[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Card check and labor unions are one issue. She's pro-labor, which aligns with the positions of the constituents in her area of the state.

..and pro-labor union is something normally supported by Democrats or Republicans? You aren't helping your case.

I don't know what "supported tax increases" means, you'll have to be more specific than that. Same for "socialist health care program", that's just noise.

You know...the one where all the people can get government sponsored health care even if you can't afford it.

Wrong - his campaign was focused on him being the opposite of George W. Bush. Not an alternate John McCain. The word he used over and over again was "Change" - that doesn't imply a slight move in a moderate direction from where we were.

Wrong. While he did campaign "anti-Bush", the gist of the "change" they marketed was exactly as I described. "Post Partisan", "Post Racial" agent for "change" the American people want.:

GOP Doubts, Fears 'Post-Partisan' Obama - washingtonpost.com

Exploiting a deep well of voter revulsion over partisan gridlock in Washington, Sen. Barack Obama is promising to do something that has not been done in modern U.S. politics: unite a coalition of Democrats, Republicans and independents behind an agenda of sweeping change.

This was exactly McCain's "unique selling position" as a candidate. McCain was known as the guy who could get two sides to come together in the middle and get things done with compromise. That's what was appealing to moderates and independents concerning McCain. That WAS McCain's record as a politician. He not only talked the talk, but walked the walk. Obama on the other hand....

(from the same WaPo article)

In Obama's first years in the Senate, he showed little interest in the middle, where moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats coalesce, often to thwart their leadership.

In 2006, he won a 95 percent rating from Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal rating group, and a 93 percent rating from the AFL-CIO. In 2005, both groups gave him ratings of 100 percent. In contrast, the American Conservative Union ranked him at 8 percent, the same figure awarded to Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), two unapologetic liberals.

So while he didn't fool ME, and I knew his recored as a partisan liberal who had little interest in serving the "middle", that's not how his campaign was marketing him. They were marketing him as if he had the same essential goals as McCain.

You might need a refresher course on what an "election" is. You see, it's when somebody promises to do certain things, and tells people all across the country that if you vote for him, he'll actually do those things he's promising to do. And if he wins, then he actually tries to do the things he went around telling people he was going to do.

..and yet, he's made almost no attempt at being a "post partisan" uniter who will bring both sides together and support "change" that would come from the middle as McCain WOULD HAVE.

The whole point of winning an election is a "partisan power grab". Republicans lost in 2008 - big time. What the hell? You think he was supposed to come into office and say "now I know I promised universal health care and government solutions to fix the huge economic downturn, and voters decided by picking me that this is what the majority of you want, but I don't want to offend my Republican friends, so I'm not gonna do anything I promised, and just do things the Republicans want instead." WTF?

The majority did not want big left-wing, tax eating programs. Obama campaigned on "paying as you go" and tax cuts. He campaigned on generic "change" and his post-partisan, post racial ability to bring people together, THAT DOES NOT EXIST. What he was supposed to do is focus on "change" that most Americans want and that he can get a broad coalition to support. That's what his campaign marketed his Presidency as, and that's what he's failing miserably at.

No middle-class taxes have been raised.

...yet. Many in the middle class will face huge tax increases if the current health care proposals pass, and he promised LOWER middle class taxes - TAX CUTS for just about everyone but the ultra-rich. I've yet to see any proposals for cutting my taxes. His programs are blowing the budget out of the water with programs we can't afford and it's highly unlikely there can be any room for any tax cuts since they'll likely have to raise taxes to pay for everything.

That's on top of "cap and tax" which if implemented will be a tax on EVERYONE in the form of higher energy costs. When low to middle income people have to spend a lot more each month out of their pocket because of something Obama supported, that's really no different than a tax.

Conservatives assume taxes WILL be raised, but middle-class Americans have received a tax cut. That's a fact.

I'm as middle classed as middle class gets and I've not got a dime of my taxes cut and unless I tow the line as Obama sees it in regards to energy and health care, I can expect to pay a lot more of my salary for the programs Obama wants.

Either way, none of this relates your central premise, that he's moved to the left unexpectedly. During the campaign, Obama explicitly promised more government spending on green economy, universal health care, and a host of other areas. It's sitting there in plain sight on the Obama web site. Now that he's slowly executing on all those promises, how is any of this a surprise?

It's not to me. I knew he was lying. I knew he was on the "left" and wouldn't really seek to implement change that could be supported by a coalition of Republicans and Democrats. Unlike McCain, he has had virtually no record of doing this. McCain was fairly conservative on a lot of issues, but was known to compromise in order to get legislation passed as Obama marketed himself as being able to do as well. He can't even get a single Republican on board for his primary focus - health care. He's doing EXACTLY as Clinton did back after getting elected - exactly what caused the Democrats the loss of the House and Senate after years of control.

AGAIN - if he'd just be that post-partisan, post-racial uniter for change most everyone wants he'd be a success I feel. Maybe not to those that comprise his far left base, or those who oppose him on the far right, but average Americans would support him in droves. Bill Clinton learned the power of triangulation and had bullet-proof approval numbers. Obama to do the same would really require him to come out on the right of Pelosi and Reid and be more in league with the type of changes that the "blue dog" Democrats are striving for. I don't see that happening, and I see Obama continuing to make the same mistakes Bill Clinton learned from.

All irrelevant opinionated crap. Where in this part of your rant does it say that Obama is doing something vastly more liberal than what he promised during the campaign?

See above. I can point you to dozens of articles from reputable sources that discuss the Obama campaign's insistence that Obama would be a post-partisan, post-racial agent of "change" that will bring together a coalition of Republicans and Democrats together to get things done. That can't be done if you stick to being "more liberal" and won't budge from the left to get to the middle. John McCain promised to be conservative, but his record shows that his pragmatism lead him to compromise often, getting a "moderate" reputation. That's exactly what Obama was dishonestly marketing himself against:

Republicans in Washington view Obama's "post-partisan" political appeal with a mixture of skepticism and fear. They are skeptical, they say, because the first-term senator's thin record has shown virtually no sign of bipartisanship. They are fearful because his appeal just might work.

