Light at the end of the tunnel: The 2008 Election, its aftermath and the future

Actually, I picked out that one line, because I have gotten real sick of hearing that same attitude from many, many people (not just here), and I'm getting sick of the hypocrisy that is attached to that attitude.

The simple fact is that everyone in Congress is there because they won more votes than anyone else in their jurisdiction (with the exception of the handful of Senators who have currently been appointed to those positions, such as Burris). All of them won in their last election. To tell any of them that they should back down because they lost is completely incorrect.

Both parties do it, and I'm sick of the hypocrisy on both sides. I keep saying that, but you seem to always read that as though I'm only sick of it when Democrats do it.

I'm sick of things like the NY Times railing against the filibuster when Democrats are in the majority in the Senate and Republicans threaten to use it to block various measures (as one of their recent editorials did), and yet soundly defending the filibuster when the Republicans are in power and its the Democrats using it to block things. I'm sick of one side (either side) getting all offended at the imagined slights of the other side, and blowing things completely out of proportion. I'm tired of the attitude that bipartisanship means that one side has to capitulate to the other, as opposed to finding a solution agreeable to both sides.

In short, I'm sick of the petty squabbling and juvenile power grabs that your one point out of many there represents.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Daschle, Biden, Clinton and all the rest just don't matter much compared to what Obama does and doesn't do. Right now, people have their attention on the big picture. I do agree that Obama's biggest opponent will be himself. If the economy recovers, I think he'll be all but unbeatable. If it doesn't, he may be toast.

Actually, you just summed up the idea contained in my post as well, which was directed at a specific post which basically said "Obama is unbeatable in 2012, no matter who runs against him.." Except neither party, nor Obama exist in isolation.

That's why I have to disagree when you discount the importance of how people view Congress. Presidential elections do fall along the lines of the big picture, as the President represents larger ideas and themes. However, state elections fall to the issues, and except for a few "legacy candidates," the turn over is more tumultuous.

What I'm saying is what you just said yourself-people aren't going to vote for politicians if their concerns aren't being addressed.

Your main rebuttal during the primary when I would raise concerns about Obama traditionally "flying under the radar," was that he didn't need to demonstrate an established record on the issues, because internally, his campaign during the same primary, was so successful. Well, it's quite obvious by now- from starting off having major cabinet problems- to actually having to make decisions on controversial issues- to working out and compromising on a stimulus package, that simply running a successful campaign isn't a substitute for actually governing how one promised they would govern.

Now, not all that is mentioned in the above paragraph should be taken as a negative against Obama. It's not. But where has the "just elect Obama and everything will take care of itself..." expectation that existed in force no more than a half a dozen weeks ago gone? All that hype, pomp, and circumstance is being replaced by the reality that Obama is really just an average politician, and always has been-both positive and negative. But I don't think any politician has ever came with such pre-programmed perception as Obama. More-so since nearly all of it was self generated during the primary.

In a nutshell, I agree with you- the overall situation is going to dictate Obama's future. This is no different than any other President, which has always been my point.

 

In short, I'm sick of the petty squabbling and juvenile power grabs that your one point out of many there represents.

I'm sorry you feel that way, Kimball, and I understand it, but the fact that you are sick of "what that one line represents" doesn't negate my other points, or the fact that you failed to address them, instead choosing a single line to vent on.

How about your thoughts on everything else? Why would you think Obama is obligated to appoint Bush's failed nominees "first" when openings to the federal bench occur, under threat of filibuster? Why should Obama's right to nominate whomever he chooses be any different from Bush's?

I can remember you arguing on numerous occassions that W had discretion on nominees, and as the minority, the dems sort of had to just "deal with it"; ie protest, but not block. The GOP has not only pre-emptively protested, but already threatened to block.

Why is it "ok" for them to do that, when it was not ok for the dems to do it?

Peace,

V-03

 

Because several of Bush's nominees were blocked. Miguel Estrada never got his vote.

It is called "response in kind" - and I am all for that. Democrats decided that this sort of conduct was acceptable when they were in the minority back under Bush, and now the GOP is turning that playbook on Obama.

