This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
2Jesse_wiedinmyer
Is that kind of like this one...
3richardbsmith
I have to get an account somewhere to post picture links. Recommend a picture hosting site.
4Jesse_wiedinmyer
I dunno. Flickr?
5richardbsmith
Is that what you posted the picture in 2. I guess Flickr is a good choice. I have heard of it.
6faceinbook
> 1
How are "misspeaks" a guage of intellegence level ? Granted you have your Archie Bunkers (G. W. Bush) but then you have your mistakes made by otherwise intellegent individuals. I don't think Romney is stupid.....just is horrible at communication skills about "normal" stuff.
How are "misspeaks" a guage of intellegence level ? Granted you have your Archie Bunkers (G. W. Bush) but then you have your mistakes made by otherwise intellegent individuals. I don't think Romney is stupid.....just is horrible at communication skills about "normal" stuff.
7Jesse_wiedinmyer
To be fair, FIB, Liberals are just as prone to latch on to the same concept when Conservatives misspeak...
9Arctic-Stranger
When doing a sermon once I looked at the groom and said, "John, do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded wife?" To which he replied, "I don't think so." I had no idea what I had said.
I was rarely one to throw stones at public speakers' mistakes, because I know how hard public speaking is.
I don't know if Mr. Boyd is a public speaker on a regular basis, but if he is, I would like to see the transcript of his last four years worth of remarks. I know that four years of my sermons would have provided some excellent fodder for some enterprising foe of mine. I have called biopsies autopsies, have prayed for healing from prostrate cancer, and who knows what all else.
I will say this: George Bushes misunderestimations were more fun.
I was rarely one to throw stones at public speakers' mistakes, because I know how hard public speaking is.
I don't know if Mr. Boyd is a public speaker on a regular basis, but if he is, I would like to see the transcript of his last four years worth of remarks. I know that four years of my sermons would have provided some excellent fodder for some enterprising foe of mine. I have called biopsies autopsies, have prayed for healing from prostrate cancer, and who knows what all else.
I will say this: George Bushes misunderestimations were more fun.
10faceinbook
>7 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Point taken.
Would add though that there is a clear difference between making a verbal blunder and being a blundering fool !
Enough said :)
Would add though that there is a clear difference between making a verbal blunder and being a blundering fool !
Enough said :)
11Jesse_wiedinmyer
That difference often seems to be predicated on where one stands along the political spectrum with respect to the person we're judging.
12jasonseidner
If Obama were on Jeopardy against any two of the other three (and if you could win money by picking the winner) who would you bet on?
13faceinbook
>11 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
Not so much.
Still think one can compare Maher with Limbaugh ? Both have said nasty things but they are totally different. Same with saying stupid things. Romney says some VERY stupid things....don't think the man is stupid....and I don't agree with him.
And then there is Joe Biden....
Not so much.
Still think one can compare Maher with Limbaugh ? Both have said nasty things but they are totally different. Same with saying stupid things. Romney says some VERY stupid things....don't think the man is stupid....and I don't agree with him.
And then there is Joe Biden....
14CharlesBoyd
>6 faceinbook: I'd bet my last dollar that when G.W. Bush misspoke you crowed and proclaimed him an idiot. (I'm no Bush fan, voted for Kerry)
>8 theoria: only 9 noted, doesn't mean he didn't make many more. My comment to >6 faceinbook: goes to you too.
>9 Arctic-Stranger: I don't do much public speaking and I don't judge anyone by mistakes made in public speaking, I just knew most of the people in pro and con would give Obama a pass on his mistakes that they wouldn't give to a conservative. Few of them would agree with the following statement: Limbaugh is an idiot, but he must say something that makes sense at least one time per every thousand statements.
>10 faceinbook: had you left it at "point taken," I'd have stood up and cheered for you, but you couldn't keep yourself from adding the rest.
>12 jasonseidner: don't I get the "none of the above" option?