"It's clear he is a phenomenon," said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), a conservative scrapper who revels in Washington's partisan warfare. "He will use style and grace to achieve liberal goals, which is absolutely politically brilliant but intellectually dishonest."

Again, I can post pages of links which discuss this. I'm not making it up.
+obama +"post partisan" - Google Search

It's clear that you don't really have a case. You are merely reciting a litany of things you already don't like about Obama's policies, and trying to sell us a bag 'o crap that somehow what Obama represents is a big shift to the left from what he promised. I actually voted for the guy, unlike you. So I think I have a great deal more authority to judge what he promised me vs. what he is delivering on than you do.

And on that basis, I can say for a fact that Obama has either delivered exactly what he claimed to be, OR he has moved significantly to the right on some issues. I cannot think of a single issue in which Obama has surprised me or my liberal friends by moving CLOSER to our position than we expected based on his campaign promises. Not one single issue.

He's really not surprising to those of us who really paid attention. It's all the people who relied on his "post partisan" promises and ignored his record who seem to be surprised. His approval ratings have tanked and polling shows independents unhappy with what he's doing. Apparently, a lot of them are surprised at what they are getting. They likely bought into the false marketing ploys that they were given and sold back before the election. It would have been great if they'd have been a little smarter and voted for the guy who actually could deliver on his promises, but that's the way politics goes sometimes. Not delivering on your promises often results in a short-lived political career. If things don't change drastically, I think Obama will soon find this out.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

RINO or not, given the demographics in the district Scozzafava would probably have won with a decent margin if Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh allowed her to run. It would have been a vote in the Congress against cap-and-trade and for Bush-style tax cuts, and likely against this Health Care thingy everyone is talking about.

She's for cap and trade and the "Bush-style tax cuts" were one of the few redeeming qualities of Bush's presidency. Scozzafava was not a Republican, which is fine of course as long as you're not trying to run on the Republican ticket.

I don't see where she would've opposed the "Health Care thingy" either, not that it matters at this point. Most Democrats won't be able to support it.

[stupendousman]

The point is she was losing before all the fuss was started and supported more traditionally Democrat standards than Republican. She was a RHINO loser who was dumped because she should have never been on the ballot in the first place. The independent who had only really been out there a month polled higher in the election than she was polling with months and months of campaigning.

Again, what winning moderate has the GOP dumped? The answer is: NONE.

I explained why the "big tent gotta have lots of moderates" idea was a dumb strategy at the beginning of this thread. If it were really important, you'd see the Democrats courting pro-lifers, people who support bans on gay marriage. etc. They really don't unless they want to win a Republican seat in Congress that's held by an unpopular incumbent. Of course, that strategy has strangled their ability to get things like health care passed so they have won at a cost.

I also explained that my "referendum" comments were a joke as well. That alone means nothing. Though, you take the elections and all the polling data of late and you've got a scenario that really should worry Democrats.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I explained why the "big tent gotta have lots of moderates" idea was a dumb strategy at the beginning of this thread. If it were really important, you'd see the Democrats courting pro-lifers, people who support bans on gay marriage. etc. They really don't unless they want to win a Republican seat in Congress that's held by an unpopular incumbent. Of course, that strategy has strangled their ability to get things like health care passed so they have won at a cost.

Actually, the Democrats have courted pro-business, pro-gun, even a few nominally pro-life folks in places where the district is conservative enough as a whole that the candidate would still be seen as the liberal one. It's not necessarily where the incumbent is unpopular, but where a more mainstream Democratic candidate would be laughed out of the district.

And as you have noted, it makes it tougher to govern, because even if the opposition checks out of the debate entirely (like almost all the Republicans have on Health Care), you have a broad spectrum of views within the majority party to reconcile. But shouldn't this be a good thing, and led to better legislation?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

I wasn't aware that state governors have a vote in the US House of Representatives. Politico seems to think they do. Did the US Constitution change since yesterday or something?

It's about Redistricting.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So after the election yesterday

House of Representative
Republicans -1
Democrats +1

Republicans lost NY District 23, a district Republicans held for over 100 years?

Stop perpetuating that lie.

Rep.Michael McNulty-D served as the democrat Congressional representative to New York-23 from 1989 till 1992/3. McNulty is alive and well, still sitting in the current 111st congress, but in another district. McNulty’s staying mum, letting this bald-faced lie stand, because the Dems are making such hay over it.


That's 16 years - not 100.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._McNulty

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Stop perpetuating that lie.

Rep.Michael McNulty-D served as the democrat Congressional representative to New York-23 from 1989 till 1992/3. McNulty is alive and well, still sitting in the current 111st congress, but in another district. McNulty’s staying mum, letting this bald-faced lie stand, because the Dems are making such hay over it.

That's 16 years - not 100.

Actually, McNulty's term expired in January 2009. He is not currently a member of Congress. I don't know if anyone here is really lying. The fact is that much of what is now New York-23 has not been represented by a Democrat since the 1850s, and most of the area has not been represented by a Democrat since the latter part of the 19th century. Here's the breakdown. What was New York-23 when McNulty was in office representing it is not the same land area.

McNulty represented the 23rd from January 3, 1989 to January 3, 1993. In that period, the 23rd was made up of Albany and Schenectady counties, and parts of Montgomery and Rensselaer counties. Currently, the 23rd is made up of Clinton, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Oswego, and St. Lawrence counties, and parts of Essex, Fulton, and Oneida counties.

[Macrobat]

Funny, the neighboring 21st Distrist elected him over and over for the entire time - a District created SPECIFICALLY to keep getting a Democrat elected, huh?

