Just got this e-mail a little while ago from a reader (I guess it was a reader, anyway):
Thirty years later, Americans' have decided that we need government, government to stop us from dying from eating peanut butter, government to stop bankers from stealing from us, and government to provide jobs until the economy picks up. That's Obama's mandate, and to do anything else would be to back off from his promises. McCain is wrong. He and his party lost. Obama wants to be nice and extend an olive branch to the losers, but it is not necessary that he does so. What's necessary is he goes forward with his plans.
To which I felt compelled to answer as follows (slightly edited, as I read back over it):
Interesting you should mention 1981. I'm still ticked off that Democrats back then took just the attitude that you're calling for. Tip O'Neill and the rest said, well, Reagan won the election, so let's give him anything that he wants. This, after four years of that same Democratic Congress not giving Jimmy Carter ANYthing he wanted.
I'm still mad about it. I'm still mad about how the whole world just rolled over for Reagan. Much of the media was full of that "Morning in America" hoopla, and I felt like …. well, have you ever been the only person in the room who was not drunk or stoned, and everybody around you thought everything was just SO funny, and you just thought they were all very irritating? Not much fun, huh? Well, that was me in the Reagan era.
I don't feel that way this time. I sort of thought Reagan's win in 1980 was the end of the world — not because I was anti-Republican, but because I had liked Jimmy Carter so much (I don't like him as much as I did then, but I really liked him then). I don't feel that way at all about Obama. Out of all the people running for president last year, McCain and Obama were my first and second choices. So while I'm sorry McCain didn't win, I'm glad Obama didn't lose. I'm highly ambivalent on that score.
But one reason I DO like Obama so much — and liked him so much more than Hillary — is that he IS about post-partisanship. (That's one of the main things I liked about McCain, too.) He's nothing like Reagan; he's far less the ideological warrior. And if he doesn't work with McCain (something which, to his credit, he's already demonstrated a willingness to do), then he's not the guy that a LOT of people voted for. I would expect exactly the same from McCain — a willingness to work across the aisle — had he been elected.
And I have little patience for Democrats who act the way the Reaganites did in the early 80s — We won, so we'll do what we damn' well please. Unfortunately, I do hear that from some. Like "Morning in America" revisited. And I didn't like that triumphalist bull the first time, not one bit.
And if you don't care about bipartisanship, think about this: There's a good chance this stimulus will fail. There's a good chance ANY stimulus would fail. So how would you feel about it if, once the stimulus fails, the GOP recaptures Congress, and then goes around telling Obama and the world that "We won, so we don't have to listen to you?"
Far better that we have a stimulus plan that both parties buy into. It's a little late for that, but it WOULD have been far better. It's never good to have one of the two major parties politically invested in the nation failing…
(I'll add one more thought: I would not say that Obama "must" work with McCain et al. I'm just saying that to the extent that he can, he should. This is not to say that if you've tried to bring the GOP along and they've just refused and you truly believe your plan is the right one, you don't go ahead — just as I thought it was right for us to go ahead into Iraq without France, Germany and Russia on board. But I am saying that if you can possibly swing it, bipartisan is WAY better for the country.)
Related Posts
“‘Thirty years later, Americans have decided that we need government.'”
No, Americans decided they liked Obama. The great majority of Americans who pay much attention don’t like government, but the great majority of Americans in general don’t pay much attention.
“But on reason I DO like Obama so much — and liked him so much more than Hillary — is that he IS about post-partisanship.”
No, you like him because he’s charismatic, and because he preaches post-partisanship, but what he is really about is Obama. Witness that beach picture. Bay Rock Obama, superstar, he and his wife dancing in a spotlight at an inaugural ball to the stylings of Beyonce.
Of course, though, bipartisanship is better, but when you have the force of personality to make the same speech you made the day before in Fort Myers, Fla.; to make your presidency all about the one thing you do best, campaigning; when your presidency is a cult of personality — then you can feign bipartisanship and tax the rich to pay off your voters and your friends, while the mainstream media applauds your speeches and pays very little attention to what you’re actually doing.
