These cynical Republicans/conservatives and their diabolical scheme to shut down the government in order to get what they want is somehow Obama's creation.
Although Republicans threatened to shut down the government over Obamacare, a law, they now want folks to believe Obama is the one who wants a government shutdown.
Is it any wonder how Obama won two presidential elections over Republicans?
PN, not even sure if this is true; was asking to see if anyone else had heard this prior to beginning a conversation
It's true. They've been talking about shutting down the government for weeks. I've been following the story for weeks. If you log on to Jack Kingston site he's talking about it too.
No it isn't any wonder. He won by a small popular vote margin in both elections by being a superior candidate (both times) with a superior election machine. Cynicism and diabolical schemes had nothing to do with it.
As to a government shutdown: Democrats at large seem to be convinced that this would hurt the Republicans significantly in the 2014 and 2016 elections - a death knell to the party if you will. If that is actually the case, then I suggest they call the GOP's "bluff" and let them shut the government down. If that happens, it certainly wouldn't last long and both sides would be scrambling to ameliorate their positions with the American people (and perhaps with each other).
So just as with the sequester, I say:
Shut it down....shut it down NOW.
When the Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page compares House Republicans to "Kamikaze" pilots, one thing's clear:The GOP is starting to tear itself apart.
""The GOP is starting to tear itself apart""".
Ah yes you are right but then so is both houses of congress starting to tear themselves apart with their blind allegiance to party and refusal to work together.
Damn the party lets fix the problems or go home.
That is why I don't think I will vote for my good friend Jack Kingston in the Senate race.
Our government is bogged down.
It needs to be shut down and I don't care who is blamed or credited for it.
We are bankrupt====MORALY AND FINANCIALY=====
CAn anyone tell me why it seems the Democrats seem to have no culpability in regards to this? We already know it is not obamas fault but the last time I checked there are a whole lot of Democrats that are just as guilt of "hostage" politics. Shut it down and let them all sink or swim...
We're in big trouble if they don't start putting the nation first. If the government shuts down families will suffer.
"CAn anyone tell me why it seems the Democrats seem to have no culpability in regards to this?"
Their tradition is to accept everything except responsibility.
I think a shut down is in order.
Doesn't matter who initiates the shut down.
Anything less than a shutdown will I fear only bring us yet more of the finger pointing from both side of the isle.
We will suffer. But some of us are suffering now and have been for a while.
As much attention that has been focused on the Republican party not supporting obama it seems the Democratic base is also tiring of failed policies and obamas unwillingness to compromise. The article does acknowledge that the majority of the time they still support him but the cracks are starting to form.
In this case, the NYT speaks truth. It is unfortunate that they haven't chosen to do so earlier in this President's time in the White House. Good presidents foster coalitions and compromise. Bad ones try to dictate outcomes and run roughshod over the opposition. The latter usually find out the hard way that approach doesn't work. Those that find out early in their presidency have a chance to be viewed favorably by history (not just by their staunchest advocates.) Those that don't are labeled a failure. Mr. Obama still has a chance to be ranked with the former, if he works with the opposition to get things done. But now the climate is so soured that it will be that much more difficult to cobble together the coalitions necessary to move this country forward.
Mr. Obama needs to face facts: His opposition is not going to cave and give him everything he wants. And he can't expect to just "throw them a bone" every now and then on the small stuff, while trying to ram the major issues down their - and the people of this country's - collective throats.
This president started his first term with a lot of rhetoric about how much more united this government - and this country - was going to be in his administration. My sense was that this country was ready for such as change back in 2008.
Now - nearly five years later - we are more divided than ever before. Mr. Obama can't just point the finger at everybody else and say it's all their fault. HE IS THE LEADER OF THIS COUNTRY. THE LEADER IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT DOES OR DOES NOT HAPPEN. THE BUCK STOPS WITH HIM. HE NEEDS TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO GET THINGS DONE.
If he doesn't, he has only himself to blame.
Yes, I was speaking of both parties. Some of us only want to point fingers at one party but there both at fault.
Thanks PN, that is an important point to reconize but Sebe is correct. The president has the repsponsibility to bring the sides together to accomplish what is best for the country. I did not care for Wild Bill much but he did this well. It has been five years now. The it is Bush's fault, the republicans, fault, etc. boat has sailed. He is no leader and not much of a community orginizer lately...
