• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dems mount effort to label house GOP as 'The BP 114'

somepeoplesay

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
198
Reaction score
74
Location
Austin, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
From The Hill.

Democrats sought to bunch together House Republican members of a committee critical of a $20 billion oil spill relief account funded by BP, labeling them "The BP 114."

Democrats are trying to explicitly tie the 114-member Republican Study Committee (RSC) to a top Republican's apology to BP this week for the government's actions to compel BP to create the $20 billion fund to pay out claims to victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) took steps this weekend to cast RSC members as in agreement with Rep. Joe Barton's (R-Texas) apology to BP CEO Tony Hayward during a hearing this past week through its extensive email list and an online ad buy.

At issue are remarks similar in tone by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the chairman of the group of House conservatives, along some other members of the group, that were critical of the fund. Price said the creation of the fund was a result of "Chicago-style shakedown politics" by President Barack Obama and his administration, which pressured BP into creating the relief fund.

(Barton called the account a "slush fund," and echoed the "shakedown" claim.)

Many RSC members have been sharply critical of Barton's apologetic remarks to Hayward on Thursday. Reps. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) and Joe Bonner (R-Ala.) have demanded Barton's resignation as ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Two other members of the study committee who also serve as members of leadership, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) and Conference Chairman Mike Pence (Ind.), have also called Barton's remarks "wrong."

Still, Democrats have gone to great lengths to portray RSC members' views as in lockstep with Barton's sentiments.

"While a Republicans criticized Barton once he became a PR problem, not a single member disagreed with the RSC attack on the accountability fund which happened the day before Barton's comments," noted DNC national press secretary Hari Sevugan.

To that end, the DNC sent out emails to the districts of the 114 members of the committee, which included tools allowing recipients to easily call local radio stations and express opinions on the members. The DNC also started running Google ads redirecting users who search for members of the committee to a Democratic-hosted page criticizing RSC members for their views on the oil spill.



"Rep. Price stated from the very beginning that BP should be held fully responsible for this tragedy. Rather than focus on responding competently to this crisis, Democrats are focused entirely on playing politics to cover up their lack of leadership," said Price spokesman Ryan Murphy. "The American people are looking for solutions not the same, tired political games. Republicans have solutions and that is why the Democrats are now grasping at political straws."

The "BP 114" effort is part of a broader political push by Democrats in Congress and the White House to capitalize on Barton's remarks, which the DNC claimed was a "pivot point" in the debate over the oil spill. President Barack Obama had been suffering from flagging approval ratings over his handling of the ecological crisis, but Democrats seized on Barton's controversial statement in an effort to get traction on the spill as an issue.

So the Democrats have finally decided to leave their bi-partisan fantasy world, maybe Obama finally realized that the Republicans will oppose anything and everything he does? Now, if they also choose to highlight some crazy tea-party rhetoric, we're in for some real fireworks in November.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So the Democrats have finally decided to leave their bi-partisan fantasy world

And thank God for that, now maybe they can actually get something accomplished. As for the BP 114-- I love that title, by the way-- I suspect we'll be seeing it reduced to the BP 100 or so after November.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Wait, the past 18 months was them trying to be bipartisan?

...jesus christ...

If that was bipartisan god help us once they try to focus singularly on their partisanship.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
49,477
Reaction score
29,174
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Wait, the past 18 months was them trying to be bipartisan?

...jesus christ...

If that was bipartisan god help us once they try to focus singularly on their partisanship.

I think that they were attempting to be bi-partisan. At least the president was. However, I believe that the gulf between dems and reps is bigger than most people give credence to.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Presidents presentation of "bipartisanship" thus far has essentially been "We won, deal with it, either get on board with what we want and we'll call it bipartisan or don't and we're going to call you obstructionists".

The only thing thus far that he's compromised on was the Health Care plan, and that was to get his own party on board with it.

From the moment he's taken office he's taken shots at Republicans and the former Republican President at every chance possible while talking out the other side of his mouth about "a post partisan era". He's narry a word for the media when they are completely off balance, fawning over him, showing none of the "intellectual honesty" that was used to explain their constant questioning and triple checking of Bush throughout his entire Presidency and yet has routinely over 18 months attacked Fox News and personally either through his words or individuals from his administration gone after commentators. Each and every time that Republicans don't go along with something that is solidly liberal in ideology they're talked about as obstructionists and playing partisan politics, while never once possibly acknowleding that the exact same can be said for himself and his side.

I'm sorry, don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining. This has been no change from politics as usual, no post partisan era, this has not been a deep attempt at bipartisanship, this has been pure stereotypical politics and nothing but. The only times any remote effort at bipartisanship has been made is when its simply keeping to a campaign promise (such as some of the tax things) that he had made to get the populist vote, to woo his own party over, or done alongside broadscale insults and innuendo designed to make the republicans look bad and take a hit regardless of whether they go along with the "bipartisan" deal or not.
 

soccerboy22

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
10,721
Reaction score
4,120
Location
A warm place
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Wait, the past 18 months was them trying to be bipartisan?