Well, Brad, Mr. Obama tried very hard to get a bipartisan plan going. From what I can understand, they were not cooperating. This is not on him. You need to write your congressmen and explain that to them. I just got a “questionnaire” from the Republican Party. I was going to answer it, because I do vote Republican sometimes (like for Sen. Graham); but it was so negative, and so push/pull that I became very angry. I’m considering answering it by telling them that the phraseology of their questions is such that I no longer have any wish to have anything to do with such a dishonest party, and will not consider again voting Republican until that party demonstrates that it has turned away from that sort of demeaning technique. I may just send it to Senator Graham with a cover letter asking him why, after receiving such an insult to my intelligence, I should consider voting again for him or anyone else who accepts the ‘Republican’ label. That party’s attempt to make Mr. Obama ‘at fault’ here is just another example of their reprehensible behavior. And I, too, voted for both Sen. Obama and Sen. Graham in part because they seemed willing to try to work together. As far as I can see, Mr. Obama has tried.
Amen, Karen.
It seems that when there is a national crisis with a Republican in the White House, Democrats are willing to put abstract ideology aside and work with the President to show unity for what is perceived as the good of the country.
You don’t need to worry about the Republic Party members (I’m real sick of their talk of the “Democrat” Party; it demonstrates the meanness and pettiness that so many of them seem to wallow in) doing that. Abstract ideology, even when it has been demonstrated to have limited value in real situations, is followed to the bitter(real bitter) end. Of course, when you hand over the defacto leadership of a serious? political party to entertainers like Limbaugh and Coulter, you have drifted into real craziness.
When a political party forgets that government is about working with the other side to come up with answers that are acceptable to both sides, it is doomed.
Also, McCain and Graham become less post-partisan by the minute.
Pelosi met with Obama’s staff and wrote the spending bill outline on 17 pages. Then the Democrats excluded all House Republicans from the bill writing, where they jammed in $819 Billion of lousy projects they were unable to pass since 1993.
Then Obama says he is reaching out to Republicans for support. To hell with him.
Obama is a socialist, a revolutionary, who said many times he does not care about the law, the Constitution, or any process which stands in his way. His ardent supporters are thieves just like he is, so they love this arrogant, despotic attitude.
Most people who voted for Obama had no clue what a radical they were putting into power. As he continues to destroy the economy, they will be unable to hide from the reality.
You know, argument ad hominem has been considered false logic for a long time. Furthermore, the Goebbels-like practice of wilfullye repeating falsehoods again and again, is designed to create the illusion of truth. Its a way of disguising/perverting truth. Brad, do you really wish to continue repeatedly permitting these demogogic practices on your website?
Amen, Karen.
Big Lie Lee.
Lee, the only thing you have to fear is fear itself. Communism/socialism is not coming for you. I promise.
Brad, we’ve pretty well covered everything there is to cover on this issue of whether government works better under a bipartisan approach or if it really doesn’t help. But the debate on the stimulus has moved beyond that now. It’s really not an issue any more. Obama by all accounts did make a good faith effort to win over a major portion of the GOP senators. That seems beyond dispute at this point. The revised stimulus bill seems very much like a compromise to me. Yet there are likely to be very few Republicans in congress to go along even with the many concessions made by the Democrats.
At this point all the Democrats would be doing to compromise further would be to start losing support from the left. So a 61-37 margin is probably as bipartisan as you’re going to get. And that ain’t half bad. That’s a 24 vote margin (and if Al Franken was rightfully seated that would be an even bigger margin).
So let’s move on from this obsession with bipartisanship. Perhaps a bigger margin would have made this work better. We may never know. But this much is clear, the American people voted for Obama and the Democrats and what counts is to honor what they voted for. Frankly the current bill falls short of that but in our system that’s probably the best we can ever do. It’s time to rally behind this bill and support it no matter what the margin. I believe the American people will do that and at the end of the day the GOP will end up on the losing end of history. If the legislation fails it will be because it just isn’t the right bill, not because it passed by a narrow margin.
It’s pathetic to see the supporters of Obama’s fascist economy accusing anyone of “Goebbels-like ad hominem attacks”.
That is what you goons are doing.
I merely posted the facts of how the Democrats excluded the GOP from this spending bill. Obama only reached out to get three weakling defectors who would back the Democrats for nothing in return.
Obama is not as partisan as Pelosi or Reid, because he is a socialist first, and a Democrat only for convenience.
