Lest I be Accused of Making up my Facts

[SirSaxa]

Oct 28, 2008 19:00:06 GMT -5 Elvado said:

P.S. Tom Delay was never Speaker of the House.

But he was the "power" in the House. In that sense, closer to Pelosi now than Hestert.

[SirSaxa]

Oct 28, 2008 18:55:42 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Of ourse, it is possible that those Republicans were voting their consciences or constituent wishes as did so many Democrats.
/quote]

It is possible, but that is not what the Republican House leadership said immediately after the vote when they blamed Pelosi's comments.

[GIGAFAN99]

Oct 28, 2008 18:50:02 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Oct 28, 2008 16:02:45 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

I am hoping -- and I have acknowledged this as somewhat fanciful, but why not be optimistic in tough times? -- that Obama will be able to return the presidency to the centrist, moderating role it has been in times past.

I hope so too.
As evidence, we have his commitment to uniting the country -- yes, I know. Bush made the same promise. But I have far more confidence that Obama means it. He is always talking about ALL of America..not red America or Blue America.

And voting in the Senate 96% of the time with the Democrats. You're half right SirSaxa. He is always talking. And that's not Devil's Advocate, that's what his record tells me. To think otherwise is blind faith.

The message is clear with Obama-Biden (Pelosi-Reid): The Democrats are having their turn after the Republicans blew theirs. It won't be reaching across the aisle on which they will be judged. It will be results. They'll have all the power and if they don't do anything with it, they'll be run out of town like the Republicans.

Dems: you're on the clock.

Edited: Oh and Note: Colin Powell was in Bush's cabinet. Alan Greenspan was the chairman of the Fed under Clinton as well as Bush. Is Bush pragmatic and moderate? Let's get some perspective. Many of these guys will do anything to keep power. Sometimes "moderate" is "for hire."

[hifigator]

Oct 28, 2008 16:02:45 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

Oct 28, 2008 15:42:50 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Cambridge wrote:

I have faith (though not rock solid) in Obama's integrity, but I won't be surprised if he bends. I'll be very disappointed, but not surprised. It will be a huge mistake and a costly one for the American taxpayer if he bows to the left end of the Dem party and embraces all the "reforms" they are pushing. More entitlement programs will only further bankrupt the next generation.

Contrary to much popular belief, I do actually appreciate legitimate opinions from the other side, yours for example. That being said, I have heard several people suggest similar ideas as that which you have stated. Why exactly do you think ... or are so convinced that Obama will not go along with those "lefties" which you mention? In all honesty, I don't see the logic which would support the idea that he isn't "one of them" ... at least ideologically. The closest I see is that he isn't a "Washington Insider" ... at least not yet. But seriously, why are you so convinced that he isn't a typical liberal democrat? His voting record would certainly suggest that. If the left can harp on the fact that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the times, then it is reasonable to consider the Claims of Obama being "the most liberal Senator," based exclusively on his voting record.

Personally, I like what Obama has said about the family being the starting point. I like what he has said with respect to parents needing to take the lead with their children. Not that that is a "democrat" or "republican" position, but he does bring it up as a counter to simply throwing government money at the problem -- a view more associated with the political right. But aside from that, in virtually every other issue, he seems to be just another pie in the sky promiser from the left. Why do you think he isn't?

You know he represents a liberal constituency, right? If he was representing them, he would vote as they would. In such a contentious, partisan time period, it is no surprise that most members of congress voted with their party. Besides for all this "most liberal" label, Obama voted with the party less than Hillary, Biden, Schumer and 11 other Dem senators.

But I digress, I'm basing his viewpoints off his written work and speeches rather than votes. Basically, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he understands the difference between representing a district in state legislature or a state in the senate from representing the American people as president. While he is a Democrat, he is not a radical like Kuchinich

I am hoping -- and I have acknowledged this as somewhat fanciful, but why not be optimistic in tough times? -- that Obama will be able to return the presidency to the centrist, moderating role it has been in times past.

Despite my own political viewpoints being different on several key points, I'd rather have what appears to be a young, left of center, thoughtful, reflective leader who will give America and the world hope for tomorrow than an erratic, aging senator not known for his intellect who seems to have mortgaged every political value he's ever held (and all those I respected him for) in a desperate bid for the white house.

I will try to do this 1 by 1:

You know he represents a liberal constituency, right? If he was representing them, he would vote as they would. In such a contentious, partisan time period, it is no surprise that most members of congress voted with their party.

I totally understand that and that is why I prefaced my question in the juxtaposed context of the ever-so-frequently-heard, "McCain voted with the President 90% of the time." I think we both understand each other on this issue.


Basically, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he understands the difference between representing a district in state legislature or a state in the senate from representing the American people as president.