>8 theoria: only 9 noted, doesn't mean he didn't make many more. My comment to >6 faceinbook: goes to you too.
>9 Arctic-Stranger: I don't do much public speaking and I don't judge anyone by mistakes made in public speaking, I just knew most of the people in pro and con would give Obama a pass on his mistakes that they wouldn't give to a conservative. Few of them would agree with the following statement: Limbaugh is an idiot, but he must say something that makes sense at least one time per every thousand statements.
>10 faceinbook: had you left it at "point taken," I'd have stood up and cheered for you, but you couldn't keep yourself from adding the rest.
>12 jasonseidner: don't I get the "none of the above" option?
15Jesse_wiedinmyer
Limbaugh is an idiot, but he must say something that makes sense at least one time per thousand statements.
I don't think Limbaugh's an idiot. I think he's an asshole.
I don't think Limbaugh's an idiot. I think he's an asshole.
16Arctic-Stranger
As to Limbaugh there is a difference between saying that the US has 57 states (too much steak sauce, perhaps), and calling a girl a slut, and wanting to see videos of her having sex. Unless of course Obama is being paid by Heinz to misspeak so they can sell more steak sauce.
17faceinbook
>14 CharlesBoyd:
NO...when I deemed G.W. Bush an idiot, it was because of his actions.
Bush's misspeaks were prominent because they were "funny". In fact, they warrented their own book. As did Dan Quayle. (who I thought was hilarious by the way)
Neither Romney's nor Obama' s are quite as funny....if they are, I am missing the humor. But, then, I've been told I have a quirky sense of humor. Think you may be comparing apples to oranges.
You don't believe there is a difference between making a verbal blunder and being intellectually challenged ?
Don't think it is advisable to judge people's intellegence based on public speaking ability. If this is the case, I will go back to Romney and ask why the heck the guy is worth over $240 mil and he can't speak all that well.
Maybe the title of the tread was not the best ? OR do you feel Obama is smart ? Not sure if you are being facetious or not.
NO...when I deemed G.W. Bush an idiot, it was because of his actions.
Bush's misspeaks were prominent because they were "funny". In fact, they warrented their own book. As did Dan Quayle. (who I thought was hilarious by the way)
Neither Romney's nor Obama' s are quite as funny....if they are, I am missing the humor. But, then, I've been told I have a quirky sense of humor. Think you may be comparing apples to oranges.
You don't believe there is a difference between making a verbal blunder and being intellectually challenged ?
Don't think it is advisable to judge people's intellegence based on public speaking ability. If this is the case, I will go back to Romney and ask why the heck the guy is worth over $240 mil and he can't speak all that well.
Maybe the title of the tread was not the best ? OR do you feel Obama is smart ? Not sure if you are being facetious or not.
18faceinbook
>16 Arctic-Stranger:
I think it's the mustard in the BBQ sauce ! Obama...not Limbaugh. On second thought, may account for both.
I think it's the mustard in the BBQ sauce ! Obama...not Limbaugh. On second thought, may account for both.
19CharlesBoyd
Obama's smart. But he doesn't have what it takes to be a good president for this period in American history. I'm not entirely sure what that is, but adding $14 trillion (or whatever the exact figure is) to the national debt is a terrible thing for the country.
20Jesse_wiedinmyer
I guess that will be decided come November.
21Arctic-Stranger
Obama's smart. But he doesn't have what it takes to be a good president for this period in American history. I'm not entirely sure what that is, but adding $14 trillion (or whatever the exact figure is) to the national debt is a terrible thing for the country.
It's the "I'm not sure" that invalidates the rest of your statement. I know that stimulus money has had an incredibly positive effect on many states and on local industries. (Romney had a photo op at a factory where he was bragging on industry fixing the economy, but that particular factory was only there because of stimulus money. I work closely with school issues, and the stimulus money kept a LOT of teachers on the payroll.
As to health care, most independent studies show it will lower health care costs across the board, thus lowering medicare costs.