“Obama by all accounts did make a good faith effort to win over a major portion of the GOP senators. That seems beyond dispute at this point.”
Not by Lindsey Graham’s acount. Nor even by Democrat House member Heath Shuler’s account.
“It’s time to rally behind this bill and support it no matter what the margin. I believe the American people will do that and at the end of the day the GOP will end up on the losing end of history.”
What does it matter what end of history the GOP winds up on? All that matters is whether the bill achieves its end as an economic stimulus.
“…This much is clear, the American people voted for Obama and the Democrats and what counts is to honor what they voted for.”
No, what counts is to do the right thing. If Obama and the Democrats suddenly decide they want to cancel freedom of speech by constitutional amendment, someone needs to prevent that from happening.
“Obama by all accounts did make a good faith effort to win over a major portion of the GOP senators. That seems beyond dispute at this point.”
Not by Lindsey Graham’s acount. Nor even by Democrat House member Heath Shuler’s account.
“It’s time to rally behind this bill and support it no matter what the margin. I believe the American people will do that and at the end of the day the GOP will end up on the losing end of history.”
What does it matter what end of history the GOP winds up on? All that matters is whether the bill achieves its end as an economic stimulus.
“…This much is clear, the American people voted for Obama and the Democrats and what counts is to honor what they voted for.”
No, what counts is to do the right thing. If Obama and the Democrats suddenly decide they want to cancel freedom of speech by constitutional amendment, someone needs to prevent that from happening.
Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan told radio host Bill Press this
week that she thought there needs to be more balance in broadcasting and suggested there would be hearings in the Senate during this Congress on possibly reinstating the fairness doctrine.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/173711-Stabenow_Senate_Could_Hold_Hea
rings_on_Fairness_Doctrine.php
Obama’s first appointment was Henry Rivera, a longtime radical leftist, lawyer and former FCC commissioner under President Carter. Rivera pledged to dismantle conservative talk radio, and force the sale of more stations to minority owners, financed by federal loans.
Air America and NPR cheered the election of Obama and speculated he will end “conservative bias on AM radio and FOX Network, and Christian broadcasting. They failed to address the lack of intellectual diversity on their own programs.
I no longer have any wish to have anything to do with such a dishonest party, and will not consider again voting Republican
A beautiful statement. Now make one about the Democratic Party too and you’ll get an “Amen!” from me too.
“That is what you goons are doing.”
Perhaps someone should place wheels on the blockheaded Mr. Muller and enter HIM in the soapbox derby — or perhaps marginalize his attack dog style of intimidation
Obama’s socialist goons don’t intimidate me with a little name-calling, especially when they use the Nazi tactic of accusing me of doing what they do.
All I do is post the facts, and what I think of those facts. All the goons can do is try to shout down the facts which frighten them.
Jason, Muller is almost alway wrong on the issues. Plus he has a very arrogant and destructive approach to the proceedings here. But what really fascinates me about him is how good he is at finding sources of information that actually contradict his points. He frequently cites the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an agency that uniformly shows what a failure GOP presidents have been in handling the economy. Still, Muller blathers on in his own world free from the constraints of facts. But he’s good to have around for the frequent citations he provides. Just think of this as an avante-gard approach to learning. Lee presents an opinion then backs it up with a source that completely disproves what he just stated. Pretty cool huh.
Furthermore, the Goebbels-like practice of wilfullye repeating falsehoods again and again, is designed to create the illusion of truth.
Obama’s socialist goons don’t intimidate me with a little name-calling, especially when they use the Nazi tactic of accusing me of doing what they do.
Now that Godwin’s Law has been adequately fulfilled we can all just move on to the next post.
Remember the time nine months ago when Ron Paul was on the stage for the debates and spoke eloquently and passionately about the coming financial crisis? Remember when guys like Rudy and Maverick and Fred and Romney all sneered at Paul with derision? Remember when Ron Paul said the Federal Reserve was the problem and not the solution and all the media folks called him a crazy libertarian?
