Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
except there is nothing to prove that what was said in that link ever happened where as there is proof that 4 days before this, Republicans held a meeting and said they would block anything Barack Obama proposed.
That talking point was discredited long ago.
Try another!
Your problem is that Obama 'owned' both the Senate and the House for his first two years!
The Republicans could not have 'blocked' anything!
Yes, one party challenging the other, as is cited in your link, is part of the negotiation process. Both parties do that. Obama's problem is that he wouldn't negotiate with the Republicans at all. He simply refused to work with them at all, insisting, "I won."
Republicans chose the night Barack Obama took office to never follow him. As far as we know, Clinton did not face that same opposition. And Johnson had the Largest Supermajoirty in the last 100 years. He didnt have to fight with Republicans, all of his Fights were with the Left flank of his own party. 69 Democratic Senators and 295 Democratic Representatives in the House.
Both of you present a one sided flawed argument that purposefully leaves out the truth.
Did Republicans choose to reject him from the beginning because of racism, probably not, but because of partisanship, yes, probably so.
Sorry, but you are incorrect. A supermajority meant nothing during the turbulent 1960's. LBJ had to contend with a large cadre of conservative Democrats that were't automatic votes. LBJ had to do alot of convincing and arm twisting to get the votes he wanted and needed. Clearly you are mesmerized by the Obama/Pelosi/Reid style of party loyalty. That you think party loyalty historically trumps personal politics shows that you are far too young to be engaged in any discussion involving Lyndon Johnson and his ability to whip votes for his cause. None of it came easy.....LBJ is legendary for exactly the opposite reason that you hypothesize here. That means that LBJ is a bona fide leader. Barack Obama isn't even in the same galaxy.
For instance ... Clinton ... had the ability to get things done despite political divisions within the country and their own parties.
I've been saying this for a long time now, whenever a liberal/Democrat tries to claim that it's the fault of Republicans that this president is so ineffective.
Clinton was IMPEACHED by a Republican house, yet he STILL managed to work with them and get the country's business done. The excuse that the opposing party has the majority in one side of Congress is absolutely laughable, and frankly, I'm a bit shocked that the people who use that excuse (virtually every "lefty" on C-D, for starters) apparently think that it's actually valid.
Of course, when I do bring up Clinton and how he managed to lead despite everything he went through, the response is always the same:
Why does it always go to the Race Card? President Obama most level minded people hold performance over race. Race is just a way from diverting the issue.
The Obama polices have not worked and all of the bail outs have resulted in less than satisfactory results.
I dislike Biden more than Obama on a personal level (Obama's very personable, which is how he managed to hoodwink so many for so long), but Biden would be an INFINITELY better president. The guy's been around Washington for a while, and knows how things work. He has the one thing that Obama lacks, but is arguably the most important trait for a president - experience.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.