Grade Obama

[KRonn]

I'd broadly agree with DGuller.  I don't think supporting a political party means you can't judge them, I've hardly been stinting in my criticism of the Labour party over the past 2 years.  In the American context I think it probably matters more that you have an ideology rather than a party, but I think it's better than the 'pox on both your houses' style cynicism which I think is corrosive and anti-politics.  It reminds me of a critique of realist foreign policy wags, which basically said realists and idealists (whether liberal, neo-con or whatever else) don't really know the impact their policies will have, no one does.  The difference is that if it's bad the realists can sit back, with a French cigarette and say 'at least I didn't get my hopes up'.  I think it can also be very juvenile (though you're not of course ).

Yes, I'm annoyed with both parties, perhaps getting more cynical which is unlike me generally, but I feel we need to realize that both parties doing business as usual over the past many years got us into some of the problems we have today. One or the other party is going to have to work a lot harder now to earn my support. I feel that by staunch support, or demonizing, of one party over the other is the wrong idea. Both parties are part and parcel of where we are today, and if we don't like where we are then we need to look quite critically at both parties.

[Sheilbh]

KRonn I've just read a couple of things I'd link to because they sort-of relate to what I'm saying.

The stuff about the healthcare bill allowing euthanasia was first raised by a woman who was instrumental in stopping the Clinton healthcare bill.  She earlier came up with a worry about this government funded research project to look at the things doctors were doing.  She suggested this meant that everything your doctor wanted to would have to go through Washington first.  Like what she said about Clinton's bill and about euthanasia that was just a lie.  The research office was first established by George W. Bush and the US government's supported research in taht sort of thing for decades, there's no plan for euthanasia or a panel of bureaucrats judging every medical decision (the suggestions remind me of the British Medical Association accusing Nye Bevan of wanting to be a 'Medical Fuhrer').

So what I think the Republicans are doing now is simply trying to kill the bill with lies and exageration.  I don't think that's a good thing for the reasons David Frum suggests here:
http://www.newmajority.com/what-if-we-win-the-healthcare-fight
Having said that I'm used to a parliamentary system.  So that's fine with me, I've no issue with the opposition trying to oppose and stop a bill, even if they exagerate to do it (though lying outright might not work here because it's such a big issue, there was a huge storm because Cameron said Brown's premiership had a 'vein of dishonesty' running through it, lying is the big taboo of our political system, though everyone sort-of does it).

However I think at that point you can't say that the Republicans, as a party, have been making good faith suggestions or trying to work out a real compromise or get a bipartisan deal.  If they were arguing over things like the issues David Frum suggests here:
http://www.newmajority.com/reforms-conservatives-can-favor
Then, I think you could say that perhaps Democrats deserve the blame for a breakdown in bipartisan cooperation, or you could more equally spread the blame.  While so much of the right's anger seems focused on lowering Medicare care and euthanasia I think it's fair to say they're not of a mind to seek a bipartisan compromise.

If you're looking for a 'on the one hand, on the other' equivalence I'd say the best would be the Democrats and Social Security.  If you can kill a bill and hurt the President and opposing party with dissimulation and lies, why wouldn't you?  Which isn't to say that Democrats didn't then oppose the general ideological thrust of what Bush was doing, or Republicans of this plan.  It's a combination of genuine opposition and political opportunism.

But who knows maybe the Senate Finance Committee will emerge with a bipartisan compromise.  Although I think bipartisanship's a bit over-rated myself.

[Berkut]

Yeah, right. I'm trying to be so cool. While you're, I guess, joined at the hip of the Dems? And that's so much better?

No, Berkut.  I'm merely someone who has a particular set of values and views that are not necesserily cool or moderate, and that set happens to coincide much more strongly with what Dems are trying to accomplish.

Which isn't your problem - your problem is that you are incapable of thinking about an issue on its own merits.

Even this discussion shows it. Your "rating"of Obama, to the extent you are capable of saying anything negative, is based on his "willingness to deal with Republicans". You are just another tribe member. Whether you consider that "cool" or not is not all that interesting though. I suspect in your circles it is very, very cool though.

[MadImmortalMan]

I am both worried and intrigued by Sheilbh's newfound interest in David Frum.

[Fate]

Obama kept Palin out of the White House. A++ 

[DGuller]

Which isn't your problem - your problem is that you are incapable of thinking about an issue on its own merits.

That's a completely false statement, and you know it.  You're just making it because you expect me to just let you smear me unchallenged.

[Berkut]

Which isn't your problem - your problem is that you are incapable of thinking about an issue on its own merits.

That's a completely false statement, and you know it.  You're just making it because you expect me to just let you smear me unchallenged.

No, it is because it is true, and you decided to drag me into the conversation because you expected me to let you talk your normal personal bullshit unchallenged.

You don't need any help from me to come across as a partisan hack - you manage that all by yourself.

[Sheilbh]

I am both worried and intrigued by Sheilbh's newfound interest in David Frum.

Oh it's nothing new.  I've been a fan for a while.  He was the only sane right-wing commentator the BBC had on election night and I'd read his National Review stuff before that.

[derspiess]

So what I think the Republicans are doing now is simply trying to kill the bill with lies and exageration. 

I'm shocked you came to that conclusion

[Eddie Teach]

I'm shocked you came to that conclusion

You think they aren't trying to kill the bill?

[Admiral Yi]

You think they aren't trying to kill the bill?

I haven't seen much to support the allegation that Republicans are trying to kill the bill.

[derspiess]

You think they aren't trying to kill the bill?

Obama's version of it?  I would certainly hope so; I'd be tempted to leave the party if not.  My comment was about Shielbh's "lies & deception" claim.

[Hansmeister]

I don't think that inability to work with opposition should be held against him.  I don't think Republicans would be willing to work even with Jesus, if he were a Democratic president.

I think it's a sign of his ineptness; even with the partisan rancor at the beginning of their terms Bill Clinton and Bush 43 were able to build bi-partisan support on NAFTA and NCLB respectively.

Well, Obama outsourced his policy to Nancy Pelosi, who wouldn't even allow the Republicans to participate in the discussion (nor most of the Dems), going as far as locking them out.  Obama and his fellow Democrats have on the Stimulus, Cap-and-trade, and Health care completely frozen out the GOP so they have no basis to complain about Republican "obstructionism".  Obama has proven to be as extremely partisan in the WH as he was in the Senate.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, right. I'm trying to be so cool. While you're, I guess, joined at the hip of the Dems? And that's so much better?

No, Berkut.  I'm merely someone who has a particular set of values and views that are not necesserily cool or moderate, and that set happens to coincide much more strongly with what Dems are trying to accomplish.

Which isn't your problem - your problem is that you are incapable of thinking about an issue on its own merits.

Even this discussion shows it. Your "rating"of Obama, to the extent you are capable of saying anything negative, is based on his "willingness to deal with Republicans". You are just another tribe member. Whether you consider that "cool" or not is not all that interesting though. I suspect in your circles it is very, very cool though.

The funny thing is that you project all this on everyone.  IT's you who can't be objective.  You never have been, never will be.  You engage in tribalism more then most.

[derspiess]

The funny thing is that you project all this on everyone.  IT's you who can't be objective.  You never have been, never will be.  You engage in tribalism more then most.

What's even funnier is that *you* apparently seem to think you're objective in some way.