Great blog HMJC... They posted this today on Fox. It probably want past, sounds better than obamacare.
Bill Clinton's success came from working WITH the Republicans - not trashing them in his public comments and trying to run over them with the "bully pulpit." It's much better for both sides to take credit when something gets done than for both sides to point fingers when NOTHING gets done.
Clinton LED - even in the midst of the Lewinsky and other scandals that plagued HIS presidency. When he left office, we had a budget surplus; the deficit and debt were diminished; and the economic outlook was good. There's no argument that 9/11 and the money we spent on everything associated with it (Iraq, Afghanistan; homeland security; defense build-up) busted the budget and put us in the hole. But Obama was hired to MEND the country's psyche and get us back on the road to prosperity. He was not elected to ram through Obamacare and further put this country in debt.
When he leaves office, nobody who matters will blame Bush for what happened on Obama's watch. The history books will say he was the nation's first black president. Beyond that, he has to DO something to make his presidency a success. He still has time. He needs to take a serious look at Presidents who were successful and WHY they were successful. He often has compared himself to Ronald Reagan. He should examine why Reagan was successful. (Hint: he worked WITH Dem. Speaker Tip O'Neill, not against him.) The leadership styles of Reagan and Clinton would be a good place for him to start moving FORWARD and giving this country some CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.
Clinton was good at working with both parties after the scandal and now this years later...
That was my point when I alluded to Wild Bill...Like I said, I did not always agree with his decisions but he was good at finding a way to make it work. Thats what leaders do, they find a way to make it work. Obama continues the all or nothing approach which continues to demoralize the country and accomplish nothing. Being the first black president is no legacy. its just being black and all he had to do for that was be there...
Speaking of Wild Bill - here we go again:
sebekm, wow I just viewed your link above.
It was I guess revealing to say the least.
I have not been an angel and I don't want to condemn someone for doing something I have done myself.
I thought Clinton did a pretty good job.
I in fact voted for him in his first term election. My reasoning for voting for a Democrat was that he said he was going to fix health care cost and make health care affordable for all Americans.
That is the only time in my life that I voted for a Democratic on the national level.
He didn't fix it and I didn't vote for him on the second round.
He owes his first term (probably total) presidency to Ross Perot - with a little help from Bush The Elder's "no new taxes" blunder. I found it amazing that so soon after having a 90+% approval rating (just after Gulf War I) that the electorate would turn so fast against the elder Bush. That - and Hillary's loss to Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary - were the biggest national-level political surprises I have seen in my lifetime.
I only voted for one "national level" Democrat in my life as well - it was Zell Miller for the Senate in November 2000. Even though he was a nominal Democrat, by the time he was a Senator he had established himself as a conservative on virtually all economic issues. Plus - according to our friends at Wikipedia.org:
"in 2004, he cosponsored the Federal Marriage Amendment to the United States Constitution. If it had been ratified, it would have declared that marriage in the United States only consists of the union of a man and a woman, and would have prohibited state and the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and same-sex domestic partnerships. On March 11 of that year, he introduced the Broadcast Decency Responsibility and Enforcement Act, that would have created a Council of Decency to advise the Federal Communications Commission on standards of decency in broadcasting. The Council would have consisted of three individuals from the ministry, three broadcast industry representatives, and three school teachers. The money from penalties from obscene, indecent, and profane broadcasts would have been given to faith-based organizations."
If you are a native Georgian, you are probably already aware of all of the above, but I was so impressed with his views and credentials that it was very easy for me to break my lifetime ban on voting for a Democrat.
I can't see any other Democrat currently on the political horizon who has or will earn my vote. But I've been surprised before - as in the case of Miller. Perhaps one will come along who will buck their agenda enough - coupled with a lousy Republican candidate. That would probably do it.
This is a link from CNN explaining what a shut down in 1990's looked like... I say shut it down.
Yes and please shut it down.
I wish the primary elections were open to other parties such as the Libertarian but not limited at that point.
Let any and all affiliations who are willing to register and form legitimate political parties have access to the primary election.