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

[NolaMan]

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.

I expect them to get things done that are actually good ideas. Not just do things for the sake of doing something.

"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.

Well, in 2006 the Democrats were in control of Congress. TARP did not come until 2008, so it is unfair to place that solely at the feet of Bush. As for the wars, I do not think that they have been a financial disaster. Think about it, what is the cost war? It is basically government stimulus... so if you argue that war spending has failed and destroyed the economy, then you basically are arguing that stimulus spending does not work... and by extension would be very much opposed to almost everything being done by the White House and Congress currently.

 

[somepeoplesay]

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.

- He removed the public option from the Health Care Bill
- He sent 1200 troops to the border due to conservative whining
- He arguably fired Van Jones
- Flipped on the 9/11 trial in New York due to more conservative whining
- Caved on providing real sex education, chose to continue the failed "abstinence-only" policy because of conservative christian whining
- Finally, he caved on restricting offshore drilling due to more conservative whining, how'd that work out?


The truth is that the Republicans are obstructionists and view any vote with Obama as a vote with the enemy. They truly are the party of no and the epitome of what is wrong with partisan politics in this country, they value their own party gaining power over what's best for the country. At least when the Democrats were in the minority, they didn't threaten to filibuster every bill they didn't agree with.

 

[the makeout hobo]

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

Why can't something be done to try to win over blue dogs AND moderate republicans?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Why can't something be done to try to win over blue dogs AND moderate republicans?

Because the Republicans will turn on any of their own who vote with the Democrats on any issue. You've got to admire their party discipline, even if it's largely used for nefarious purposes.

 

[Ockham]

Obama has tried to be bi-partisan, to a fault.

:lamo

Ahh gosh... that was a good one.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

From The Hill.



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.

Bi partisan is usually a political attempt at saying, "they won't do what we want them to."
No one is being "bi partisan."

As for the BP fund, is a stupid idea and still is.

 

[texmaster]

Because the Republicans will turn on any of their own who vote with the Democrats on any issue. You've got to admire their party discipline, even if it's largely used for nefarious purposes.

Paging Joe Lieberman

My God its been a while since I've seen this much hypocracy in one thread.

As many have pointed out its not the fact that Dems aren't including Republicans because they never have and vise versa. It is the lies Obama and the Democrats put out there about a "transparent" and "different kind of politician" that make it all the more amusing.

 

[Ockham]

Why can't something be done to try to win over blue dogs AND moderate republicans?

Well, the Blue Dogs tried that until Pelosi and Reid batted them around a bit and they fell in line, like good little soldiers during the Health Care debacle. Blue Dogs are a misnomer at this point - they calculate who can vote party line, and they do so depending on when they're up for re-election.

 

[Zyphlin]

- He removed the public option from the Health Care Bill

Because Blue Dogs wouldn't go along with the vote while it was in there, thus keeping them from voting it in.

- He sent 1200 troops to the border due to conservative whining

This is a legitimate one, however you present it as "due to conservative whining" when even the MSNBC piece about it suggest it was to pre-empt a Republican attempt to send a larger number. Still, this one at least falls mildly within the realm.

- He arguably fired Van Jones

Arguably key there, and this was a PR move not a bipartisan one.

- Flipped on the 9/11 trial in New York due to more conservative whining

Tenuous at best since you had the city he was moving it to having a number of its people complaining and the Mayor of the city himself petitioning the President not to put it there due to the safety and financial concerns. This had far more to do with dealing with local politics of NY then it had to do with attempting to be "bipartisan" with conservatives.

- Caved on providing real sex education, chose to continue the failed "abstinence-only" policy because of conservative christian whining

I'm confused on this? The most I've seen is that Obama's not actively pushed for legislation that changed it. Are we seriously going to consider not bothering with legislation "bipartisan" effort? If so, suddenly your stance on George Bush looks far different. Hey, GWB didn't get rid of that failed program of Welfare...he was bipartisan. Got a link to Obama openly pushing for abstinence only education to be placed in a bill?