Barack Obama is your president, not mine.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that Obama should be obligated to appoint any of Bush's nominees, so please don't imply that I do. (In the future, try asking the question as "Do you think..." instead of "Why would you think...". The former is asking for my thoughts. The latter assumes what my thoughts are.)

I agree that Obama has the right to nominate anyone that he wishes, and I have never said anything other than that on this issue. However, I do think that it would not be unreasonable to ask Obama to at least review and/or consider those who were previously nominated by Bush. After all, it's outside the realm of probability to think that Bush only nominated far-right wackos, isn't it? Especially for those who had to face a Democratic Senate in the past two years to be confirmed.

Again, please do not put words into my mouth here. I never said that it was ok.

The problems I had with the Democrats actions had to do with never letting the nominations leave the committee for a floor vote. The Constitution says that the President nominates with the advice and consent of the Senate, not of one of the Senate's committees. To block the nominee from coming to the Senate as a whole for them to consider and give advice and consent is undue interference with the nomination and prevents the Senate from doing their Constitutional duty.

If, instead, they had limited themselves to a filibuster (which is inherently part of the Senate's discussion to formulate the advice and consent), I would not have had that problem.

Many people here have seen me defend my brother, but in this case, I have to say that I disagree with his sentiments 100%. He is outright wrong in this last post.

Barak Obama is every bit as much my President as George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, or Jimmy Carter ever were my President. He is the legal, and lawfully elected head of state, and I will give him every bit of respect and honor that he deserves because of the office that he holds.

I also despise hypocrisy, and I can't stand the hypocrisy on either side with this sort of attitude. The Democrats used the techniques that the Republicans now want to use, and so they prove themselves hypocrites when they complain about the Republicans' current actions. At the same time, the Republicans complained loudly about the Democrats' actions when they used those techniques, and now they prove themselves hypocrites by doing the exact same things that they used to complain about.

I say to hell with both of them! Neither side are the saints that they claim to be, and I'm just sick of all of the whining from every side.

Kimball Kinnison

 

What sort of a childish way to live in a Democratic society is that?

What purpose might that serve for them, however? As far as I can remember, all the rejected SC justices were rejected because there were questions as to their competence and/or qualifications.

Going back to that pool seems like a REALLY poor choice.

---

More than any of this, I am wondering where these judgments on Obama that he is just an "average politician" are coming from. For the most part, it seems that it is just the same people who believed that he was an "empty suit" before the election and have simply gone on assuming so since the election, or perhaps those who already have a political aversion to his left leaning policies?

Outside of what happened with the nominees for his cabinet, everything has gone pretty smoothly - he has gotten what he wanted accomplished and he has played mind games with the GOP that is embarassing them nationally after they basically used resistance against him as a way of "uniting" their party.

The closing of Guantanamo and the date setting for leaving Iraq are both tremendous and cathartic steps towards alleviating the ills of the previous administration. Both good moves.

What I see out of Rahm Emanuel and Obama lately is shrewd politics that is basically embarassing the Republicans all while getting the President's agenda done.

He is good AT GETTING WHAT HE WANTS while making the opposition look bad for opposing him, and that makes him a really good politician, not an average one.

 

I don't know what's more disturbing, that someone can utter such nonsense. Or that someone can utter such nonsense knowing how immature it makes them look. Get in touch with reality, man! A small minority of voters acted this way back in 2004 and now it's okay to spout such drivel? If your party's ideals are so grand and great then act like frickin' adult and prove why your views are better. Yeah, losing sucks, but it's humbling and maybe makes people rethink things. As it is right now you're showing that conservatives haven't. That the people who share your ideals act like little children when they don't get their way.

This idiocy has to stop. Be the better person. Or not. The choice is yours.

 

The "Not My President" comments about Bush were coming LONG before 2004 (for instance, Julia Roberts made that comment in 2001).

And, as for the idiocy stopping... well, let's just say I find your choice of a stopping point awfully convenient. Why not stop that idiocy in 2005? I think we all know the answer why.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm simply taking the tactics your side used against Bush and turning them on Obama. Contrary to my brother's post, I am not going to pretend to be a saint - I'm pretty open that this is a combination of revenge and utilitarian tactics, nothing more.

 

As in, just a few months after a highly contested decision where the Supreme Court overruled the democratic election process and appointed Bush president?