As are you, I hope you are right, but am quite a degree less optimistic. Ideologically, however, I totally agree. When you are elected to any position, you are done so for a reason. To oversimplify, you are elected to look after your constituents best interests. As with a President/CEO of a company, you are to maximize stockholders' wealth. There's zero doubt that Obama is quite interested in stakeholders' wealth in this context. Is that best for America? I would say no, but we could certainly discuss that. But getting back to your main point in this quote, I totally agree with the premise. It was why I didn't worry much about Giulliani and his gun ban policy in NYC. As mayor of NYC, he was looking out for his constituents. Under such a parameter, I understand his position. I'm not saying I would agree with it, but in fairness, I have never been there for 24 straight hours and probably less than 72 hours in my life. My point is that is that it is not only reasonable to expect someone to have a different position on an issue as a mayor of a town such as NYC than he does as President of the USA. The bottom line is that I agree with that part of your premise.


I am hoping -- and I have acknowledged this as somewhat fanciful, but why not be optimistic in tough times? -- that Obama will be able to return the presidency to the centrist, moderating role it has been in times past.

Once again I agree with your premise here, and have often stated the very same thing, here and everywhere else for that matter. Again, I would ask why you think that Obama fits this mold so well? I would argue that, at least from the position you claim, that McCain would be a "safer bet." McCain has consistently been a boat rocker. Obama has yet to really ride in the boat, so the verdict is still out. But from everything I can base my opinion on, Obama will likely call for smooth sailing with a properly aligned crew and mission, but will be virtual mutiny on any ship sailing in what he views as the wrong direction. (Sorry about the extended analogy ... I got a bit carried away ... as long as I don't have to walk the plank ...) nevermind ....
disregard the last few lines as that was the beer doing the typing


Despite my own political viewpoints being different on several key points, I'd rather have what appears to be a young, left of center, thoughtful, reflective leader who will give America and the world hope for tomorrow than an erratic, aging senator not known for his intellect who seems to have mortgaged every political value he's ever held (and all those I respected him for) in a desperate bid for the white house.

I totally understand your point here, but disagree with a part of it. I think that it is far more predictable what will happen with Obama than McCain. While that might seem to "fit" with your view, I think the "trump card" in this case, is that Obama will be put in charge with virtually no control. Regardless of who wins the White House, both houses of Congress will almost certainly be controlled by the dems, and scaringly close to the 60% level. If there is a President and a 60% control of both houses from the same party, then I think we would all agree that we could be in serious trouble. It's far too late to start this topic, and it is worthy of its own thread. I will try to remember to do so, but would not be offended in the slightest if someone else undertakes the task first.
Lastly, I would take issue with your "mortgaging every belief he ever had" for the White House statement.
Granted, he has changed/modified his views on issues. I, at least for one, have been very consistent in my dismissal of such claims now and in the past.

As I have said repeatedly, we have all changed our minds at times. We have all recognized that circumstances have changed and/or that we no longer think the same way as before. Most importantly, we have all learned that we might not have been right ... heck, I'll say it: We might have been WRONG in the past. While this isn't a blanket excuse for "filp-flopping" (ugh, I hate that term ...), I do think that such public acknowledgements are not ... or at least should not be thought of as "bad" or "wrong." In fact, I would say that such revelations could indicate superior character. (and I said could)

Either way, I do place very little merit either way on a "change" of position, at least in and of itself.

[Elvado]

Pelosi as Speaker of the House of Representatives (not speaker of the democrats in the house of representatives) has a duty which Delay never had, "real power"or not. There is a duty to be above the most petty and partisan because she speaks for the entire House, not merely her caucus.

It is a perception matter, though not an unimportant perception matter. To say she has failed in that role is a massive understatement.

[TC]

Elvado, seriously, after Newt Gingrich, you want to make that claim?

[quickplay]

Though Hastert had his positive moments of seeking bipartisanship (which have mostly now become looked over due to the myriad of controversies he was involved in over the last few years), the Speaker of the House of Representatives has never actually directed himself (or herself, including Pelosi) as Republican/Democrat blind.

I'm not saying Pelosi herself has been a good Speaker, but that the idea that her 'failure' to seek bipartisanship is somehow new or unique is not the case.

Furthermore (and this isn't a shot at you Elvado, more of a general point), I think the term 'bipartisanship' has basically become a neutered term. Both sides of the aisle moan and groan about the lack of it when they don't get their own way, but ignore it when they think they can get their way without the others' help.

Even if the term was always used genuinely, what is the desired role that bipartisanship should play? When the rhetoric is all pushed aside, there are often fundamental disagreements that the sides have on basic concepts and issues. Is the compromise to flex on the issue itself, or to allow Democrats to have their way on some issues and Republicans to have their way on others?

It's a term that can mean a lot of different things.

