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.
By now many of you have probably heard that Barack Obama lunched with the Republicans and went toe to toe with them in pretty fine style last week. I am an Obama supporter, not because I agree with all of his policies (I hate the notion of preventing foreclosures for deadbeat home buyers for instance) but because he seems like an unusually bright, articulate, and collaborative person. I am proud to have him as President, as I would have been proud to have John McCain (an honorable man who ran a poor campaign).
So, Pittsburghians, as moderate cerebral types (a rare breed, believe me) I wonder what you think of the exchange between BO and the Republicans last week. Was it a smackdown for the Dems, a short-term win, long-term loss (he looked better, but alienated his opponents), or is it a sign of healthy bipartisan discussion that bodes well for the future?
(Just so you know, I will post this same query to pretty hard left and hard right boards to see the various reactions)
I am not trolling for political rants here, just a query about whether such candidness make you more or less hopeful for more candid political dialog and collaboration, whatever your personal views.
So I actually had Obama as a professor when I was at Chicago Law (if I'm not mistaken, I took the last class he taught--at the time he was actually running in the primary for the Senate seat he eventually won). Professor Obama was extremely good at making sure all the relevant sides of the contentious issues we were discussing (it was a 14th Amendment class, so dealt with a lot of politically-charged issues involving things like race, sexual orientation, and so on) got a full and fair hearing. In general, he was also very quick mentally, and could easily understand what the students were arguing and pull those arguments into a greater conversation roughly fitting his agenda for the class (these are necessary traits for someone teaching a class using the Socratic Method, as was favored at Chicago). I also know that when he was in the Illinois Senate, he was well-known for being able to work productively with Republicans, finding common cause on many important issues.
So the Obama on display in that video is very much the Obama that I know. But as for what it will mean in a greater sense--I think Obama is clearly correct that the opposition tactics chosen by the Republicans have boxed them in, making it very difficult for them to work productively with him on anything, even things that they have personally supported in the past. I have no idea how to solve that problem, and to be blunt, I think the Republicans currently believe that those tactics are working, and so aren't likely to want to solve that problem anyway.
Having said that, it occurs to me that Paul Ryan, whom was part of that dialogue, actually just released what I consider to be a refreshingly honest proposal for dealing with the United States' long-term budgetary issues:
Regardless of what you think of the merits of that proposal (e.g., because of its insistence on avoiding any tax increases, it would require very significant cuts in popular programs like Social Security and Medicare, Pell Grants, the FBI, NHI, and so on), I think Ryan should be applauded for having the political courage to given people an honest presentation of his ideas. And I would love to see a continuing public debate/dialogue on these matters between Obama and people like Ryan, conducted in the vigorous but respectful manner we saw on display in the aforementioned video.
At least no one stood up in the back of the room and shouted, "You lie!" or anything...
I'll admit first that I too am an Obama supporter, but I don't agree with everything he's done or put forward. The most important thing I see for Obama to do is to call the Republicans on their game. I'm a pretty moderate Democrat and I'm sick of seeing in this country was has been termed the "Radical Middle". Growing up, I was always taught that compromise was the best way to a solution. Why does it inherently make less sense politically?
In the 2008 election, I think Obama had a strong pull on moderates from both parties as well as some independents. I still attribute this to his attitude and personality: he emanated a certain "coolness" that has been lacking in American politics for some time. All of sudden to moderates and apathetics, politics seemed relevant and legitimate again. The failures and ineptitude of the Bush administration invariably led the majority of moderates and other "swing" voters to side with the Dems. What I see in the tactics of today's Republicans to block new legislature under Obama is a move to specifically drive away moderate support for Obama. This of course won't cause all moderates to swing back towards Republican support, instead it will create more or less a sea of apathy and a reluctance to participate in politics. With most moderates out of the way, the Republicans will see a return to the more partisan politics that dominated the early part of this last decade: A fight they believe is theirs to more easily win.
Conspiracy theory or not, I can vouch for being inclined to feel this way because of my moderate political stance and an increasing reluctance in the effectiveness of the American political system. I feel like Obama can still keep this ship afloat, but he needs to call out precisely what he sees in the Republicans' tactics here, but still behave in a manner that fosters bipartisanship. It truly is a tough pickle and possibly a lose-lose situation for if he's too soft, the Republicans will probably stand their ground and if he "bullies" too much, then he will lose support of a bipartisan system.
What does this have to do with Pittsburgh? If you're looking for political debate and reactions, then there are plenty of other forums, blogs, and websites for that. I fail to see why this should clutter up an otherwise useful and politically-neutral forum.
What does this have to do with Pittsburgh? If you're looking for political debate and reactions, then there are plenty of other forums, blogs, and websites for that. I fail to see why this should clutter up an otherwise useful and politically-neutral forum.
Totally agree. This has WHAT to do with Pittsburgh?
Here's some advise regarding ALL POLITICIANS..............they do what is best for THEMSELVES..........NOT the country and it's people!
Fiddlehead, it looks like there is zero-tolerance when it comes to political-themed threads in the Pittsburgh forum. Sorry dude, good try though. I didn't mind.
Not to reiterate what was said by Fiddlehead, but he stated that he wasn't looking for a debate. He is simply wanting to hear your thoughts and opinions. It has a lot to do with Pittsburgh and the rest of America too. So it is kind of important.
The things that impressed me was his recalling statistics. I was flabbergasted, "how does he remember all that s#%t?
And not even one come back or correction.
"Hensarling, Jan. 29: [A] year ago, the Republicans proposed a budget that ensured that government did not grow beyond the historical standard of 20 percent of GDP. It was a budget that actually froze immediately non-defense discretionary spending. It spent $5 trillion less than ultimately what was enacted into law, and unfortunately, I believe that budget was ignored. And since that budget was ignored, what were the old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats. The national debt has increased 30 percent."
Barry's response:
Obama: Now, look, let’s talk about the budget once again, because I’ll go through it with you line by line. The fact of the matter is, is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. — $1.3 [trillion.] So when you say that suddenly I’ve got a monthly budget that is higher than the — a monthly deficit that’s higher than the annual deficit left by the Republicans, that’s factually just not true, and you know it’s not true.
And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law.
While not entirely accurate according to Factcheck.org (CBO) it was certainly closer to the real numbers.
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.
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.
