• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fall US Elections

sunmaster14 said:
I can't really comment unless you name certain members. I think that Harry Reid is a good role model for obstructionism, although he's not a Republican, currently.
Click to expand...

And you're actually hard-pressed to think of a name, a single name, of a GOP leader who's perhaps been, let's say, somewhat obstructionist in Obama's second term. I know I've wracked my brain for one and I'm just having trouble coming up with a single name. (I get my news at Fox, obviously.)
 
Ziggurat said:
You don't have to, unless you want him to comment. Do you need him to comment?
Click to expand...
I don't need him to do anything. Lack of a specific name is not stopping him from commenting. Manufacturing excuses not to comment is stopping him from commenting.
 
Spindrift said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics)

The phrase lame duck was coined in the eighteenth century at the London Stock Exchange, to refer to a stockbroker who defaulted on his debts.[4][5] The first known mention of the term in writing was made by Horace Walpole...
Click to expand...

I thought that name sounded familiar. I had recently read his book "The Castle of Otronto", 1764, thought by many to be the first ever gothic novel.

(I wouldn't really recommend it though).
 
In New York Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo was reelected with about 54% of the vote. Last night on my local news blog there were the usual personal slams at and bitter denunciations of Cuomo and I wrote that I really feel we need to move past this. That the endless innuendos and insults become counter productive. Cuomo, like Obama, has been blamed for everything from illegal immigration to the spread of Ebola. I said I wished Republicans (and Democrats) could accept defeat gracefully and then come together behind whomever is elected. Oppose their policies but don't do it a degrading personal way.

I was reminded of comments President George W. Bush made some years back when asked about being able to work with Nancy Pelosi after she called him an "incompetent liar" during the campaign. Bush said it wasn't going to be a problem, that politicians have to have thick skins. That it was obvious to him the comments were made in 'campaign mode.' Bush said that now we forget the campaigning and go into 'governing mode.'

The problem is the rank-and-file electorate often doesn't get that. They are very thin-skinned and by the time the campaign ends they have become so embittered to the opponent that they never accept the person's legitimacy.

Anyway I made the comment about coming together and this morning I found someone had written a long reply. The line I remember best was, "I don't believe the United States, as presently governed, is a place any free man would care to live."

:rolleyes:
 
newyorkguy said:
I was reminded of comments President George W. Bush made some years back when asked about being able to work with Nancy Pelosi after she called him an "incompetent liar" during the campaign. Bush said it wasn't going to be a problem, that politicians have to have thick skins. That it was obvious to him the comments were made in 'campaign mode.' Bush said that now we forget the campaigning and go into 'governing mode.'
Click to expand...
Such an attitude has been prevalent in politics in the past. The most famous being Reagan and Tip O'Neill
newyorkguy said:
The problem is the rank-and-file electorate often doesn't get that. They are very thin-skinned and by the time the campaign ends they have become so embittered to the opponent that they never accept the person's legitimacy.
Click to expand...
Yup, I agree. It's the inmates running the asylum thing. Which relates to the I need to get nominated again before I can get re-elected thing. The extremist tail is wagging the centralist dog. In the past 6 years, how many Republicans have run for re-election by proudly proclaiming how well they've worked well with Democrats, or vice-versa?
 
12AX7 said:
Indeed.

With these strong GOP wins and control of the Senate, we can finally get some things accomplished for the good of America.
Click to expand...

I wasn't expecting much to get done whether the GOP picked up the majority or not. It'll still be the same mostly. A minority party holding back what they don't agree with as often as possible (democrats now).

I fully expect that the republicans will try to move forward with repealing Obamacare like they've done 54 times before (and failed on). Obama will veto it because the majority of Americans actually like it and want it kept in place (with improvements).

Basically - same same, but different.
 
I think the race that bothers me the most was Wendy Davis losing to Greg Abbott in Texas. And she got trounced! About 3-2.