...jesus christ...

If that was bipartisan god help us once they try to focus singularly on their partisanship.

I agree I think at time the President was attempting to be bi-partisan (not that many mind you), but the fools in Congress weren't willing to be at all.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I think that they were attempting to be bi-partisan. At least the president was. However, I believe that the gulf between dems and reps is bigger than most people give credence to.

No Democrats nor Obama were attempting to be bi-partisan. They just play that on television.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
But neither were Republicans...

Only the majority needs bi-partisanship for political cover. You know... in case things backfire they have denyability by pointing fingers at the other side and wailing "But they voted for it tooo... waaaaaa!" That's about all bi-partisanship is needed in Washington. God forbid if these politicians actually had the people they represent in mind.
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,368
Reaction score
8,100
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Democrat party has reduced itself to such childishness. When you have no ideas, you invent crap like this.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
But neither were Republicans...

Correct.

There's one huge difference however.

One of those groups of people ran on a message of "Changing Politics as usual", sweeping in a "post partisan era", and promising to find bipartisan solutions to america's biggest problem.

One of those groups continually criticizes the other for not being "bipartisan" while continually and utterly turning a blind eye to their own.

I have absolutely no problem or issue if Obama and the Democrats don't want to be bipartisan. I do have an issue when you make that kind of notion a central portion of your campaign and something you continually act like you represent when you don't. My issue with them is not their failure to act bi-partisan, my issue with them is their two faced political double speak and manipulative political games...otherwise known as "politics as usual".
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
32,237
Reaction score
36,252
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Democrat party has reduced itself to such childishness. When you have no ideas, you invent crap like this.

Yeah cause the Republicans have never invented anything...

Can anyone say... Death Panels?
 

soccerboy22

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
10,721
Reaction score
4,120
Location
A warm place
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Correct.

There's one huge difference however.

One of those groups of people ran on a message of "Changing Politics as usual", sweeping in a "post partisan era", and promising to find bipartisan solutions to america's biggest problem.

One of those groups continually criticizes the other for not being "bipartisan" while continually and utterly turning a blind eye to their own.

I have absolutely no problem or issue if Obama and the Democrats don't want to be bipartisan. I do have an issue when you make that kind of notion a central portion of your campaign and something you continually act like you represent when you don't. My issue with them is not their failure to act bi-partisan, my issue with them is their two faced political double speak and manipulative political games...otherwise known as "politics as usual".

This was actually the most upsetting broken campaign promise to me that President Obama ran with.
 

somepeoplesay

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
198
Reaction score
74
Location
Austin, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Presidents presentation of "bipartisanship" thus far has essentially been "We won, deal with it, either get on board with what we want and we'll call it bipartisan or don't and we're going to call you obstructionists".

Obama has tried to be bi-partisan, to a fault. In fact, he tried to be SO bi-partisan that he bent over backward to appease conservative fear mongers, such as removing all end of life counseling from the Health Care bill due to the "Death Panel" lie perpetuated by Palin and Reps in the house. The President you just described is George W. Bush, he didn't give a rat's ass about the minority party and had a very "my way or the highway" approach to legislature.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
53,909
Reaction score
35,248
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Wait, the past 18 months was them trying to be bipartisan?

...jesus christ...

If that was bipartisan god help us once they try to focus singularly on their partisanship
.

it was like trying to clap with but one hand
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
81,601
Reaction score
49,863
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Wait, the past 18 months was them trying to be bipartisan?

...jesus christ...

If that was bipartisan god help us once they try to focus singularly on their partisanship.

Both parties always say "bi-partishan" this and that, neither party puts up though when they are in charge.
 

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
7,102
Reaction score
1,504
Location
Sacramento, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The Presidents presentation of "bipartisanship" thus far has essentially been "We won, deal with it, either get on board with what we want and we'll call it bipartisan or don't and we're going to call you obstructionists".

The only thing thus far that he's compromised on was the Health Care plan, and that was to get his own party on board with it.

From the moment he's taken office he's taken shots at Republicans and the former Republican President at every chance possible while talking out the other side of his mouth about "a post partisan era". He's narry a word for the media when they are completely off balance, fawning over him, showing none of the "intellectual honesty" that was used to explain their constant questioning and triple checking of Bush throughout his entire Presidency and yet has routinely over 18 months attacked Fox News and personally either through his words or individuals from his administration gone after commentators. Each and every time that Republicans don't go along with something that is solidly liberal in ideology they're talked about as obstructionists and playing partisan politics, while never once possibly acknowleding that the exact same can be said for himself and his side.