Point is - McNulty WAS elected and DID serve the 23rd District - making the "100 years" claim a lie.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Funny, the neighboring 21st Distrist elected him over and over for the entire time - a District created SPECIFICALLY to keep getting a Democrat elected, huh?

Point is - McNulty WAS elected and DID serve the 23rd District - making the "100 years" claim a lie.

Please see my edits above. The intended point being made by those making the "100 years" claim is valid, even if the wording is not technically correct. The area currently under the NY-23 has not been represented by a Democrat for some time.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Stop perpetuating that lie.

Rep.Michael McNulty-D served as the democrat Congressional representative to New York-23 from 1989 till 1992/3. McNulty is alive and well, still sitting in the current 111st congress, but in another district. McNulty’s staying mum, letting this bald-faced lie stand, because the Dems are making such hay over it.


That's 16 years - not 100.

Michael R. McNulty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, someone must have updated wikipedia. The current 23rd congressional district.

New York's 23rd congressional district - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New York's 23rd congressional district has historically been one of the most Republican districts in the United States. Most of the area in what is NY-23 has not been represented by a Democrat since the 19th century. A large portion -- including the largest city, Watertown — has not been represented by a Democrat since the 1850's.

[Macrobat]

Too bad the Democrats already made that claim - legitimately - when McNulty was elected - both cannot be true - period.

The area now occupied by the current 23 was still IN the 23rd at that time - argument fails.

And Hyteckit, by definition the "current 23rd District" hasn't EXISTED for 100 years,

SpaceMonkey, you are picking nits - the statement is demonstrably false.

The 23rd District of New York DID elect a Democrat to Congress in 1989.

Doesn't matter anyway - the CURRENT holder couldn't even command a true majority.

[The Final Dakar]

Newsflash: What Democrats claim about that seat is probably the least important part about the fact that they won that seat.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The area now occupied by the current 23 was still IN the 23rd at that time - argument fails.

No it wasn't. The area of the 23rd in 1989-1993 vs. today is comprised of completely different counties, whose boundaries have not changed.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Too bad the Democrats already made that claim - legitimately - when McNulty was elected - both cannot be true - period.

The area now occupied by the current 23 was still IN the 23rd at that time - argument fails.

And Hyteckit, by definition the "current 23rd District" hasn't EXISTED for 100 years,

Those district existed for over 100 years. Just not the same composition that makes up the current 23rd district.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

SpaceMonkey, you are picking nits - the statement is demonstrably false.

The 23rd District of New York DID elect a Democrat to Congress in 1989.

Picking nits? Pot meet kettle. The essential truth of the statement being made about the "100 years" statistic is that the geographical area in question has not been represented by a Democrat for a very long time. You are the one who is nit-picking by holding to a technicality about the numerical designation of the congressional district, which has changed over time.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't like Obama. I never have. I believe that makes me special and smart in some way. I will tell everyone this over and over and over again, hoping they believe it by repetition.

Shorter stupendousman. In any case, I don't have the energy to go through this re-tread of a response line-by-line today. Suffice to say you completely dodged my question on the substance, and you are completely wrong on the question of style.

On the substance, you have still FAILED to give me even a single example of an actual issue, not style but an actual issue, where Obama promised a position during the campaign, but actually tacked sharply to the left on that same issue once he was in office. "Rahm Emmanuel says mean things" doesn't count - I don't want to hear about Republican feelings, I want an actual issue with substance. Can you even name ONE issue?

On the style, you're wrong there too. Your focus on "bipartisanship" as the main thing that Obama promised is primarily about style, not substance, as in "how is Obama going to govern", instead of "what is Obama proposing to do". The reality is that the campaign signs printed everywhere said CHANGE, not I'LL DO WHATEVER REPUBLICANS LIKE, and even despite that, Obama has a) appointed 6 Republicans to significant positions (more than any other modern president by far), b) passed a $282 billion dollar tax cut as part of the stimulus, mainly in a futile attempt to win over Republicans, and c) continued to meet with and negotiate with Republicans, including incorporating their ideas, on major legislation like the stimulus and health care.

However, it takes two to tango - and Republicans have responded to all his outreach efforts by slapping his hand away. An incident from last May offers some insight into how the "party of no" really thinks about "bipartisanship":

The Health-Care Talks: Will Obama Get More Involved? - TIME

When Barack Obama informed congressional Republicans last month that he would support a controversial parliamentary move to protect health-care reform from a filibuster in the Senate, they were furious. That meant the bill could pass with a simple majority of 51 votes, eliminating the need for any GOP support. Where, they demanded, was the bipartisanship the President had promised? So, right there in the Cabinet Room, the President put a proposal on the table, according to two people who were present. Obama said he was willing to curb malpractice awards, a move long sought by Republicans that is certain to bring strong opposition from the trial lawyers who fund the Democratic Party.

What, he wanted to know, did the Republicans have to offer in return?

Nothing, it turned out. Republicans were unprepared to make any concessions, if they had any to make.

This is how it works in today's politics. Obama meets with Republicans, proposes something near and dear to Republicans, offering some kind of compromise. Republicans slap the extended hand away, and offer no compromises whatsoever. Then they leave the room and immediately accuse Obama of not being "bipartisan" enough. Rinse and repeat. At some point this has to get ridiculous, since the Republican concept of "bipartisanship" appears to mean, "do exactly what we tell you to do, even though you have the majority". What's the point of that?

And last, it's interesting to note the shamelessness of your arguments in this thread. You started this arguing that Republicans need to "stick to their principles", and not water down their beliefs or try to become more like Democrats. You even offered a fig leaf of balance by suggesting that Democrats should do this too. Fine - this is a non-controversial statement.

Then, you pivot on a dime and argue that the reason Obama is supposedly failing is because he needs water down his beliefs and be more like a Republican!