Obama may or may not be the best for our time, but he doing bad.
It's the "I'm not sure" that invalidates the rest of your statement. I know that stimulus money has had an incredibly positive effect on many states and on local industries. (Romney had a photo op at a factory where he was bragging on industry fixing the economy, but that particular factory was only there because of stimulus money. I work closely with school issues, and the stimulus money kept a LOT of teachers on the payroll.
As to health care, most independent studies show it will lower health care costs across the board, thus lowering medicare costs.
Obama may or may not be the best for our time, but he doing bad.
22faceinbook
>19 CharlesBoyd:
" but adding $14 trillion (or whatever the exact figure is) to the national debt is a terrible thing for the country."
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-11/news/30013193_1_budget-deficit-go...
If we want to fix the problem, as a country, we must be smart enough not to blame Obama for the entire deficit. Continuing to deny where and when our problems started will do nothing to reverse the issue. Every time someone lays the blame for our current financial crisis at the feet of Obama, they are prolonging our recovery. This means everyone....we need to be "smarter" than that and I don't see many advances in that direction.
>21 Arctic-Stranger:
Obama is not doing the best but, in all honesty, he doesn't have a "working" government. One wonders what he could have done if he had some cooporation and compromise. Don't believe anyone can be effective given the fact that half the law makers in government are ignoring the majority of the people in favor of partisin politics and the desires of the radical few.
Obama is also Black. There was never a "good" time for the first African-American President. It will not be any different for a woman....perhaps worse. In light of the recent push by Conservatives to keep women in their place, one can only imagine the consequences if these same men were told that the commander-in-chief is going to be a woman. Will be harsh. Plenty of Limbaugh's will be coming out of the woodwork.
Women are getting closer. Perhaps this is one of the core reasons there is so much "turning back of the clock" being done by a group of Conservative men ?
" but adding $14 trillion (or whatever the exact figure is) to the national debt is a terrible thing for the country."
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-11/news/30013193_1_budget-deficit-go...
If we want to fix the problem, as a country, we must be smart enough not to blame Obama for the entire deficit. Continuing to deny where and when our problems started will do nothing to reverse the issue. Every time someone lays the blame for our current financial crisis at the feet of Obama, they are prolonging our recovery. This means everyone....we need to be "smarter" than that and I don't see many advances in that direction.
>21 Arctic-Stranger:
Obama is not doing the best but, in all honesty, he doesn't have a "working" government. One wonders what he could have done if he had some cooporation and compromise. Don't believe anyone can be effective given the fact that half the law makers in government are ignoring the majority of the people in favor of partisin politics and the desires of the radical few.
Obama is also Black. There was never a "good" time for the first African-American President. It will not be any different for a woman....perhaps worse. In light of the recent push by Conservatives to keep women in their place, one can only imagine the consequences if these same men were told that the commander-in-chief is going to be a woman. Will be harsh. Plenty of Limbaugh's will be coming out of the woodwork.
Women are getting closer. Perhaps this is one of the core reasons there is so much "turning back of the clock" being done by a group of Conservative men ?
23Arctic-Stranger
To be fair, few presidents do well their first two years. Remember Reagan and Clinton's first midterms? The learning curve for being the leader of the Free World is pretty steep. But he has done no worse than many of his contemporaries, and better than some.
24StormRaven
I'm not entirely sure what that is, but adding $14 trillion (or whatever the exact figure is) to the national debt is a terrible thing for the country.
~$15 trillion is the total national debt as of March 2012. In 2008, the total debt was about $10 trillion. Consequently, to the extent that Obama is "responsible" for the growth of the total debt during his presidency, he's only responsible for about $5 trillion of it.
One point though, is that the President is not solely responsible for the amount the Federal government spends: the purse strings are held by Congress, which has the exclusive power to pass appropriations bills dictating Federal spending (and the Executive branch is prohibited from spending less than Congress appropriates). Yes, the President must sign those bills before they become law, but usually there are few options other than signing what shows up on his desk or accepting a government shut-down (which poses its own set of problems).