I'm sorry, don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining. This has been no change from politics as usual, no post partisan era, this has not been a deep attempt at bipartisanship, this has been pure stereotypical politics and nothing but. The only times any remote effort at bipartisanship has been made is when its simply keeping to a campaign promise (such as some of the tax things) that he had made to get the populist vote, to woo his own party over, or done alongside broadscale insults and innuendo designed to make the republicans look bad and take a hit regardless of whether they go along with the "bipartisan" deal or not.

There were several instances where the Dems offered to make concessions to get something passed, or made those concessions, and the GOP completely refused to budge. The GOP has flat out stated their strategy is to obstruct the democrats at every single turn, and then run with the message that the dems can't get anything done.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Obama has tried to be bi-partisan, to a fault. In fact, he tried to be SO bi-partisan that he bent over backward to appease conservative fear mongers, such as removing all end of life counseling from the Health Care bill due to the "Death Panel" lie perpetuated by Palin and Reps in the house. The President you just described is George W. Bush, he didn't give a rat's ass about the minority party and had a very "my way or the highway" approach to legislature.

Please show me some examples of him bending over backwards to "appease conservative fear mongers" that was not:

1. Trying to keep a campaign promise
2. Trying to woo people to vote for what he wants that were IN HIS PARTy
3. Was done without being accompanied with insults, attacks, and accusations

The "Death Panel" thing was not a "bipartisan compromise". Did the Republicans shoot out a lot of propoganda about it? Absolutely. So much so that it started causing moderate democrats to back out of the bill unless it was stripped out. That was for the benefit of HIS PARTY, not for "bipartisanship."

And while George Bush was by no means "Mr. Bipartisan" I can think of two huge ones off the top of my head with the Ted Kennedy assisted No Child Left Behind and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform that his own party and constituents hated but he went along with Democrats on trying to pass it as comprehensive first and foremost. Not to mention bipartisanship and post partisan was not NEARLY as huge planks of his campaign as they were of Obama's.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There were several instances where the Dems offered to make concessions to get something passed, or made those concessions, and the GOP completely refused to budge. The GOP has flat out stated their strategy is to obstruct the democrats at every single turn, and then run with the message that the dems can't get anything done.

Care to quote me the specific things that were not doubly aimed at attempting to win over blue dog democrats?
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Followed by How to make excuses for being complete Hypocrites 101.

Perhaps someone should look up what a hypocrite is before making idiotic statements.

Saying one thing while doing another is a hypocrite. IE saying you're going to be bipartisan, and then NOT, is hypocritical

Not doing something, but never saying you're going to do it, is not being a hypocrite. IE not being bipartisan but also not running on a platform of "we're going to be bipartisan".

Perhaps before trying to make witty comments that bomb harder than Little Boy you should actually try to think of what you're trying to articulate first.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And thank God for that, now maybe they can actually get something accomplished. As for the BP 114-- I love that title, by the way-- I suspect we'll be seeing it reduced to the BP 100 or so after November.


......So, they hold the White House, the Senate, and House, all in commanding fashion, and it is Republicans who prevent anything from being accomplished? What dream world are you living in?

I would be interested in how the government came up with this $20 billion number exactly, and how exactly it is legal without BP being found to be grossly negligent as of yet. Isn't there a $75 million cap in the absence of this finding?

Should those who have been hurt by the oil spill get compensation? Yes.
Should the government demand that BP front $20 billion without established what their liability will be under the law? I would argue no.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
......So, they hold the White House, the Senate, and House, all in commanding fashion, and it is Republicans who prevent anything from being accomplished? What dream world are you living in?
What dream world are you living in where I said the Republicans prevented anything? :lol: It's Democratic incompetence that prevents them from achieving anything, obviously, but the only people more ineffectual than the Democrats have been the Republicans. Maybe now that they aren't wasting their time courting Republican obstructionists they can actually get something done.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What dream world are you living in where I said the Republicans prevented anything? :lol: It's Democratic incompetence that prevents them from achieving anything, obviously, but the only people more ineffectual than the Democrats have been the Republicans. Maybe now that they aren't wasting their time courting Republican obstructionists they can actually get something done.

The whole idea that Republicans should run from their core platform just to "get something done" seems a little ridiculous to me. Blocking massive spending increases when they can, and other huge government programs is a good idea. Perhaps they did not have the best track record of doing that under Bush, but it is good they are finally standing up for their core values more or less.

What is it that you hope Democrats can now "accomplish" exactly?
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The whole idea that Republicans should run from their core platform just to "get something done" seems a little ridiculous to me.
I guess that's the difference between you and me. I expect my elected officials to "get things done" and you expect them to stand in the way of getting things done while multinational corporations run amok and pillage our economy.

Blocking massive spending increases when they can, and other huge government programs is a good idea. Perhaps they did not have the best track record of doing that under Bush, but it is good they are finally standing up for their core values more or less.

"Perhaps they didn't have the best track record of doing that under Bush" is the understatement of the year, my friend. Two financially disastrous unnecessary wars and a $700 billion Bush-bailout can't just be swept under the rug so easily.
 
Top Bottom