So, in sum - Republicans don't need to be more like Democrats or more moderate, that's just stupid. However, Obama need to be more like Republicans, that's just common sense.

[besson3c]

Wait, stupendousman doesn't like Obama?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Originally Posted by stupendousman
I don't like Obama. I never have. I believe that makes me special and smart in some way. I will tell everyone this over and over and over again, hoping they believe it by repetition.

Wow. Talk about dodging. Instead of taking the time to create such an amazing strawman and refusing to debate the points I made, you could have just cut to the chase, posted a photo of you dropping your pants and gave me a virtual "raspberry".

Really, it would have been a classier way to have given up. Much better than the one you chose.

Shorter stupendousman. In any case, I don't have the energy to go through this re-tread of a response line-by-line today. Suffice to say you completely dodged my question on the substance, and you are completely wrong on the question of style.

I pointed out that Obama's campaign was short on substance, and the substance he would be specific about he's failed on. I've not gotten a "middle class tax cut" and my taxes are about to go up. He's not put forth any kind of bi-partisan plan on anything, and he hasn't done what he's said he would do in regards to Afghanistan.

The "style" his campaign focused on (which I cited) was a bunch of baloney. If he actually did what he said he was going to do, he wouldn't be looking at negative approval ratings.

On the substance, you have still FAILED to give me even a single example of an actual issue, not style but an actual issue, where Obama promised a position during the campaign, but actually tacked sharply to the left on that same issue once he was in office.

You need to look again. It's real hard to debate someone when you skip over what they've actually said and simply design an argument you THINK you can win. It's laughable really.

On the style, you're wrong there too. Your focus on "bipartisanship" as the main thing that Obama promised is primarily about style, not substance, as in "how is Obama going to govern", instead of "what is Obama proposing to do".

His campaign focused on how Obama would govern. They had to because they knew that McCain actually had experience doing the stuff that voters really wanted and Obama has little to no experience doing anything.

Again, Obama promised a bi-partisan effort and the first day in office, when Republicans took him up on his promise he refused, had a tantrum and told them "I WON."

The reality is that the campaign signs printed everywhere said CHANGE, not I'LL DO WHATEVER REPUBLICANS LIKE...

No one expects that. What people do expect is for him not to push through an ultra-liberal socialist health care bill that no Republicans can support and a lot of his fellow Democrats won't even vote for either while engaging in partisan rhetoric and locking Republicans out of any negotiations. That's not bi-partisan and it's not finding solutions for "change" that the American people can get behind.

This is how it works in today's politics. Obama meets with Republicans, proposes something near and dear to Republicans, offering some kind of compromise.

He offered no real compromise. He suggested Republicans should be bought off with a tiny token that would do NOTHING to help the situation in question.

And last, it's interesting to note the shamelessness of your arguments in this thread. You started this arguing that Republicans need to "stick to their principles", and not water down their beliefs or try to become more like Democrats.

That doesn't mean that they can't give some compromise when it comes to legislation. That does however mean that they can't pretend to be Republicans just because they think they can as an expedient way to get into office while supporting virtually nothing the party they have chosen to represent traditionally stands for.

Then, you pivot on a dime and argue that the reason Obama is supposedly failing is because he needs water down his beliefs and be more like a Republican!

A. No one's suggesting he water down his beliefs. McCain didn't do that, but he was open to huge compromise in order to get what he really thought most Americans would want. I just expect him to do what he said he would do. He hasn't.

B. Obama isn't the "President of the Liberal Democrats of America". He's been elected to represent ALL AMERICANS. Even Republicans. That puts the onus on him that isn't present in Republicans and Democrats who win their district and represent blocks of voters who as a majority hold similar standards and principles. Obama is failing to even try to be the "President of the United States" because he's too busy trying to please the radicals whom he shares principles with.

[stupendousman]

And...have the Democrats EVER put any controversial legislation up for people to read 72 hours in advance as Obama promised?

The Weekly Standard

..or has Obama, like Clinton, kept all the promises he "meant to keep"?

Really, it's comical he's so far over his head. Likable, charismatic guy who you wouldn't mind having a long talk with and a beer with...but not a guy who has the ability to actually follow through on much that's tough.

[ort888]

Any conversation with Stupendousman at this point is for purely entertainment reasons.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Any conversation with Stupendousman at this point is for purely entertainment reasons.

Ort: You really aren't as clever or entertaining as you think you are. Really.

Just letting you know because I care.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

With the big losses tonight, I think a clear message has been sent.

GOP's special elections losing streak - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com

"Lost amid the Republican euphoria surrounding Tuesday’s elections is this inconvenient fact: The GOP just got its clock cleaned, again, in another high-stakes House special election.

It shouldn’t have come as a surprise, since Republicans have lost 20 of the past 29 House special elections, dating back to January 2003. And in perhaps the most worrisome aspect of the trend, the GOP lost its fifth consecutive competitive special election in Republican-friendly territory. "

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I pointed out that Obama's campaign was short on substance, and the substance he would be specific about he's failed on.

Please point to any specific issues where he has moved to the left, counter to what he promised during the campaign. I'm still waiting for that answer.

I read your posts. Multiple times. There's nothing in there. I am not going to give up. I want just ONE issue. Bipartisanship isn't an issue, it's a governing style.

Obama had a whole website full of issues to pick from for an entire year. They've even been transferred to the Whitehouse.gov site. It shouldn't be that hard to find just one "he moved to the left" issue.

I've not gotten a "middle class tax cut"

The stimulus bill contained a $282 billion dollar tax cut, directed at the middle class. That's a fact. Your personal anecdotes mean nothing compared to reality.

and my taxes are about to go up.

And you know this... how? Speculation disguised as fact. Typical.