In some of the discussions here I discovered Greg Abbott has been involved in voter disenfranchisement efforts and trying to overturn abortion rights. I'm disappointed some 60% of Texas voters chose to overlook that.

Maybe Dr. Keith has some insights. What were the other big issues in the campaign. Why did voters in Texas so thoroughly reject Wendy Davis?
 
foophil said:
I wasn't expecting much to get done whether the GOP picked up the majority or not. It'll still be the same mostly. A minority party holding back what they don't agree with as often as possible (democrats now).

I fully expect that the republicans will try to move forward with repealing Obamacare like they've done 54 times before (and failed on). Obama will veto it because the majority of Americans actually like it and want it kept in place (with improvements).

Basically - same same, but different.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the "majority of Americans actually like it" part. I beleive ACA was a major reason the Repubs made gains.

But I suspect there will be a slough of bills correcting ACA's biggest defects, and maybe rolling back some of it's more onerous provisions.
 
newyorkguy said:
I think the race that bothers me the most was Wendy Davis losing to Greg Abbott in Texas. And she got trounced! About 3-2.

In some of the discussions here I discovered Greg Abbott has been involved in voter disenfranchisement efforts and trying to overturn abortion rights. I'm disappointed some 60% of Texas voters chose to overlook that.

Maybe Dr. Keith has some insights. What were the other big issues in the campaign. Why did voters in Texas so thoroughly reject Wendy Davis?
Click to expand...

Most of us here in Austin wondered the same thing...and then we drive 20 miles out side of town.
 
newyorkguy said:
I think the race that bothers me the most was Wendy Davis losing to Greg Abbott in Texas. And she got trounced! About 3-2.

In some of the discussions here I discovered Greg Abbott has been involved in voter disenfranchisement efforts and trying to overturn abortion rights. I'm disappointed some 60% of Texas voters chose to overlook that.

Maybe Dr. Keith has some insights. What were the other big issues in the campaign. Why did voters in Texas so thoroughly reject Wendy Davis?
Click to expand...

Texas is a very strongly republican state. No matter that it has some more liberal enclaves, the state as a whole is very republican.

Are you not familiar with our last two governors?

Wendy Davis did well, maybe better than any other Dem in the last 20 years. She had ads pointing out all of Abbott's failed policies and poor reasoning while staying clear of any sort of personal attacks. His ads were vapid altitudes to "I will work hard for Texas, I will never give up." But we are a good 10 years from actually electing a Dem to the Governor's mansion.

Also, abortion.
 
Tony99 said:
Most of us here in Austin wondered the same thing...and then we drive 20 miles out side of town.
Click to expand...

And the Repubs have eviscerated that liberal enclave. The district lines that divide up Austin so it doesn't have it's own district are imaginative to say the least.
 
Under Obama's watch:

  • More people have health care than before.
  • Health Care costs are declining.
  • Deficits are shrinking.
  • We got Bin Laden.
  • The Stock Price is at an all time high.
  • Drone strikes have been expanded and we have killed many terrorists.
  • Unemployment rate is 5.9% (that does not reflect job participation rate but that number cannot simply be taken on its face either given the rapid expansion of retiring baby boomers).
  • The rights of gays and lesbians is expanding at an accelerated pace.
It seems that Obama is the reverse of God. He gets all of the blame and none of the credit for things that happen under his watch. Now, you can argue that anything that might be considered good on the above list would have happened regardless. Perhaps, but to be intellectually honest you would also have to concede that the same argument applies to the bad things Obama is blamed for.



BTW: Here’s a List of 269 Accomplishments by President Obama (all sourced).


Let me concede up front that the quantity of items is not demonstrable of anything other than things that have happened. To argue otherwise is in effect a political Gish Gallup (a fallacy). My point isn't that the list itself is demonstrative that these items constitute the best outcomes for America. However, governing is about making decisions and taking leadership to effect change. Obama has done that. IMO, he has made change for the better. I very much like what Obama has accomplished. The Bush administration left me very concerned for the future of our nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom