Ok, so I am sitting here, watching Conan's last Tonight Show episode, and I was thinking about how much I enjoyed the back and forth between us on the e-mails. I've never done a blog before, and I don't know if it will even work, but I thought it might be fun to give it a try! So the premise is pretty simple. Just like with the e-mails, someone brings up something to discuss and we just talk about it. Who knows, this might grow into something that will be fun! We have to at least keep it going at least a month because my wife thinks I'm not cool enough to start a blog. So here is the first topic!
It seems despite the Democrats controlling the house and senate, the Republicans have seemed to have a lot of things go their way this week. (1). The election of Scott Brown in Mass. (2). The recent ruling in the Supreme Court about limiting, or lack there of, corporate giving to campaigns. (3). Pelosi admitting that Health Care reform will not pass. (4). The possible elimination of cap and trade. Is is just me or does it seem like the Democrats just can't hack it. Even if you like their ideals they seem totally incompetent at getting anything done. Thoughts? -JW
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Testing testing 1,2,3...is this working?
ReplyDeleteOkay, it looks like the comments section is working so dad, either Jonathan or I should be able to talk you through it. For me, first I became a follower of the blog at the upper right part of the page and then clicked on comment and typed in and clicked post, I selected my google account as my profile and had to type in a verification code and that was it.
ReplyDeleteAs for the apparent woes of the Democrats, I will agree that they are certainly struggling to achieve substantial success, but I think the process is way more complicated then I can begin to understand. In their defense, I think Obama has actually been trying to do the whole bipartisanship thing and garner support from both Democrats and Republicans on his issues (the prime example being health care) rather then simply rush the bill through while they have the majority. Anyway, I just got a call and have to run to the teacher's office and then teach...so more to follow later today.
From my perspective there are times when I agree and I think that is what Obama is trying to do. That is why I voted for him and that is what I hoped he would do. Republicans have been saying that he is not doing this and that he will not acknowledge the Republican's ideas. Is the lesson of the Bush presidency that you can't govern from the middle? Bush had a lot of unpopular ideas but he somehow got a lot through. Is the system broke?
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly where I was going Jonathan. Reading the news one of the best thoughts I came across was basically that the Democrats are whining about losing the 60 seat majority that prevents filibusters when Bush pushed all kinds of legislation through with a much slimmer majority. That reality alone means either the Democrats can't agree with themselves, or the that they are actually trying to use bipartisanship rather than strictly pushing through their agenda (I think the Republicans will always claim they are being ignored when they aren't the ones in power, and vice versa for the Democrats). I think in the current political climate where the country is truly split in terms of Democrats and Republicans and Conservatives and Liberals (with plenty of people in the middle of both camps) that bipartisanship will be a failing effort because our political system is one that necessitates being selfish with getting re-elected being the goal. Obama might prove me wrong, but I'm skeptical that he'll achieve much significant change unless they stop striving for both sides to agree, because a two party system rarely allows both parties to agree, especially not in any short amount of time. Governing from the middle is a great ideal, but incredibly difficult to make a reality. Change from the middle is a slow process and the reality is that historically most significant change has come from the right or the left and then the middle gradually accepts the change and the cultural climate shifts accordingly. Clinton tried to govern from the middle with health care when he was first elected and it proved to be a failing effort and I think the same will be true from Obama unless the Democrats act more selfishly...if legislation is passed that both sides agree on, it simply won't change much.
ReplyDeleteAs for Pelosi, her quote was taken somewhat out of context by news pundits...what she ultimately said was that the health care bill, in its current state, won't pass, but that they have to pass something. As for corporate spending...I agree it hurts Democrats, but more than that, I think it hurts our political system. It gives tremendous power to the 3% of Americans who make way more than the other 97%. That being said, I think Obama has the potential to make the Supreme Court ruling less significant than it would have been if a different Democrat were in office. Obama and the team supporting him are probably the best fund-raisers the Democrats have seen in a long time.
ReplyDeleteAs for cap and trade...I'm not buying it's elimination, but in the current economic climate, I could definitely see it being postponed for a bit. Is that a good thing? I don't know...I think ultimately cap and trade (or some other option for encouraging environmental friendliness) is something we need or else future generations could be in serious trouble. Regardless of if you buy into global warming, it's hard to deny the reality that the Earth is a resource and that over the last 50 years we have been using a lot of those resources at faster rates than they can be reproduced. (nevermind the resources that can't be reproduced)
Anyway, back to the Democrats as a whole. I think Obama's push for change and emphasis on populism is coming back to haunt him now because the two concepts do not go hand in hand in a system where people don't agree on what needs to be changed and how to change it. I think the Democrats will need to get a little more forceful in their approach if they don't want to lose a ton of seats in 2010 because so far nothing has actually changed and all of the moderates who liked the idea of change are now under the impression (and it's a fairly accurate impression thus far) that Obama was all talk. The Republicans accusations that Obama was all talk during the election campaign is further weakening the Democrats because now the Republicans can say "we told you so" and the moderates will have to agree.