- Finally, he caved on restricting offshore drilling due to more conservative whining, how'd that work out?

Oh, you mean the switch where he allowed off shore drilling........and in the exact same stroke disallowed drilling in other places of the United States thus playing a shell game where he can say "Look, we're allowing more domestic drilling" while simultaneously going "look, we're disallowing more domestic drilling".

Oh, and wonderful ignorant comment there. Lets see, since no actual additional off shore drilling substantially occurred, and had nothing to do with the current problem in the Gulf, I'd say its hard to really say how that work out.

These were your amazing examples of "Bipartisanship"? First, "Bipartisanship" to you apparently means "Giving in to whining" which is the most ignorant and childish explanation to why something happened I've ever seen and lacks any actual desire to have a real conversation. Second, your examples of "bipartisanship" seem to be a collection consisting of a move to get his OWN party on his side, a move to try and keep his opponents from pushing for an even larger action, removing political baggage that was harming his poll numbers, acquiescing to a cities dispute with the federal government mandating a trial to be held in their city, choosing not to make something a priority in his first 18 months to alter, and allowing something while simultaneously disallowing it elsewhere for a net wash.

Yes, stunning bipartisanship there.

:roll:

Thanks for proving my point. Its nothing but politics as usual, non-existent attempts at bipartisanship that are in no way aims at reaching across the aisle, working with the other side, or finding post partisan solutions but instead actions taken to mitigate "whining" which is translation to "negative public image" that have little to no real legislative effect in any way.

 

[Zyphlin]

Why can't something be done to try to win over blue dogs AND moderate republicans?

He can do it. It's just not attempting to be bipartisan or post partisan. Its not abandoning or giving up some of what he wants in an effort to get the other side to agree with him to form a piece of legislation that is agreeable to all sides. Its the realization that his views were unpassable as he couldn't even get his own party to agree with it and thus had to give up things to get ANY bit of what he wanted. It was not an attempt to work with the other side of the aisle, it was the realization that his side of the aisle wasn't even going along with what he was doing so he had to moderate what he wanted to get them with the hope that maybe some republicans would jump on board.

When you're trying to convince YOUR OWN PARTY to come vote with you that's not a symbol of bipartisanship, that's a symbol of someone that was pushing for something too extreme in general and thus had to moderate themselves out of necessity to just get their OWN majority let alone the other side, not out of a desire to reach across the aisle.

 

[NolaMan]

- He removed the public option from the Health Care Bill

Democrats in Congress effectively killed the public option...

- He sent 1200 troops to the border due to conservative whining

Who are unarmed..

- He arguably fired Van Jones

As he well should have.

- Flipped on the 9/11 trial in New York due to more conservative whining

Was not just Republicans against this either.

- Caved on providing real sex education, chose to continue the failed "abstinence-only" policy because of conservative christian whining

I don't care about this issue, so I won't really say anything here.

- Finally, he caved on restricting offshore drilling due to more conservative whining, how'd that work out?

Off-shore drilling is going to be a vital part of our life, like it or not. What petroleum based product are you willing to forgo?

The truth is that the Republicans are obstructionists and view any vote with Obama as a vote with the enemy. They truly are the party of no and the epitome of what is wrong with partisan politics in this country, they value their own party gaining power over what's best for the country. At least when the Democrats were in the minority, they didn't threaten to filibuster every bill they didn't agree with.

When Democrats were in the minority, the breakdown of the Senate was something like 49-50-1 or something like that. There is no real need for a filibuster in as many cases since it is hard to even get one party to agree on everything in a bill. You want to paint the Republicans as the party of "no", but you seem to think that anything they rightly disagree with makes them simply obstructionists. It seems you would rather the President do whatever he wanted.

 

[Zyphlin]

....

You gotta be kidding me my entire post just got erased


GHHHHHHHH


Sorry, will respond a bit later. Just had 30 minutes vanish

 

[jujuman13]

I think that they were attempting to be bi-partisan. At least the president was and so long as the GOP and everyone else agreed with his proposals that would have been fine.