That was awesome. (Apologies to the late Chris Farley)
I don’t mean to beg, but PLEASE read these next three paragraphs and consider them carefully:
The most significant argument against the Fed, though, is not political but economic. The Austrian view is that a central bank is not merely unnecessary but harmful. There is no need for a monopoly institution, by means of artificial money creation, to prevent the natural and healthy phenomenon of falling prices. There is likewise no need for a “lender of last resort” for the banking industry any more than for the personal computer industry or the shellfish industry. As long as the banking system is run on sound principles—an unlikely outcome, while there is a central bank with powers to prop up unsound banks—there is no reason for the bankruptcy of one or two major banks to provoke a systemic crisis, as can happen under the Fed system.
Then there are the problems that stem from artificial money creation. Not only do people on fixed incomes suffer from the rising prices that increases in the money supply bring about, but the process of money creation inevitably enriches politically well-connected groups at the expense of everyone else. The powerful are in a position to receive the newly created money first and spend it before prices have commensurately risen. Still other problems are discussed in the major Austrian treatments of money, including Mises’s Human Action and Murray Rothbard’s The Case Against the Fed.
Under a commodity standard, people could save for the future by accumulating gold and silver coins. The coins’ value appreciated over time because of their natural increase in purchasing power, as the relatively slow increase in the production of precious metals was outpaced by the much faster increase in the production of other goods and services. Today, only a fool would try to save for the future by piling up dollar bills. Everyone is forced to enter the financial markets, which are risky even for knowledgeable investors, in order to prevent the value of his retirement savings from vanishing before his eyes.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/feb/09/00016/
Bud, just make sure you check Lee’s sources first. He can also make use of fraudulent ones to serve his purpose, as in the case of the purported Dowd article.
Thanks Bud,
I’ll keep that in mind.
Herb, you bore false witness against me, then ran off without offering anything to dispute my examples of Democrats enriching themselves by fraudulent mortgage practices.
Jason, I dare you to look up what I said about Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Rahm Emmanuel, Jamie Gorelick, Harold Raines, and other Democrats who got wealthy off the mortgage scams.
Best Chris Farley skit ever — the one with Paul McCartney… Remember when everybody was saying you were dead? Was that true?…
Lee Elmulr barely grasped the basics of proper grammar before I and a few others publicly shamed him into habitually consulting an internet dictionary and thesauraus before posting his octogenerian’s rants. At least his current lies are more grammatical than those at the outset of this blog.
Now, that’s evolution, and on his birthday, Darwin’s ghost would be proud of rM. Lmuler. If ghosts can read Ele’s handiworks, though, I would expect that Darwin’s spirit would revisit many of his most controversially prestigious assertions made in life.
Slightly digressing, EeL’s nonesuch nonsense should neither intimidate nor impress anyone visiting these electric pages. He and his compatriots (Fart, p.m.s/Knave/Weldon/Head-On/Whatever-s/he’scallinghimerselfthisweek) represent the vox populi of the current Republican party: whiny babies who expected silent compliance from the rest of us when their vaunted Bushbaby was in power, and now, rather hypocritically, will currently not afford the rest of us the same respect, even as their Connecticut Yankee has failed the union so publicly. Such is the current, defining mutant strain of Republican that has diseased a once respectable party.
They become uber-attached to an icon, a man, usually a paper tiger-type, and they expect that others, especially the opposing party, have this same weakness and quirky, latent-homosexual behavior. Their widespread love for “great white hopes” like Walker, Texas, Ranger, and their frequent accusations that America is swooning for Barack Obama is evidence of this fact. Republicans can’t see past their own party-shared character flaws to understand that a leader like Barack Obama garnered so many votes because he represents his party’s ideals — American ideals of inclusion and equal opportunity– not because we think he looks great in a cowboy hat and chaps.
Here’s the real kicker: Most often, Republicans despise and have won elections based partly on their hatred of homosexuals. Now, considering their fetishes just presented, is there any wonder why they are so hate-filled and aggressive? Yes, dear reader, the average Republican has more issues and internal conflict than Marvel Comics has ever published, and just as many fantasies, too!
They take crawling orders from a proven drug addict who broadcasts over a talking box, for goodness sake. And we expect logic and reason from these people?
Bipartisanship will occur only when there is an effective, alternative party to govern cooperatively with and handshakes across the aisle will flourish only when the knuckledraggers who contaminate the Grand Ole Pablum are contained.
IOW, Capital A doesn’t know a thing about Darwin, but just felt compelled to post.
No one’s listening to you, Cap!