Anyway, those are my two cents, looking forward to more comments and thoughts.
p.s. Your post in comments apparently can't exceed 4,098 words...although I'm probably the only one who that will effect with my long-windedness.
ReplyDeleteok... hopefully this works... I'm not going to try to recreate all the brilliant stuff I wrote that got lost in the first post...at least until I see if this makes it
ReplyDeleteWell it looks like we are all on here! Let the fun begin!
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree re the bipartisanship.... I don't see Obama & the current Democrats trying harder, or certainly, not being any more successful than any of their predecessors in recent history to be inclusive.
ReplyDeleteHow can you say they weren't trying to rush the healthcare bill through? When was the last time congress convened @ Christmas break?
And, what happened to the whole transparency campaign promise? (it must be misplaced with the scalpel he was going to use to trim the budget, as it now appears he's opted for the hatchet that he was against as a candidate...)
Going back to the original post from Jonathan, I
think they're "in trouble" because they've chosen to ignore public opinion & try to push a health care bill thru, that is unwanted by a majority of their constituents.
I hope they, and all, politicians stay in trouble for making promises as candidates they then walk away from when in office... and failing to keep the responsiblilites they've been given. They're supposed to be public servants...
Some good points. I had a great post earlier that I did during my lunch break. It was thought provoking and heart rending but you have to take my work for it because it did not go through. Damn you technology. Thank you for making life easier. I guess that is what I get for trying to do this while at work. Anyways, I think Obama has attempted to be more bipartisan than the Presidents in recent history. But again, does being bipartisan even work? The way I see it, we all know healthcare has some serious issues. There is a huge crack in the dam and everyone seems to be standing around and talking about how to fix the dam instead of actually doing anything about it. Do we have to maybe be OK with a fix that we don't agree with, just so that it gets fixed? This is much more convoluted than my last post. It's time to go to bed.
ReplyDeleteI'll post more later...but on dad's point...here's a question, are public servants supposed to follow public opinion? It seems to me the greatest public servants have been willing to act against public opinion and deal with the consequences of doing so. America itself was founded by a minority who disagreed with the majority enough to go to war over it. From my perspective, we should be electing leaders to lead us, not to follow public opinion.
ReplyDeleteA couple more quick thoughts...
ReplyDeleteWith regards to health care...I do think they were trying to rush it through (ironically they were doing so because one of his campaign promises was to pass new Health Care legislation in his first year in office) but it's one thing to rush and another thing to force a resolution through knowing you have a 60 seat majority and that you could pass it even if every Republican voted against it...Bush forced legislation through with a much slimmer margin on several occasions and the Democrats did the whole filibuster thing to try and stop it. I realize both Republicans and Democrats have issues with the current health care legislation, but if Obama would have forced a vote on health care with a few changes to the legislation it would have passed, and to his credit, he didn't.
All of that being said, yes, he has definitely gone back on some of his campaign promises, and no, transparency hasn't always been there...but I think we can all agree that American politics and honesty and transparency don't go hand in hand. Yes, Obama's rhetoric was incredibly idealistic, and because of that, he is being judged harshly (deservedly so), but keep it in perspective with other Presidents. Name one, Republican or Democrat, Christian or not, who upheld all of their campaign promises and acted with transparency. Bush supported a war in Iraq under the auspices of Weapons of mass destruction that it has since become clear Bush knew were not there. Clinton DID have "sexual relations" with that woman. Bush Sr. said "no new taxes" and then raised taxes that year and lied about the whole Iran-Contra affair. Reagan did the whole Iran-Contra thing. Those are just a few of the MAJOR issues that come to mind when thinking about our recent Presidents, let alone all of the minor stuff that happens. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying we should support it, but I am saying we should be honest about the fact that everyone on both sides has done it to some degree.
p.s. when dealing with technology, I learned from my days of dealing with Mizzou's outlook mail system that if I write anything of length I should copy it before I try to send it in case something goes wrong. It's annoying to do, but worth it to not deal with the frustration of typing a long message and losing it as you try to send it.
An interesting poll given our discussion...in particular the findings that most people are upset with Republican Congress leaders and Democratic Congress leaders rather than Obama was interesting http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35083918/ns/politics-white_house
ReplyDelete