He's not put forth any kind of bi-partisan plan on anything

There you go with the "bipartisan" thing again. THIS IS ABOUT ISSUES. "Bipartisan" is not an issue, it's a governing style. You accused Obama of moving sharply to the left, counter to what he promised. You will have to back this up. We're waiting.

and he hasn't done what he's said he would do in regards to Afghanistan.

PolitiFact: Obama promises to send two additional brigades to Afghanistan - Promise Kept

Try again.

The "style" his campaign focused on (which I cited) was a bunch of baloney. If he actually did what he said he was going to do, he wouldn't be looking at negative approval ratings.

Gallup: Obama job approval rating: 52%. Disapprove: 42%.

You have a weird definition of the word "negative". PERCEPTION OF REALITY FAIL. Again.

You need to look again. It's real hard to debate someone when you skip over what they've actually said and simply design an argument you THINK you can win. It's laughable really.

What's laughable is you projecting your failings onto me. I asked for one issue where he moved sharply to the left, you keep arguing about style (where you're still wrong). I showed where he incorporated Republican ideas, directly responding to your assertion that he's not bipartisan, you ignored it and simply repeated what you already said.

His campaign focused on how Obama would govern.

All campaigns focus on how the candidate would govern, plus what the candidate would do if he were elected. Experienced candidates add to that "what I've done in the past", if that works for them (unfortunately, for McCain it didn't).

Still has nothing to do with your original assertion.

They had to because they knew that McCain actually had experience doing the stuff that voters really wanted and Obama has little to no experience doing anything.

Irrelevant. And it sounds like someone is still bitter from having his guy lose a year ago.

Again, Obama promised a bi-partisan effort and the first day in office, when Republicans took him up on his promise he refused, had a tantrum and told them "I WON."

You actually haven't the slightest clue what that conversation was about, do you? This entire paragraph is a lie wrapped in an exaggeration. Absolutely pathetic. Here's the truth:

'I Won:' President Obama Works to Be Bipartisan But Shows There Are Clear Limits - Political Punch

In an hour-long private meeting with Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders this morning on the economic stimulus package, President Barack Obama stressed the urgency of getting the $825 billion stimulus plan passed quickly for the good of the country, and mentioned the political stakes for both parties.

Among some of the things Republicans requested: tax deductions for some small businesses, making unemployment benefits tax free and a provision that would let businesses losing money carry the losses over to pay fewer taxes in a different fiscal year.

Mr. Obama did voice opinion on some differences on the issue of whether the lowest individual tax rates should be cut from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to 5 percent. 

As the president, he had told Kyl after the Arizonan raised objections to the notion of a tax credit for people who don't pay income taxes, Obama told Cantor this morning that "on some of these issues we're just going to have ideological differences."

The president added, "I won. So I think on that one, I trump you."

While Republican leaders felt that Obama was at least receptive to their ideas, unlike their Democratic counterparts, they continued to express reservations about the plan despite the meeting.

So, let's count the lies and exaggerations in your pathetic statement:

1) It wasn't the first day in office.
2) Obama never "refused" their offer, the quote happened during a bipartisan meeting with Republicans and Democrats. That Obama initiated.
3) Obama said "I won" as a response to Arizona Senator John Kyl suggesting he do what John McCain wanted. He's right, we already had that debate, and he won.
4) Obama was open to their ideas during the meeting, and Republicans acknowledged this afterward even though they disagreed. The very definition of reaching out and being bipartisan.
5) "He had a tantrum"? Read the details of what actually happened. Are you f-in kidding me? Pathetic.

No one expects that. What people do expect is for him not to push through an ultra-liberal socialist health care bill that no Republicans can support and a lot of his fellow Democrats won't even vote for either while engaging in partisan rhetoric and locking Republicans out of any negotiations. That's not bi-partisan and it's not finding solutions for "change" that the American people can get behind.

Get off the bi-partisan train, will you? Sheesh. Once more - being bi-partisan is not why people voted for Obama. Since you did not vote for him, you have zero credibility to judge the reasons WHY other people voted for him.

As for health care, Republicans don't support universal health care, period. They have made it clear from the start that they intend to vote against ANY universal health care plan, long before any of the plans were finalized. The Republicans don't want to negotiate, they want to kill health care reform, period. They've made that crystal clear.

On the other hand, Obama promised universal health care, explicitly, all during the campaign. It was a core promise of his candidacy. There is no chance of being bipartisan on such a fundamental difference of principles.

Enacting universal health care is EXACTLY what everybody expected out of Obama. If anything, his proposals are more conservative than what he promised during the campaign. Your example FAILS again.

He offered no real compromise. He suggested Republicans should be bought off with a tiny token that would do NOTHING to help the situation in question.

Huh? Tort reform has been THE Republican centerpiece of any health care discussion of the past 30 years! You can find dozens of quotes of Republicans singing the praises of tort reform, over and over and over again, not to mention dozens of prominent Democrats trashing the idea. We've been hearing from conservatives for YEARS that legal issues are what's causing the high cost of health care, and if we only enacted tort reform, we'd be golden:

LegalNewsline | Boehner: GOP health care plan to target lawsuit abuse
President Bush Renews Call For Tort Reform, Says 'Frivolous' Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Drive Up Health Care Costs
"Contract with America" calls for tort reform. "Loser pays" rule proposed to deal with "frivolous suits." - Building Design & Construction | Encyclopedia.com

But now, because Obama offered to consider it during a bipartisan meeting, a big first for a supposed hard-core liberal socialist Maoist pig, it's merely a "tiny token"? WTF?

A. No one's suggesting he water down his beliefs. McCain didn't do that, but he was open to huge compromise in order to get what he really thought most Americans would want. I just expect him to do what he said he would do. He hasn't.

I've shown several areas where Obama has compromised to get Republican support. Tax cuts as stimulus (when they don't work). Tort reform as part of health care (when it will make little or no difference in the cost of health care). Taxing health benefits (John McCain's idea).