 

[RightinNYC]

Which do you think will be more catchy with the public: The "BP 114" or the "BP #1"?

 

[apdst]

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.

Obama's idea of bi-partisanship, is everyone else agreeing with him.

 

[Zyphlin]

Okay, going to try this again and its going to be shorter then yesterdays I’m sure (stupid computer).

My issue is not with bipartisanship, or the lack there of. I actually detest Bipartisanship in the form it’s typically used in. Bipartisanship recently has essentially either meant “Doing what we want while throwing a few bones to the opposition so that if they disagree we can say they are obstructionists/hate America, and if a few do agree we can laud ourselves for being ‘bipartisan’ while their base flogs them come election time” OR it means “Okay, we’re going to get what we want but we’ll compromise to get LESS of it”. Republicans have been horrible with it recently too, and while Bush had some clear moments (No Child Left Behind, Immigration), so it is not just a democrat issue with not being bipartisan.

I actually dislike bipartisanship. I would have zero issue in general with Democrats not being bipartisan while they’re in control, and ditto for republicans. You got elected to office by your constituents, represent your constituents and push for things that you agree with and thus they agree with. If you have super majorities you’re going to get it. I may not like it, others may not like it, and we may fight like hell to oppose it and then later over turn it, but you’re doing your voters a disservice by not going for it. Likewise I WANT the minority, be it the republicans or dems, to do anything legal in their means to try to stop that which they staunchly disagree with because doing otherwise would be doing THEIR constituents a disservice. I guarantee you there’s few if any republicans that voted their representatives into place to pass cap and trade, government healthcare, buyouts of GM, extending welfare coverage, or other such things. If their representatives act “bipartisan” in passing those things, when “bipartisan” is just a few bones in exchange for signing their name onto something that 95% of it their constituents hate, then they’re doing their people a disservice.

The only time bipartisanship actually works close to how its mythically toted is when you have a situation, ala the later Clinton years, where one party has the Presidency and one party has a loose control of congress. This forms a necessity to actually come up with unique ideas and true compromises and is one of the few times where it leads to real new ideas and reform of processes.

My issue currently isn’t even honestly as much with the Democrats in congress. While it may be the case with some its not an issue with the majority that I know of. My issue is with the President, and it’s not the act of his lack of bipartisanship but his dishonesty and manipulation. It’s the fact that a major portion of his campaign was focused around changing politics as usual, bipartisanship, being post partisan, and changing the political climate. It’s the hypocrisy and dishonesty presented by him that bothers me. It’s the miniscule effort towards true honest bipartisanship that is not laced with obvious primary motives with “bipartisanship” a distant second more for political cover than an honest attempt at reaching across the aisle. Its informing people that “I won” in response to them voicing a possible objection to a plan he’s telling them they need to get on board with. Its lecturing senators that if they want to get included they need to stop listening to a radio personality. Even recently it’s the misrepresentation of Republicans doing a fully legal and often used senatorial method is them somehow “denying the American people what they deserve”. It’s the repeated flogging of the Republicans and the previous administration while in the exact same breath trying to talk about how we need to reject partisan politics of the past. Its blatant and dishonest hypocrisy.

Which is what annoys me so with this forum and many democrats that I want. Everytime there is a gay republican, not one that’s broke any law but his only problem is that he’s secretly gay, democrats and liberals come out of the wood work to insult, flame, and laugh at him and every republican for what they claim is the “hypocrisy” of it, as if such a thing is one step away from murder. And yet when there is hypocrisy on their own side so many turn a blind eye to it.

Though, why should I really be surprised. They’re simply taking after their parties highest official. After all, Obama had nothing horrible or negative to say when a person in the news media talks about the shivers running up his leg for him. Of course, if that comment was delivered by someone from Fox News or talk radio and was shivers of fear rather than adoration I’m sure we would’ve got a long diatribe about how senators better not be listening to such propaganda all wrapped up in a nice little speech about being “bipartisan”

 

[Deuce]

Which do you think will be more catchy with the public: The "BP 114" or the "BP #1"?