~$15 trillion is the total national debt as of March 2012. In 2008, the total debt was about $10 trillion. Consequently, to the extent that Obama is "responsible" for the growth of the total debt during his presidency, he's only responsible for about $5 trillion of it.
One point though, is that the President is not solely responsible for the amount the Federal government spends: the purse strings are held by Congress, which has the exclusive power to pass appropriations bills dictating Federal spending (and the Executive branch is prohibited from spending less than Congress appropriates). Yes, the President must sign those bills before they become law, but usually there are few options other than signing what shows up on his desk or accepting a government shut-down (which poses its own set of problems).
25CharlesBoyd
>21 Arctic-Stranger: none of that will help when the country is bankrupt and a second rate country.
>22 faceinbook: I'm not saying the debt is all his fault, but he is making it worse. And please don't play the race card. Yes, there are some bigots who feel that way, but remember more than half the voters voted for him and I don't believe that all of those who voted against him did so because he's black. By the way, he's not the first black president. He's multi racial. And, no, that's not a problem for me, my grandson is too and he's the best.
And Obama apologizers like to call Republicans the "party of no." Anyone with any honesty will admit that both parties are the "party of no."
>24 StormRaven: Thanks for "and the Executive branch is prohibited from spending less than Congress appropriates" I didn't know that. Why did Obama not submit a budget to Congress his first two years in office, or did he have a chance to submit three by now?
>22 faceinbook: I'm not saying the debt is all his fault, but he is making it worse. And please don't play the race card. Yes, there are some bigots who feel that way, but remember more than half the voters voted for him and I don't believe that all of those who voted against him did so because he's black. By the way, he's not the first black president. He's multi racial. And, no, that's not a problem for me, my grandson is too and he's the best.
And Obama apologizers like to call Republicans the "party of no." Anyone with any honesty will admit that both parties are the "party of no."
>24 StormRaven: Thanks for "and the Executive branch is prohibited from spending less than Congress appropriates" I didn't know that. Why did Obama not submit a budget to Congress his first two years in office, or did he have a chance to submit three by now?
26faceinbook
>24 StormRaven:
There is something seriously nonproductive about blaming Obama our total deficit. If Conservatives think that they can continue to do business as usual and reduce the deficit, they have another think coming. Historically Republican's have left large deficits when leaving office.
Currently the Right is proposing cuts to programs that will most likely not be cut and saying nothing about where some of our deficit started, over spending on defense (two unpaid wars) and extended tax cuts at the same time they were spending. For the most part it sounds as if they will continue the tax cuts and many are extremely hawkish as to the situation in Middle East. Many Conservative lawmakers sound as if they would not be opposed to another war. If we were to conduct another war one has to conclude one of two things, either we are not as bad off as they are saying or they would not be above adding even greater amounts to our deficit.
It doesn't add up.
There is something seriously nonproductive about blaming Obama our total deficit. If Conservatives think that they can continue to do business as usual and reduce the deficit, they have another think coming. Historically Republican's have left large deficits when leaving office.
Currently the Right is proposing cuts to programs that will most likely not be cut and saying nothing about where some of our deficit started, over spending on defense (two unpaid wars) and extended tax cuts at the same time they were spending. For the most part it sounds as if they will continue the tax cuts and many are extremely hawkish as to the situation in Middle East. Many Conservative lawmakers sound as if they would not be opposed to another war. If we were to conduct another war one has to conclude one of two things, either we are not as bad off as they are saying or they would not be above adding even greater amounts to our deficit.
It doesn't add up.
27StormRaven
"Thanks for "and the Executive branch is prohibited from spending less than Congress appropriates" I didn't know that."
That is the effect of the Anti-Impoundment Act, passed in response to Nixon's attempts to spend less than Congress appropriated. His efforts to do so were of questionable Constitutionality, but the statute passed in response to his actions clarified the matter.
