HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Oct 29, 2008 14:40:21 GMT -5
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.) Many former members of Congress- both Democrats and Republicans cite the late Speaker Tip O'Neill. Speaker O'Neill served during the Reagan administration and worked with Reagan to pass important legislation while still opposing Reagan almost every step of the way. Former Members of Congress talk not only about the vigorous debates of that era, but the time that they spent having a beer with members of the other side after having it out on the House Floor. Another difference from that era to where we are now is the fact that Representatives are now on a constant campaign. This has been brought on by the explosive costs of running a campaign and the 24-hour news cycle. However, Tip had it right- wear your opinions on your sleeve but get things done with the other side behind closed doors.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 29, 2008 14:44:48 GMT -5
Yeah, NY, I was going to mention him. I didn't like him much at the time, but looking back, the blend of the democratic congress and the Republican leadership in the executive branch did work pretty well overall. I think you could say similar things only in reverse about much of the successes of the 90's.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Oct 29, 2008 16:00:09 GMT -5
I think you could say similar things only in reverse about much of the successes of the 90's. Um, perhaps you missed that impeachment thing that went on?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 29, 2008 16:06:11 GMT -5
Newt was pretty much gone by the time the impeachment happened. Or a non-factor. I can't remember when he resigned but I'm pretty sure by that time he had been replaced as Speaker, no? I could be wrong on that one, but I don't think so.
He blundered huge with the shutdown, no question. If it hadn't been for that, I think he actually worked with Clinton a lot on many other measures, though unsuccessfully in many cases. Certainly a lot more than Pelosi and Bush have worked together.
Of course, that's like saying: other than that iceberg, HMS Titanic had a pretty good voyage. ;D
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 29, 2008 16:13:40 GMT -5
I think Ed makes a strong point about bipartisanship. Outside of the difficulties I brought up in even defining it or when to use it, is it inherently a good thing?
Bush's approval rating is at 22%. I don't think anyone would argue at this point that his presidency hasn't been a disaster. What is Pelosi's incentive for working well with him and to seek 'bipartisanship?'
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 29, 2008 16:20:13 GMT -5
Possibly because her approval rating is even lower?
Nancy Pelosi barely even breaks 35% approval among Democrats, let alone anyone else.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 29, 2008 16:31:20 GMT -5
I think you could say similar things only in reverse about much of the successes of the 90's. Um, perhaps you missed that impeachment thing that went on? What the hell are you talking about you tw** ... Let me try to spell it out for you: Reagan had a democratic congress to "work with." Clinton had a republican congress to work with for the most part. Perhaps that lended itself to a positive level of productivity. Why in the world would that be difficult to understand? Obviously I didn't say that in either case, they were best buddies.
|
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Oct 29, 2008 21:11:49 GMT -5
I think America rightly sees what bipartisanship will be worth in correcting eight years of miserably poor government: nothing. And I also think they see an effective tamper on the potential excesses of a Democratically leaning legislative branch, something even a potential GWB SCOTUS nom saw: Once a piece is set, the president also sends a letter or fax and makes a follow-up phone call to each author. Federal Judge Michael W. McConnell, who was nominated by President Bush and has frequently been mentioned as one of Bush’s potential Supreme Court nominees, recalls receiving one such letter and call in early 1990 for his article “The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion.”
McConnell told Politico, “A frequent problem with student editors is that they try to turn an article into something they want it to be. It was striking that Obama didn’t do that. He tried to make it better from my point of view.” McConnell was impressed enough to urge the University of Chicago Law School to seek Obama out as an academic prospect. In the end, though, Obama's time on the Review mirrored other aspects of his life. Even in the staunchly liberal milieus in which he has spent his entire adult life, Obama has managed to lead without leaving a clear ideological stamp, and to respect — and even, at times, to embrace — opposing views. To his critics, that's a sign of a lack of core beliefs. To his admirers, it's the root of his appeal.
"To understand what someone else is trying to say isn't just an editorial skill," said McConnell. "It's a life skill.” How about testimonials from those who worked on the fractured HLR including a GWB WH counsel: Absolutely right, absolutely right. I think Barack took 10 times as much grief from those on the left on the Review as from those of us on the right. And the reason was, I think there was an expectation among those editors on the left that he would affirmatively use the modest powers of his position to advance the cause, whatever that was. They thought, you know, finally there's an African American president of the Harvard Law Review; it's our turn, and he should aggressively use this position, and his authority and his bully pulpit to advance the political or philosophical causes that we all believe in.
And Barack was reluctant to do that. It's not that he was out of sympathy with their views, but his first and foremost goal, it always seemed to me, was to put out a first-rate publication. And he was not going to let politics or ideology get in the way of doing that. ...
He had some discretion as president to exercise an element of choice for certain of the positions on the masthead; it wasn't wide discretion, but he had some. And I think a lot of the minority editors on the Review expected him to use that discretion to the maximum extent possible to empower them. To put them in leadership positions, to burnish their resumes, and to give them a chance to help him and help guide the Review. He didn't do that. He declined to exercise that discretion to disrupt the results of votes or of tests that were taken by various people to assess their fitness for leadership positions.
He was unwilling to undermine, based on the way I viewed it, meritocratic outcomes or democratic outcomes in order to advance a racial agenda. That earned him a lot of recrimination and criticism from some on the left, particularly some of the minority editors of the Review. ...