Large company donates more to Presidential election than it does to Senate/House election (but not by much!)

News at 11.

 

[RightinNYC]

Large company donates more to Presidential election than it does to Senate/House election (but not by much!)

News at 11.

Those are all-time figures, so it's difficult to write it off as just presidential results when Obama's take substantially exceeds the take of 2-term president and oilman GWB as well as long-term Senator and presidential candidate McCain.

Moreover, as I understand it, this thread isn't about whether these things actually indicate anything about the people in question, but about how these things will play out in the public. "Obama is the all-time largest recipient of BP donations" is far more catchy than "114 Republicans are members of a group that contains one guy who once said something that could be construed as supporting BP."

 

[Guy Incognito]

"Obama is the all-time largest recipient of BP donations" is far more catchy than "114 Republicans are members of a group that contains one guy who once said something that could be construed as supporting BP."

That's a less tenuous connection that most Republican attacks on Democrats. Death panels, anyone?

 

[RightinNYC]

That's a less tenuous connection that most Republican attacks on Democrats. Death panels, anyone?

And those were stupid too, the value of death panels notwithstanding.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Bi partisan is usually a political attempt at saying, "they won't do what we want them to."
No one is being "bi partisan."

As for the BP fund, is a stupid idea and still is.

Why do you think its a stupid idea? BP's actions are harming many people, and they should be forced to pay for the damage they caused.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Oh, you mean the switch where he allowed off shore drilling........and in the exact same stroke disallowed drilling in other places of the United States thus playing a shell game where he can say "Look, we're allowing more domestic drilling" while simultaneously going "look, we're disallowing more domestic drilling".

Oh, and wonderful ignorant comment there. Lets see, since no actual additional off shore drilling substantially occurred, and had nothing to do with the current problem in the Gulf, I'd say its hard to really say how that work out.

What are you talking about? He opened up the southern Atlantic coast and more of the Gulf to drilling, while making sure a few very sensitive ecological areas like Bristol Bay were specifically covered. Yes, he didn't open up the entire coast, but it expanded it a lot more than it had been before.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Why do you think its a stupid idea? BP's actions are harming many people, and they should be forced to pay for the damage they caused.

They were already paying before the fund was even established, not only that but they are paying more than the cap on damages.
Adding that the fund will be paid into over 3 years.

It was a political stunt because a bunch of nincompoops said Obama wasn't doing anything/enough.

 

[the makeout hobo]

He can do it. It's just not attempting to be bipartisan or post partisan. Its not abandoning or giving up some of what he wants in an effort to get the other side to agree with him to form a piece of legislation that is agreeable to all sides. Its the realization that his views were unpassable as he couldn't even get his own party to agree with it and thus had to give up things to get ANY bit of what he wanted. It was not an attempt to work with the other side of the aisle, it was the realization that his side of the aisle wasn't even going along with what he was doing so he had to moderate what he wanted to get them with the hope that maybe some republicans would jump on board.

When you're trying to convince YOUR OWN PARTY to come vote with you that's not a symbol of bipartisanship, that's a symbol of someone that was pushing for something too extreme in general and thus had to moderate themselves out of necessity to just get their OWN majority let alone the other side, not out of a desire to reach across the aisle.

I'm not sure if you even read what I was asking... I was asking why something can't be designed to appeal to moderates on both sides. You seem to have this idea that if it is designed to appeal to moderate republicans AND moderate Democrats it can't be bipartisan. The blue dogs are conservative enough that they generally want the same things as what few moderate republicans there are. It seems to me that something that would win over one group would win over the other... assuming there are any republicans left outside of Maine in the GOP

 

[the makeout hobo]

They were already paying before the fund was even established, not only that but they are paying more than the cap on damages.
Adding that the fund will be paid into over 3 years.

It was a political stunt because a bunch of nincompoops said Obama wasn't doing anything/enough.

Then what is the issue with making sure the pay out is being done fairly and efficiently? We've already seen BP can't police themselves on these things. A third party is needed.