B. Obama isn't the "President of the Liberal Democrats of America". He's been elected to represent ALL AMERICANS. Even Republicans. That puts the onus on him that isn't present in Republicans and Democrats who win their district and represent blocks of voters who as a majority hold similar standards and principles. Obama is failing to even try to be the "President of the United States" because he's too busy trying to please the radicals whom he shares principles with.

I'm a "radical liberal". Obama shares very few principles with me. You have no idea what you are talking about.

And after all that, you still haven't presented a single issue where he moved sharply to the left after getting elected.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Please point to any specific issues where he has moved to the left, counter to what he promised during the campaign. I'm still waiting for that answer.

You are purposely confusing the issue.

He was quite vague on most everything he "promised" during the campaign. At least when he specifically talked about what he was going to do or in his actual campaign commercials. He did campaign on generic "change", knowing that the less he talked about specifics, people would infer that the "change" he was going to make was going to be a better solution than what was currently being tried. I'm not saying that his campaign never expressed a desire for left leaning goals. I'm saying that he coached all that in the idea that whatever he'd end up doing, he'd do with a real bi-partisan coalition.

Both he and John McCain where going to give us tax cuts. Both he and John McCain where going to give us health care reform. Both he and John McCain where going to get things done in a "post partisan" way. Both he and John McCain where going to do all about the same things, despite the fact that if you were really paying attention, you knew that Obama's solutions where going to come from the left. What you didn't know was that he was going to abandon any real compromise because "he won". He had no real interest supporting change and solutions that weren't support by his far left base, unlike how John McCain traditionally had stood up to pressure in order to get legislation passed in a bi-partisan manner.

What he did promise was that the issues that were important would be worked out in a bi-partisan manner, to find solutions that could be supported by a coalition of Republicans and Democrats. Bills would be posted 72 hours before a vote. He also promised he'd "pay as we go", get a real middle class tax cut (again - I've gotten no tax cuts and it appears my taxes will go up), and we'd do what we have to do to win in Afghanistan.

If you take all the lies about how he'd do things in a bi-partisan manner and add in all the stuff he promised to do that has failed to materialize, and instead of prioritizing a far left socialist health care program that even a lot of the members of his own party won't support, he wouldn't have seen the huge drop in his poll numbers and there wouldn't be polling data showing independents bolting from supporting him.

I read your posts. Multiple times. There's nothing in there. I am not going to give up. I want just ONE issue. Bipartisanship isn't an issue, it's a governing style.

...and something HE PROMISED TO DO. He's failed. He didn't even really try, and now he's sinking in the polls and things don't look good for the Democrats next election, and probably in 2012 unless Obama takes more pragmatic approaches as Clinton did.

The stimulus bill contained a $282 billion dollar tax cut, directed at the middle class. That's a fact. Your personal anecdotes mean nothing compared to reality.

The stimulus bill contained a huge amount of tax credits for people who wanted to bow to Obama's wishes as to how they spent their money. I'm "middle class". I got ABSOLUTELY NO TAX CUT.

There you go with the "bipartisan" thing again. THIS IS ABOUT ISSUES.

...issues which Obama promised he'd solve in a bi-partisan manner. You can't stick to far-left solutions that only appease your base and keep your promise that you are going to enact change that reaches across the aisle and gets things the American people want accomplished. That's why his poll numbers are sinking. As I quoted someone above, you can't engage in slick rhetoric pretending you are going to do something one way, then totally ignore that and not be engaging in intellectual dishonesty that will eventually backfire on you. Obama's intellectual dishonesty is really causing a backfire right now.

"Bipartisan" is not an issue, it's a governing style. You accused Obama of moving sharply to the left, counter to what he promised. You will have to back this up. We're waiting.

See above. You can't be both "bi-partisan" and serve your parties extreme priorities. Obama has chosen the latter over the promises of the former.

PolitiFact: Obama promises to send two additional brigades to Afghanistan - Promise Kept

Try again.

That was months ago, and less than the generals on the ground say we need now. Try again.

Gallup: Obama job approval rating: 52%. Disapprove: 42%.

You are going to cherry pick a poll that that has shown a 20 point drop over the past couple of months (not a good sign), by a company who used wacky rationale for poll weighting to give Obama higher numbers (extreme predictions of Democrat voter turn-out that couldn't be supported by any kind of historic standard) in polling last election? Uh..okay.

Here's another polling company who didn't really do that sort of thing, which has been pretty accurate in it's predictions of late:



Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports

They have his disapproval at 52 percent, not 42 percent.

Only Thirty-four percent (34%) say the U.S. is generally heading in the right direction.

Additionally, an analysis by Pollster.com partner Charles Franklin “found that despite identically sized three-day samples, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is less variable than Gallup.” During Election 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll was the least volatile of all those tracking the race. That stability is one reason that Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com said that the Rasmussen tracking poll “would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."

What's laughable is you projecting your failings onto me. I asked for one issue where he moved sharply to the left, you keep arguing about style (where you're still wrong).

What's laughable is your "moving the goalposts" in regards to what I said Obama has not done, and needs to do in order to keep his promises and not see his poll numbers continue to sink. You can invent a standard you think needs to be proven all day. It's not going to refute my point.

All campaigns focus on how the candidate would govern, plus what the candidate would do if he were elected. Experienced candidates add to that "what I've done in the past", if that works for them (unfortunately, for McCain it didn't).

..and John McCain was telling the truth. It is unfortunate when someone lies to get elected, and wins. It's unfortunate for Obama that when you do this, it normally backfires on you, as it is on him right now.

You actually haven't the slightest clue what that conversation was about, do you?

Yes, I do.