"Why did Obama not submit a budget to Congress his first two years in office, or did he have a chance to submit three by now?"
He did. The president submits a budget proposal every year - the primary purpose of the office of Management and Budget (OMB) is to produce this proposal. Congress doesn't have to pay any attention to the President's budget proposal, and almost never does.
That is the effect of the Anti-Impoundment Act, passed in response to Nixon's attempts to spend less than Congress appropriated. His efforts to do so were of questionable Constitutionality, but the statute passed in response to his actions clarified the matter.
"Why did Obama not submit a budget to Congress his first two years in office, or did he have a chance to submit three by now?"
He did. The president submits a budget proposal every year - the primary purpose of the office of Management and Budget (OMB) is to produce this proposal. Congress doesn't have to pay any attention to the President's budget proposal, and almost never does.
28CharlesBoyd
>27 StormRaven: If Obama did submit a budget proposal each of those years, how are some commentators getting away with saying he hasn't? Has anyone called them on those statements? Any national t.v. commentators or nationally syndicated columnists? Someone should.
Hypothetical question: What would happen to a president who did spend less than Congress appropriated?
From other posts on other threads, I get the idea that you may be an attorney and may live and or work in Washington D.C. perhaps in government. What would happen to this country if China said "We want our money now!"
>26 faceinbook:, again, I wasn't blaming Obama for our entire debt (I didn't mention deficit) just said he wasn't making it better.
Hypothetical question: What would happen to a president who did spend less than Congress appropriated?
From other posts on other threads, I get the idea that you may be an attorney and may live and or work in Washington D.C. perhaps in government. What would happen to this country if China said "We want our money now!"
>26 faceinbook:, again, I wasn't blaming Obama for our entire debt (I didn't mention deficit) just said he wasn't making it better.
29faceinbook
>25 CharlesBoyd:
"And please don't play the race card."
I am not playing the race card. I am stating a fact. Didn't suggest it was a problem for YOU but it is quite evident that it is a problem for many. If you don't see a heightened level of disrespect than you have not been paying attention.
Most any time an African American assumes a postition they have not yet held....there is going to be blow back. FACT !
Saw a clip on a show the other night, interviewing people from Mississippi. One man was asked if he disliked Obama cause he was Black. The old man said "Na....he ain't even Black he 's a half breed" So in some respects people do see the distinction between being African American and of mixed origin.
" Why did Obama not submit a budget to Congress his first two years in office, or did he have a chance to submit three by now?"
Maybe because he refuses, as a Democratic President, to sign off on a Republican budget ? Cause that would be the only way the Republicans are going to agree on a budget.
"And please don't play the race card."
I am not playing the race card. I am stating a fact. Didn't suggest it was a problem for YOU but it is quite evident that it is a problem for many. If you don't see a heightened level of disrespect than you have not been paying attention.
Most any time an African American assumes a postition they have not yet held....there is going to be blow back. FACT !
Saw a clip on a show the other night, interviewing people from Mississippi. One man was asked if he disliked Obama cause he was Black. The old man said "Na....he ain't even Black he 's a half breed" So in some respects people do see the distinction between being African American and of mixed origin.
" Why did Obama not submit a budget to Congress his first two years in office, or did he have a chance to submit three by now?"
Maybe because he refuses, as a Democratic President, to sign off on a Republican budget ? Cause that would be the only way the Republicans are going to agree on a budget.
30faceinbook
>28 CharlesBoyd:
"If Obama did submit a budget proposal each of those years, how are some commentators getting away with saying he hasn't? Has anyone called them on those statements? Any national t.v. commentators or nationally syndicated columnists? Someone should."
Where have you been for four years ? What media are you listening to ? Seriously ? The Right isn't basing any of their complaints regarding Obama on any type of reality. They are making it up and stating it as fact.