It confirmed the hope that I and others had had at the time of the election that he would basically be an honest broker, that he would not let ideology or politics blind him to the enduring institutional interests of the Review. It told me that he valued the success of his own presidency of the Review above scoring political points of currying favor with his political supporters. I hope Republicans remember after this election what America chose, and that simple Gingrich-esque politics of opposition will cost much more than an unrestrained sprint toward socialism.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Oct 29, 2008 22:50:19 GMT -5
I am probably voting for Obama, and I outright admit that some of that is based on pure "hope" that he will not be a complete left-wing nut working with a Democratic majority in the legislative branch. But I find it pathetic and pretty scary that supporters have to go to his time with the Harvard Law Review to cite examples of his leadership, bipartisanship, etc. Yikes.
|
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Oct 29, 2008 23:58:08 GMT -5
Okay, but I am not trying to cite examples of leadership, bipartisanship, etc. I am trying to demonstrate character, judgment and temperament that have remained consistent throughout the years. Besides, the American ideal remains rooted in support of meritocracy, regardless of what the depots of nepotism would relate.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 30, 2008 11:23:19 GMT -5
It sure would be nice to see those tapes of Obama and Rashid Khalidi.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 30, 2008 11:58:17 GMT -5
Really? You really care? You know, I've been in the same room as him too...he taught at Georgetown. I guess I'm never running for President. I'm sorry, but this is the biggest non-issue I've ever heard. Khalidi is fairly renowned as the preeminent scholar on the Middle East and has very moderate viewpoints on the politics. The fact that he has criticized Israeli policy, while acknowledging the failures of the Palestinians does not make him anti-semetic or a terrorist. This is just sickening.
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Oct 30, 2008 12:16:07 GMT -5
Yeah, to be honest I don't get the deal with Khalidi. They keep on mentioning his name and how he is a "Palestinian scholar" as if that equates with suicide bomber. I haven't seen any real presentation of his views, so I don't know if he is extremely anti-Zionist or what, but this seems absolutely ridiculous. This isn't like BO's association with Ayers (which I consider far more relevant) -- a domestic terrorist who, to this day, is unabashedly without remorse.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 30, 2008 12:21:36 GMT -5
I actually believe that the non-release of these tapes benefits McCain than their release would. It fosters the belief that he is being screwed and people's imagination about what is on the tape will always be worse than the tape itself.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Oct 30, 2008 12:40:13 GMT -5
I actually believe that the non-release of these tapes benefits McCain than their release would. It fosters the belief that he is being screwed and people's imagination about what is on the tape will always be worse than the tape itself. Agreed. And maybe McCain remembers giving a grant of a half-million dollars to the guy, so he probably doesn't want to "go there" on this one.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 30, 2008 12:46:59 GMT -5
I don't know what is on the tapes, nor do any of you. Elvado makes a decent point insofar as to say that by not releasing the tapes there is some appearance of evil so to speak. But on the other hand, if there wasn't anything incriminating, then logic would say that there is nothing to hide. I understand protecting your sources and as soon as you start violating that trust, then you will no longer be privy to priledged information. I'm just saying that I would like to see them for myself.
Secondly, at some point ... at some point, it is reasonable to question the ideology of a man running for President. Everytime something comes up, there is some excuse from the left explaining away this or that. When you have on your resume' assorted relationships with Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Khalidi and who knows who all else, then it does beg the question of just what this guy thinks. Saying that he "is" any of those people is akin to saying that McCain "is" George W. Bush. Neither makes any sense. But it is reasonable to question the makeup of someone who has such a consistent track record of socializing with such characters. Some of you on the left seem to think that even asking the question is inappropriate. It isn't.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Oct 30, 2008 12:50:31 GMT -5
I actually believe that the non-release of these tapes benefits McCain than their release would. It fosters the belief that he is being screwed and people's imagination about what is on the tape will always be worse than the tape itself. Not releasing the tape was one of the source's conditions for giving it to the LA Times. It's called "looking up" people. It's better than conspiracy theories.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Oct 30, 2008 12:58:02 GMT -5
I don't know what is on the tapes, nor do any of you. Elvado makes a decent point insofar as to say that by not releasing the tapes there is some appearance of evil so to speak. But on the other hand, if there wasn't anything incriminating, then logic would say that there is nothing to hide. I understand protecting your sources and as soon as you start violating that trust, then you will no longer be privy to priledged information. I'm just saying that I would like to see them for myself. Secondly, at some point ... at some point, it is reasonable to question the ideology of a man running for President. Everytime something comes up, there is some excuse from the left explaining away this or that. When you have on your resume' assorted relationships with Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Khalidi and who knows who all else, then it does beg the question of just what this guy thinks. Saying that he "is" any of those people is akin to saying that McCain "is" George W. Bush. Neither makes any sense. But it is reasonable to question the makeup of someone who has such a consistent track record of socializing with such characters. Some of you on the left seem to think that even asking the question is inappropriate. It isn't. I'm sorry, what's Khalidi's great sin? Having an Arab name? You could have least tried to disguise the racism this time.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 30, 2008 12:58:33 GMT -5
I've never suggested that the L.A. Times did anything wrong. Their initial response was to say the story was reported on and over. Only when pressed later did they mention a confidential source. I take them at their word that the source is confidential and release precluded.
My impression remains that McCain is better off wothout the tapes being released.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 30, 2008 12:58:54 GMT -5
I think what McCain campaign/Republicans are going for here is a cumulative effect. I really don't think they care all that much about this tape at all. But it adds to two themes: Obama's bad judgment in his relationships and media bias against McCain.
Personally, as I've said many, many times, I can think of lots of reasons why I don't want to vote for Obama that do not involve Bill Ayers, Tony Rezco (who the Republicans also brought up again today, by the way), Rev. Wright or Khalidi. Let Hannity obsess about those things.
But, just for the sake of argument, I do think if McCain or the Republicans are going to go this route, then it's a mistake not to bring Wright back into the conversation. Let me reiterate, I don't think that's what they SHOULD do, but if they're going to do it, which they are, then he's got to be part of that offensive. People are going to call them racists anyway, so might as well talk about the guy Obama was closer to than any of these other people.
|
|