This entire paragraph is a lie wrapped in an exaggeration. Absolutely pathetic. Here's the truth:

'I Won:' President Obama Works to Be Bipartisan But Shows There Are Clear Limits - Political Punch

Spin. Made by the administration after days of them NOT engaging the opposition in a bi-partisan manner. How do we know? We've got the single faux concession that was made which essentially furthered Obama's goals to control people's behavior in ways that benefited the desires of his extreme base. If there was "nothing crazy" presented, then it should have been implemented.

So, let's count the lies and exaggerations in your pathetic statement:

1) It wasn't the first day in office.

It was January 23rd, and pretty much the first big working day of his administration. Are you really going to pick nits that far?

2) Obama never "refused" their offer, the quote happened during a bipartisan meeting with Republicans and Democrats. That Obama initiated.

So then he added all the stuff that Cantor requested that his administration says wasn't "crazy"? He got enough compromise to get a good number of Republicans to support the plan - or did he put together a package that now even members of his own party regret putting into place that has done little to nothing to curb unemployment and only help the economy by using taxpayer dollars to increase the size of Government. That's really the extent of his "bi-partisan" plan? Really?

3) Obama said "I won" as a response to Arizona Senator John Kyl suggesting he do what John McCain wanted. He's right, we already had that debate, and he won.

John McCain...the guy who actually had a record of trying to find bi-partisan solutions? The guy who didn't serve the extremes of his party when the American people could probably have been better served by more moderate goals? Yeah, they shouldn't do things the way he would have - that would have likely resulted in Obama keeping his promises in regards to how he'd govern and we know his top priority is to serve the far left base of his party on most issues.

4) Obama was open to their ideas during the meeting, and Republicans acknowledged this afterward even though they disagreed. The very definition of reaching out and being bipartisan.

Listening, but not acting is not being "open". SImply pretending that you'll consider things but pretty much ignoring most of what's requested and instead pretending to give "tax cuts" when instead you offer a few controlling, partisan goal based tax credits that won't really have any impact on the economy isn't acting in a bi-partisan manner. It's more of Obama's phony P.R., let's pretend, make believe bi-partisanship that doesn't actually exist. Otherwise, they'd be able to get some Republicans to support their ideas. Instead, they are pretty much sticking with what the far left wants.

5) "He had a tantrum"? Read the details of what actually happened. Are you f-in kidding me? Pathetic.

Get off the bi-partisan train, will you?

Why? If Obama hadn't gotten off it, that chart above would probably look a lot different. That's my point.

Sheesh. Once more - being bi-partisan is not why people voted for Obama.

Uh..yeah it is. It's what he promised. He promised bi-partisan "change". His not doing as he promised is one of the reasons independents are bolting from him. Now his poll numbers are sinking.

[quote]As for health care, Republicans don't support universal health care, period.[/quote[

Apparently, nor do most Americans if it requires a socialist health care program. That of course isn't going to stop Obama, because he really has no use for bi-partisan ideas on how to implement "change".

On the other hand, Obama promised universal health care, explicitly, all during the campaign. It was a core promise of his candidacy. There is no chance of being bipartisan on such a fundamental difference of principles.

..and as such, his promises for bi-partisan change was a phony attempt to co-opt John McCain's "unique selling position" in the campaign. He pretended to be the same type of politician as McCain because the American people wanted someone who wasn't going to just get the government in the same partisan gridlock it had been in for years. Obama didn't give us any real "change" from the way things has been done. He's been as bad or worse as far as partisanship goes than any other guy who has gotten into office.

Huh? Tort reform has been THE Republican centerpiece of any health care discussion of the past 30 years! You can find dozens of quotes of Republicans singing the praises of tort reform, over and over and over again, not to mention dozens of prominent Democrats trashing the idea.

...so as an agent of bi-partisan change, Obama is supporting tort reform in addition to those things which are his priorities? Oh..wait, not he's not? He might be "considering it"? Is it in any of the bills currently being crafted by his party? Are you really that gullible?

He's not really pushing for anything that might really appease any republicans. In fact, the Democrats are suggesting they'll just use the "nuclear option" to ram rod what they want through despite opposition from Republicans and pretty much a lot of the American people.

I've shown several areas where Obama has compromised to get Republican support. Tax cuts as stimulus (when they don't work).

I'm solidly middle class. Where was my tax cut?

Tort reform as part of health care (when it will make little or no difference in the cost of health care).

Which page is this on, in what bill?

Taxing health benefits (John McCain's idea).

Is this supported by most other Republicans?

What we have here is a handful of shuck and jive, pretend bi-partisanship that does nothing to try to "meet in the middle" and instead continues to support the far extremes of the Democrat party.

[OldManMac]

It's still the Democratic Party.

[The Final Dakar]

lulz

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Those district existed for over 100 years. Just not the same composition that makes up the current 23rd district.

lmao! No it didn't. The area existed and I will concede that point.

Quite obviously, even the posters backing you up have pointed out that the district is completely different.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Ort: You really aren't as clever or entertaining as you think you are. Really.

Just letting you know because I care.

...and you aren't as sane as you think you are.

I manage to amuse myself, and that's all that matters. Either with this forum or some jingly keys. I generally go with the forum, but on some days it's the keys. It depends on my mood.

[ort888]

I also love how everything is a sign of how the nation is leaning. Bull.

45% of the population never votes and could give a crap about anything.
40% of the population will always vote right with party lines. Every single time.
5% are crazy and change their votes based on whims and ridiculous criteria.
5% come out to vote if pissed enough about something or another
5% may or may not vote depending on what's going on that day or whatever.

Elections just come down to that last 15% of crazys, lazies and loonies. That's who politicians are fighting for with their terrible commercials, pandering and everything else.

So when a "referendum" hits us, it's really just a sign that those last few dingleberries have spoken. The scary thing is that when you really boil it down, elections are determined by these screwballs.