How does Maher put it ? The Republicans are in a BUBBLE and nothing is getting into the bubble. No facts for sure.
Instead of repeating what is being said about Obama, try fact checking online.
He has made mistakes and he is having problems but he is nowhere near what the Conservatives are spouting on about.
They wanted him gone on Nov 5th 2008. He was making mistakes already.
"If Obama did submit a budget proposal each of those years, how are some commentators getting away with saying he hasn't? Has anyone called them on those statements? Any national t.v. commentators or nationally syndicated columnists? Someone should."
Where have you been for four years ? What media are you listening to ? Seriously ? The Right isn't basing any of their complaints regarding Obama on any type of reality. They are making it up and stating it as fact.
How does Maher put it ? The Republicans are in a BUBBLE and nothing is getting into the bubble. No facts for sure.
Instead of repeating what is being said about Obama, try fact checking online.
He has made mistakes and he is having problems but he is nowhere near what the Conservatives are spouting on about.
They wanted him gone on Nov 5th 2008. He was making mistakes already.
31StormRaven
"If Obama did submit a budget proposal each of those years, how are some commentators getting away with saying he hasn't? Has anyone called them on those statements? Any national t.v. commentators or nationally syndicated columnists? Someone should."
I don't know. Here is a graphic of Obama's 2012 Budget Proposal, his 2011 Budget Proposal, and an article about his 2010 Budget Proposal.
"Hypothetical question: What would happen to a president who did spend less than Congress appropriated?"
The most direct penalty could be for a Congressional member to bring suit against the offending agency. I can't remember if the Anti-Impoundment Act has individual penalties for noncompliance (like the Antideficiency Act does). The other penalty would be political - the appropriating committees could penalize the administration in a subsequent year by refusing to fund their priorities.
"From other posts on other threads, I get the idea that you may be an attorney and may live and or work in Washington D.C. perhaps in government. What would happen to this country if China said "We want our money now!""
I am an attorney and I do work in D.C.
China holds treasury bills, and the obligation to repay them is defined by law. They are not payable in full before maturity, so if the Chinese came and demanded their money now they would be paid (at most) at a highly discounted rate.
I don't know. Here is a graphic of Obama's 2012 Budget Proposal, his 2011 Budget Proposal, and an article about his 2010 Budget Proposal.
"Hypothetical question: What would happen to a president who did spend less than Congress appropriated?"
The most direct penalty could be for a Congressional member to bring suit against the offending agency. I can't remember if the Anti-Impoundment Act has individual penalties for noncompliance (like the Antideficiency Act does). The other penalty would be political - the appropriating committees could penalize the administration in a subsequent year by refusing to fund their priorities.
"From other posts on other threads, I get the idea that you may be an attorney and may live and or work in Washington D.C. perhaps in government. What would happen to this country if China said "We want our money now!""
I am an attorney and I do work in D.C.
China holds treasury bills, and the obligation to repay them is defined by law. They are not payable in full before maturity, so if the Chinese came and demanded their money now they would be paid (at most) at a highly discounted rate.
32Jesse_wiedinmyer
The easier thing for China to do would be to try to dump them on the market...
33CharlesBoyd
31 and 32 thanks for the info
34Jesse_wiedinmyer
Or, just as plausibly perhaps, not renew them...
35CharlesBoyd
>30 faceinbook: please don't quote Mahar, he's just as bad as Limbaugh in that Limbaugh is all about promoting Limbaugh and Mahar is all about promoting Mahar. Each is a model for extreme egoism.
Give me a couple of names of liberal columnists and I'll make a point of seeking out their columns. And/or an online publication.
Give me a couple of names of liberal columnists and I'll make a point of seeking out their columns. And/or an online publication.
36richardbsmith
I think Ezra Klein is a good liberal columist. I try to read what I can of his posts.
