of small government. They must be the party of tax cuts. They must the the opposition party to government expansion. There will be no change of idealogy - but they must return to the path of following that idealogy with actual actions. They admit they have strayed in their actions. They admit that their fiscal policies have increased the debt. They admit that the Party of today is not the Party of Reagan.

All that is now clear and unmistakable. And they are fully entitled to adopt any strategy that they fell is in their best interests for future success. After all, it is their party.

The Republican Party has undergone great changes since its inception in the decade of the 1850's. They have changed direction several times and have changed its basic make-up at least three times. That is perfectly normal for a party that has been around for a century and a half.

It will take continued losses in 2010 and 2012 for any real idealogical examination to take place. For now, it will be a waiting game.

[Frelga]

And as applied to Republicans, maybe asking themselves whether their ideology might perhaps have one or two flaws in it, seeing where following it got us lately.

That's pretty darned partisan, Frelga.

Sometimes, reality is partisan, V.

I didn't realize that it was no longer PC to criticize ideology-inspired policies that has clearly failed to produce expected results.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It's not a question of PC or not PC (I hate that term anyway). Certainly anyone has the right to criticize anything they disagree with. But don't call it a part of bipartisanship, cuz it isn't.

[Primula Baggins]

I do think being aware of the past mistakes of one's own party (either party) is an essential part of any kind of realistic "bipartisan" effort. I suspect that's all Frelga was talking about. In trying to figure out what to do next, we all have to be open to letting go of the things that didn't work in the past.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sorry, but I don't buy that. Not when it was specified that it is the Republicans who need to be aware of past mistakes. That partisanship, not bipartisanship.

Edited to add: There is nothing wrong with being partisan, but let's call it what it is.

[yovargas]

There is nothing wrong with being partisan

I disagree pretty strongly with that but you probably already knew that.

[Padme]

I agree with Yov on that to V-man to a point. I think that being partisan is fine if it works and helps the country as a whole. But to hang on to partisan politics just to stick it to the other party at the detriment of the country and heck be damned to everyone elses ideas is not a good thing in the least bit.

And I am sorry to say I have seen this too often in todays politics on both sides, with a the right having a slightly bigger lead, i.e. Rush.

It is one of the reasons I am registered Independant, and will remain so for a long time. I see absolutely no good come of the soap boxing tactics of either side, and I find it absolutely infurating that people like Rush have such a huge say in the way the country is run. The first thing I ask myself when listening to any of them talk is ....

Is this actually going to help the country at all, or is it just propaganda? If the answer is right wing/ left wing propaganda, then I simply tune out, because at this point the country does not and can not have any more of it and survive.

[Primula Baggins]

How is it possible for either party to accomplish its goals if it is unacceptable to hold beliefs that differ from those of the other party? A bland smeared average of two polar-opposite approaches is not going to save us from our current mess. Is there something reprehensible about Democrats pursuing progressive goals because they now can? Certainly the Republicans pursued their own goals when they held both houses of Congress and the White House.

[sauronsfinger]

Prim gets my nod to her comments that there is nothing wrong with both parties pursuing their goals and what they want their party to stand for. I agree that we certainly do not want a bland watering-down of principles just to rack up some impressive Congressional voting numbers.


Both parties have a right to their own particular set of beliefs which attract different voters and citizens to claim them as theirs. And both parties certainly have a right to pursue electoral victories at the ballot box by aiming their policies mostly at the citizens who will most likely vote for them.

Ara-anna has a good point about what is good for the nation however. I am sure that both parties would tell you that they truly believe that their policies are what is best for the nation and that is why they pursue them. They would tell you they do indeed have the national interest as their supreme interest.

I would not vote for John Boehner or Mith McConnell but I have no doubt they are trying to serve what they believe the American people elected them to do. At least the people of their state or district that voted for them.

But then we do have people like Rush Limbaugh. I have listened to Rush off and on for 20 years. Af first, I simply thought he was entertaining and it was good for me to get the real lowdown on conservative opinion other than from some politician. But it took a few years, and a change in administration, but I noticed that Rush changed what he called his unchanging principles and his talking points as the parties in power changed. Dems got ripped for what he later excused when done by Republicans. This happend often and regularly. I began to think of him not as a conservative - in the mold of William Buckley or George Will both who I respect- but as a unabashed, unapologetic cheerleader for the Republican Party.

I am glad he came out and said he wants President Obama to fail. He finally laid it out there in the starkest possible terms for everyone to see. Exposing such motivations is a very very good thing.

It is sad to see the current Republicans in the House kowtow to Rush. It is obvious that Limbaugh is now one of the most powerful persons in America to the Republican Party.

What makes it sad is that Limbaugh has finally exposed his true motivations to the nation. He clearly is not a patriot who wants the best for the USA. He wants what he wants for the USA. No more - no less.
A successful Obama administration and a successful America - recast in a mold that is 100% against what Limbaugh believes is something anathema to him. Successful or not - that is not his priority. He wants his America.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There is nothing wrong with being partisan

I disagree pretty strongly with that but you probably already knew that.

Well, Yov, I think you know that my way is more to seek consensus and to pursue positive steps rather than to focus on criticizing the other side, but I don't want to denigrate the views of other people.

[Padme]

How is it possible for either party to accomplish its goals if it is unacceptable to hold beliefs that differ from those of the other party? A bland smeared average of two polar-opposite approaches is not going to save us from our current mess. Is there something reprehensible about Democrats pursuing progressive goals because they now can? Certainly the Republicans pursued their own goals when they held both houses of Congress and the White House.

Prim,

This is not quite what I was saying. My point is it's fine for the parties to hold certain beliefs as goals. But when those beliefs ruin the country as a whole, then they need to come more to the center. Case in point, the last eight years. A strong belief that tax cuts for the rich, the war in iraq continuing (damn the generals and military officals that disagree), Gitmo waterboarding and absolutely no compromise what-so-ever and no other side voice at all tolerated, be it an elected offical or a private citizen.

That type of partisan politics has ruined our nation. And I am not saying the Dems are innocent lambs in all of this. There are plenty of Pelosi BS that makes me want to . I think this of both parties. That stuborn gotacha partisan politics of neener neener we're in charge now so we won't listen to you is and has damaged the country. In fact I am to the point of believing this that if Obama fails to unite the country it will lead to a second civil war.

[yovargas]

How is it possible for either party to accomplish its goals if it is unacceptable to hold beliefs that differ from those of the other party? A bland smeared average of two polar-opposite approaches is not going to save us from our current mess. Is there something reprehensible about Democrats pursuing progressive goals because they now can? Certainly the Republicans pursued their own goals when they held both houses of Congress and the White House.

Ain't nothing wrong with having your own goals and then pursuing it. But that ain't bi-partisanship so please don't pretend it is, Mr & Mrs Elected Officials.
If you're just gonna bulldoze your Democratic ideas through because you believe Republicans Failed at Everything, please just say so.

Also, partisanship sucks because it seems to inevitably lead to groupthink. Groupthink is not conducive to the most objective and rational thinking. It also tends to lead to thinking along the lines of "The other party supports it so it's probably bad." Parties suck.

[sauronsfinger]

Parties suck

And the viable list of alternatives?

Also, partisanship sucks because it seems to inevitably lead to groupthink

It seems you have never been to a Democratic Party meeting or convention.