[Macrobat]

Interestingly enough, despite Pelosi swearing in Owens on the fly so he could vote tfor thehealth care rip-off, it is beginning to appear that he did NOT win the election:

Recanvassing shows NY-23 race tightens even as Rep. Bill Owens is sworn into House seat | News from The Post-Standard -

Keep in mind, the state has NOT certified the results and you could be looking at Congressman Hoffman, negating Owens vote.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Interestingly enough, despite Pelosi swearing in Owens on the fly so he could vote tfor thehealth care rip-off, it is beginning to appear that he did NOT win the election:

Recanvassing shows NY-23 race tightens even as Rep. Bill Owens is sworn into House seat | News from The Post-Standard -

Keep in mind, the state has NOT certified the results and you could be looking at Congressman Hoffman, negating Owens vote.

This is interesting. I wonder if the 23rd district will have the stomach or resolve to see this thing through. In other words, they claimed that Owens would have to be removed if the votes turn out a Hoffman victory, but do you suppose they'd follow through with the removal?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I also love how everything is a sign of how the nation is leaning. Bull.

45% of the population never votes and could give a crap about anything.
40% of the population will always vote right with party lines. Every single time.
5% are crazy and change their votes based on whims and ridiculous criteria.
5% come out to vote if pissed enough about something or another
5% may or may not vote depending on what's going on that day or whatever.

Elections just come down to that last 15% of crazys, lazies and loonies. That's who politicians are fighting for with their terrible commercials, pandering and everything else.

So when a "referendum" hits us, it's really just a sign that those last few dingleberries have spoken. The scary thing is that when you really boil it down, elections are determined by these screwballs.

I don't know about leaning. The nation has pretty much been centre-right. It will likely remain as such until the Europeanization is complete.

Your breakdown of voting behaviors in the US is unfortunately, spot on.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I also love how everything is a sign of how the nation is leaning. Bull.

45% of the population never votes and could give a crap about anything.
40% of the population will always vote right with party lines. Every single time.
5% are crazy and change their votes based on whims and ridiculous criteria.
5% come out to vote if pissed enough about something or another
5% may or may not vote depending on what's going on that day or whatever.

Elections just come down to that last 15% of crazys, lazies and loonies. That's who politicians are fighting for with their terrible commercials, pandering and everything else.

So when a "referendum" hits us, it's really just a sign that those last few dingleberries have spoken. The scary thing is that when you really boil it down, elections are determined by these screwballs.

Waaayyyy more than 45% of the population abstain from voting. You'd be lucky if 20% voted in any given major election.

[BadKosh]

I wonder how well bringing the "terrorist Mastermind of 9/11" into NY and a civil trial will play. Seems too many Muslim PC incidents for this to be a coincidence, but prolly a mandate from Hussein Obama... The 9/11 trial will end up being a trial about waterboarding and the CIA, he'll walk, and the Dems will never get in office again. When if ever will Obama make a decision on Afghanistan? He's really looking like a coward these days.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Seems too many Muslim PC incidents

Dude, I'm gettin' an infiDell!

[BadKosh]

Looks like WH Council Craig is stepping down because of the 9/11 terrorist decision from our muslim friendly president.

[besson3c]

What do you mean by "Muslim friendly president"? Are we targeting all Muslims now? Why shouldn't any US president be Muslim friendly?

[The Final Dakar]

So what kind of trial is this guy supposed to get?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Looks like WH Council Craig is stepping down because of the 9/11 terrorist decision from our muslim friendly president.

It's really about the poor handling of Gitmo's closure. Craig was the point person on Gitmo.

[Macrobat]

It's far more about getting Bauer into his seat.

[SpaceMonkey]

Well typically one person has to resign in order for another to take their position, yes.

[besson3c]

Who is that guy in your signature, SpaceMonkey?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What do you mean by "Muslim friendly president"? Are we targeting all Muslims now? Why shouldn't any US president be Muslim friendly?

He means that he doesn't like Muslims, and a President that is friendly to Muslims is not someone he would support.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

He means that he doesn't like Muslims, and a President that is friendly to Muslims is not someone he would support.

I just have to wonder if there are any Muslims reading this and how much longer MacNN will tolerate this sort of transparently racist behavior.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who is that guy in your signature, SpaceMonkey?

I am surprised a moose-lover like you doesn't know. It's Canada's own Dave Foley, perhaps the funniest person in the universe. It's from this sketch.

[BadKosh]

Its just a coincidence that Muslims are the shooters.....Yeah, that's it.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Interestingly enough, despite Pelosi swearing in Owens on the fly so he could vote tfor thehealth care rip-off, it is beginning to appear that he did NOT win the election:

Recanvassing shows NY-23 race tightens even as Rep. Bill Owens is sworn into House seat | News from The Post-Standard -

Keep in mind, the state has NOT certified the results and you could be looking at Congressman Hoffman, negating Owens vote.

It's official, Owens wins. Begin ACORN rant now...LOL!!!

[Macrobat]

No, this was entirely the fault of the RNC. The "good ole boys" met and chose Scuzzyfavor as the machine candidate, despite the fact that she was virtually indistinguishable from her opponent politically, then tried to FORCE the constituency to back her.

She melted down, went bat-sh1t crazy (for instance calling the police on a reporter and lying about what he did).

No one has blamed ACORN for this particular loss.

Keep spinning.

[Chuckit]

Yeah, Scozzafava lost because her party threw her under the bus. No need to blame ACORN when they're now sabotaging their own candidates just because they support gay marriage.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah, Scozzafava lost because her party threw her under the bus.

She was losing big before they ever did anything.

It's exactly as Macrobat said. They stupidly took the advise that the Democrats and the media keep pushing about Republicans need to be more like Democrats, and when they do it they will always lose.

McCain? Same deal.

If there are two people basically supporting the same Democrat positions, people will take the real thing over the artificial every time and those who don't like the positions either are spouting will stay home.

No need to blame ACORN when they're now sabotaging their own candidates just because they support gay marriage.

...and high taxes, and socialist healthcare and....