37Arctic-Stranger
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/obama-explained/8874/
this is one of the best articles I have seen on Obama in a long while. Fallows is one of my favorite writers, and while I would not exactly call him a liberal, he is not conservative either.
this is one of the best articles I have seen on Obama in a long while. Fallows is one of my favorite writers, and while I would not exactly call him a liberal, he is not conservative either.
38CharlesBoyd
thanks 36 37
39faceinbook
>38 CharlesBoyd:
Because Maher said the bubble exists, does not mean that it doesn't exist.
You don't have to look for liberal commentators who are fed up with the Republican party. Plenty of their own journalists are as well. That would be the "thinking" journalists.
Because Maher said the bubble exists, does not mean that it doesn't exist.
You don't have to look for liberal commentators who are fed up with the Republican party. Plenty of their own journalists are as well. That would be the "thinking" journalists.
41Lunar
#37: I guess even a superlative like "best" can be a relative term. I can't tell if that writer is obsessed with placing style over substance because he thinks that's what matters or because he knows that's the name of the game (or both).
The thing about deploying thousands of marines to Australia to shore up the American presence in the region is a good example of the writer's style bias. The writer only seems to care about whether that move is effective at sending a particular political "message" to please his fellow heads of state rather than about the actual merits of sending marines. I don't think I'll ever understand the mentality of people who view politics as a game in which each team fights to stay in power rather than a process that implements policies that can harm people living beyond their chessboard horizons.
The thing about deploying thousands of marines to Australia to shore up the American presence in the region is a good example of the writer's style bias. The writer only seems to care about whether that move is effective at sending a particular political "message" to please his fellow heads of state rather than about the actual merits of sending marines. I don't think I'll ever understand the mentality of people who view politics as a game in which each team fights to stay in power rather than a process that implements policies that can harm people living beyond their chessboard horizons.
42BruceCoulson
>41 Lunar:
If you don't win, then you don't get to implement ANY policies, good or bad. Which means the first priority of any elected official generally is to get elected, and then get re-elected. This isn't a criticism per se; it's an acknowledgement of the reality of government. Holding the moral high ground means nothing if the other side gets to do everything their way.
Is it unfortunate that eventually for many politicians, the battle for power so consumes them that they lose sight of what they're going to do with that power once they gain it? Yes, it is. However, most of the alternatives we've seen are far worse.
If you don't win, then you don't get to implement ANY policies, good or bad. Which means the first priority of any elected official generally is to get elected, and then get re-elected. This isn't a criticism per se; it's an acknowledgement of the reality of government. Holding the moral high ground means nothing if the other side gets to do everything their way.
Is it unfortunate that eventually for many politicians, the battle for power so consumes them that they lose sight of what they're going to do with that power once they gain it? Yes, it is. However, most of the alternatives we've seen are far worse.
43Arctic-Stranger
In Alaska we had a dickens of a time convincing democrats of this. In order to get elected here, you cannot be a greenie, or an ex-60s wannabe. And yet for years, that is who we ran.
Then we decided to run people who are much more conservative than the party as a whole, but they were winning. Now we have a bipartisan Senate Majority.
Then we decided to run people who are much more conservative than the party as a whole, but they were winning. Now we have a bipartisan Senate Majority.
44jjwilson61
43> Sure, but if you're a greenie why would you vote for Democrats that won't push your favorite issue? (btw, what's a bipartisan Senate Majority? Senate Majority I understand, but what could be bipartisan about it?)
45Arctic-Stranger
The Bipartisan Majority is composed of ten Democrats and six Republicans, all who caucus together.
ETA: We have a 20 member senate, and there are four Republicans who choose not to caucus with Democrats, and who are in the Minority.
ETA: We have a 20 member senate, and there are four Republicans who choose not to caucus with Democrats, and who are in the Minority.
46krolik
>45 Arctic-Stranger:
I'm sure it can be a pain in the ass but, from afar at least, it can also sound like an example of "small is beautiful."
I'm sure it can be a pain in the ass but, from afar at least, it can also sound like an example of "small is beautiful."