[hifigator]

To a degree I am inclined to agree with you quick. As oft-talked about as the term "bipartisan" is, it is still far more the exception rather than the rule and that goes for both major parties. In all honesty, who do you really think has been more centrist? Who has been more moderate? Who do you think has been more bipartisan? Everyone keeps mentioning voting record, and that is certainly important, but when it comes down to that, there are really only two choices, aye or nay. For the most part, by the time the bills get whittled down to the voting level, a tremendously high percentage have morphed into a different creature from whence they came. While it is certainly commendable to stand up to your party and cross lines by voting with the other side of the aisle, I'm not sure there are enough legitimate chances to do so, to accurately formulate an opinion on ideology. I think what the politicians say in debating bills says a lot more about their ideology than merely their voting record. But I understand that is almost impossible to incapsulate into a manageable form.

[Elvado]

I never claimed Gingrich had a successful ter mas speaker, did I? As pointed out above, Gingrich's failure is not Pelosi's success.

Finally, the term "bipartisan" as currently used by Madame Pelosi has the following definition:

I can get someone who doesn't want to do what I want to do it ifI have to cram it down their throat.

[SirSaxa]

Oct 29, 2008 12:53:28 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Finally, the term "bipartisan" as currently used by Madame Pelosi has the following definition:

I can get someone who doesn't want to do what I want to do it ifI have to cram it down their throat.

So you ARE suggesting she's taking her lead from DeLay... and Bush... and this entire administration.

[Cambridge]

Oct 29, 2008 13:13:26 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Oct 29, 2008 12:53:28 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Finally, the term "bipartisan" as currently used by Madame Pelosi has the following definition:

I can get someone who doesn't want to do what I want to do it ifI have to cram it down their throat.

So you ARE suggesting she's taking her lead from DeLay... and Bush... and this entire administration.

I don't think Elvado at any point claimed that DeLay, Bush or Hastert were perfect or bipartisan. You're just blurring the issue by making paper tiger arguments. Just because others were partisan doesn't make Pelosi's failures any less egregious.

[TC]

Pelosi is bipartisan. She and Frank and Dodd all worked with Bush on the bailout bill, which originated from a Republican President. The Senatorial Republicans and Democrats worked on it too.

The fact that the House Republicans didn't want to be bipartisan or even act like grownups is a problem with the House Republicans, not a failure of bipartisanship.

[Cambridge]

Oct 29, 2008 13:20:39 GMT -5 TC said:

Pelosi is bipartisan. She and Frank and Dodd all worked with Bush on the bailout bill, which originated from a Republican President. The Senatorial Republicans and Democrats worked on it too.

The fact that the House Republicans didn't want to be bipartisan or even act like grownups is a problem with the House Republicans, not a failure of bipartisanship.

One bill does not a bipartisan make, especially one as contentious as the "rescue"/"bailout."

[Elvado]

Thank you Cambridge. The carping about who is or is not willing to be "bipartisan" generally boils down to whose ox is being gored.

Elections have consequences. Madame Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House and appears well on her way to bulletproof majorities and a sympathetic ear in the White House. Let's see how she handles them.

Any suggestion that her conduct to date portends magnanimity or grace is fanciful at best.

[SirSaxa]

Oct 29, 2008 13:34:52 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Thank you Cambridge. The carping about who is or is not willing to be "bipartisan" generally boils down to whose ox is being gored.

Elections have consequences. Madame Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House and appears well on her way to bulletproof majorities and a sympathetic ear in the White House. Let's see how she handles them.

Any suggestion that her conduct to date portends magnanimity or grace is fanciful at best.

I don't disagree, but I have not seen anyone in this thread making that suggestion.

[TC]

I disagree. I think Pelosi's been fine. I think you need to take her in the context of the House Republicans and their ridiculous stunts.

You need two sides to want to be "bipartisan" and the House Republicans do not want to be bipartisan. So these claims that she's incapable of working with others seem ridiculous to me.

[EasyEd]

I don't expect Pelosi or Reid or Boehner or McConnell to be bi-partisan. I expect them to be partisan and I hope they will be so openly. They are leaders of their parties in the two houses of Congress and they have been elected on the basis of votes from the people who, supposedly, are backing what they espouse. This talk of bi-partisanship is so much bunk and posturing.

[Elvado]

Grading one child's juvenile behavior against another child's juvenile behavior is just fine. You get degrees of juvenile behavior.

Read my Disclaimer: NEWT and HASTERT behaved badly.

Now tell me how Madame Pelosi has behaved better.

[CO_Hoya]

Out of curiosity, can someone cite a few bipartisan, or perhaps better put "well-behaved," House speakers?

(No jab intended at anyone; I'm woefully ignorant of political history.)

[Boz]

James K. Polk

He was, after all, the Napoleon of the Stump!


(in all seriousness, I'm pretty sure Sam Rayburn is the gold standard for Speakers)