There's an obvious difference between using "He's not my President" in reference to a man whose right to the office is somewhat dubious (first-term Bush) and using it to refer to a man who clearly won the election (Obama).

 

But you also have to realize that such a statement is completely one sided as well, right?

The Supreme Court didn't appoint anyone President, the decision simply halted the targeted recount and locked in the current FL state results, which then allocated the winning delegates.

Gore himself could have probably eliminated the need for the Supreme Court to even get involved had his campaign simply followed established state recount procedures. But it was the Gore campaign who tried to "dial in" the recount to those specific areas where they thought they could win, which is also highly irregular.

Beyond that, everyone knows (or should know) that the President isn't selected by popular vote, but by the electoral college. Julia Roberts (or whoever) can't simply disregard century of procedure because they don't like the result.

Having posted the above, don't you also think it's strange that some people still haven't moved on from a 8 year old topic?

 

Is that intended as a dig at JediSmuggler or are you really from another planet?

 

Not when the result of that topic has had such a devastating effect on the country and world.

 

I'm sure you'll be ok.

I mean, it is annoying to have to constantly outrun marauding gangs of wasteland bikers just to scrape up some supplies. And while even the taste of Soylent Green took some getting used to, it's not all that bad considering the source...

 

SOYLENT GREEN IS DEMOCRATS!

 

And here I thought it was these guys.


This argument is rather pointless. There are always declarations of illegitimacy, moans of voter fraud and disenfranchisement, and pathetic mutterings of "I'm moving to Canada." (And yet there's never any mass exodus to Canada. Curious.) Such whinging has a strong bipartisan record.

 

That's awesome! Especially if you are a member of one of the marauding gangs!

 

Come now 44. You'd be tearing apart a post this silly if anyone else had made it.

 

The other thing about earmarks is that getting rid of them wouldn't reduce spending at all. They take their name for the fact that they "earmark" money already in the bill for a certain department and steer it to a specific project. The only negative I see to earmarks is the corruption factor of using them to steer money to people or companies in return for favors. However, it would seem perfectly legitimate for a legislator who has closer relations to the state or district to steer money to projects then for the executive branch to do so.

 

How do you have "pork" in a bill where the entire point of it is to spend money?

 

Come now 44. You'd be tearing apart a post this silly if anyone else had made it.

What, you don't like bikers? Then let's make it zombie hoards...

Yes, waves of zombies sweeping across the land. They're not so bad either, as long as you remember to shoot them in the head.

 

Well, the big issue isn't so much that the money is being spent, it's where it's being spent. Pork projects generally have very limited, regional benefits. Like, say, benefits restricted to a certain congressman's district. Usually the same congressman that proposed the earmark. (A coincidence, I'm sure.)

And while the "pork" money may indeed help the locals, it's the question of whether federal money could be doing more good somewhere else, in a way that would help more people. Hypothetical example: Is $10 million better off going to the North American Blueberry Waffle Memorial in Big Butte, Monatana, or going to limb prosthetic researchers as part of a big research grant? Number two sounds much better to me, yet we still have stuff like number one.

I doubt pork barrel will ever be eliminated completely, since that would require our dear legislators to vote against their own interests. But I think a good goal would be to halve earmarks by, say, 2012. If Obama could get Congress to sign off on something like that, that at least would be some progress.

 

Having posted the above, don't you also think it's strange that some people still haven't moved on from a 8 year old topic?

To be fair, don't you think that certain individuals might be harping on the "Not my President" issue eight years from now?

You can't change how people fundamentally think.

Peace,

V-03

 

To be fair, don't you think that certain individuals might be harping on the "Not my President" issue eight years from now?

Most people think politicians dont serve the public anyway, so whats big deal about some people thinking "Not my President" ?

 

It's not a big deal. In fact, it's nothing if not empty rhetoric. Someone like JS saying Obama is not his president has no effect on the reality that Obama is the President of the United States, and will continue to implement his agenda. Just as people saying Bush was not their President did nothing to hold back Bush's actions.

If someone wants to say they do not recognize Obama as President, let them. All they're doing is blowing hot air and making themselves look like a secessionist.

 

All they're doing is blowing hot air and making themselves look like a secessionist.

I am going to wait and see how the bailout works, then judge them.