GOP already backing away from campaign promises.....

[Keystone Phil]

Where were those concerns during the Bush years? They remembered them when a Democrat was in the White House as a fig-leaf for their obstruction.

Hey, it happens on both sides and I don't like when either party does it. However, it was Obama that trumpeted that nonsense that he "transcends politics."

Because he was naive enough to believe that Republicans would negotiate in good faith.

Wow. You're really reaching on this one!

Let me indulge this stupid point for a minute though. Even if it was true, wouldn't a man that transcends politics transcend the entire political process.

For it was written that Barack so loved the nation...

[Badger]

Where were those concerns during the Bush years? They remembered them when a Democrat was in the White House as a fig-leaf for their obstruction.

Hey, it happens on both sides and I don't like when either party does it. However, it was Obama that trumpeted that nonsense that he "transcends politics."

Because he was naive enough to believe that Republicans would negotiate in good faith.

Wow. You're really reaching on this one!

Let me indulge this stupid point for a minute though. Even if it was true, wouldn't a man that transcends politics transcend the entire political process.

For it was written that Barack so loved the nation...

Seriously, PX, get a clue. I mean imagine if Obama proposed a health care plan strikingly similar to what Bob Dole pushed 15 years ago. You think they would've held the bill up via filibustering and demonized their own proposal as a socialist takeover of health care for naked political gain? Of course not! They would've marched up and shook Obama's hand, said "let's make a deal Mr. President", and the matter would've promptly passed with 80+ votes in the Senate. AS IF Obama would've ever taken that bipartisan a route. HAH!

Just think, PX, had the President not been so obstructionist this result would've allowed the Administration to move on to other goals of reform and focus more on the economy, in which the Congressional Republicans would've been every bit as constructive in fashioning a compromise. It would've really marked this President as a bipartisan success and the Republicans would've undoubtedly trumpeted their work on passing Obama's legislation to argue theirs is the better vision.

But no, Obama had to try claiming a popular mandate in negotiations when he only won 59 votes in the Senate (later 60 votes minus Lieberman). Really PX, anyone who follows politics should know 60 votes are necessary to pass the vast majority of legislation, and has been that way forever and ever and ever, and to the exact same degree during the Reagan and Bush Administrations. D'UH!!!

Jesus, PX! Don't you understand when Obama promised to transcend politics he specifically meant that the opposition would stop using tactics of parliamentary delay and obstructionism? Try as he might, Phil just can't get it through that thick head of yours that it was Obama who broke his promise by allowing Republicans to filibuster every piece of his agenda and make unprecedented use of holds. I don't even know why he bothers with you...

God, PX, you are such a total fu%$ing dick!!

[Keystone Phil]

Px, take a note from Badger: when he goes extreme partisan hack, he at least makes it more amusing. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

Px, take a note from Badger: when he goes extreme partisan hack, he at least makes it more amusing. 

Yeah, he is so extremely hackish that you don't even bother to answer.

[Keystone Phil]

Px, take a note from Badger: when he goes extreme partisan hack, he at least makes it more amusing. 

Yeah, he is so extremely hackish that you don't even bother to answer.

I didn't see a question.

Obama's comment, especially as Mr. "Transcends Politics," was inappropriate and not a form of negotiation. But that's ok. That attitude helped the GOP pick up over sixty House seats and six Senate seats even as we were "on the verge of extinction." Thanks, Mr. President. Let's do it again some time.

[Napoleon]

I'm more disappointed about Obama and the Democrats letting us down the past two years than some crazy Republicans backing away from the outrageous and over-the-top campaign fibs they told.

Phil, the Republicans could have done a lot better than six senate seats.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Px, take a note from Badger: when he goes extreme partisan hack, he at least makes it more amusing. 

Yeah, he is so extremely hackish that you don't even bother to answer.

I didn't see a question.

Obama's comment, especially as Mr. "Transcends Politics," was inappropriate and not a form of negotiation. But that's ok. That attitude helped the GOP pick up over sixty House seats and six Senate seats even as we were "on the verge of extinction." Thanks, Mr. President. Let's do it again some time.

Really? And silly me thought that unemployment was the main cause for Democratic losses.

Then again we shouldn't discount the massive effect of the Van Johnson controversy and the Sestak job offer.

[Napoleon]

Px, take a note from Badger: when he goes extreme partisan hack, he at least makes it more amusing. 

Yeah, he is so extremely hackish that you don't even bother to answer.

I didn't see a question.

Obama's comment, especially as Mr. "Transcends Politics," was inappropriate and not a form of negotiation. But that's ok. That attitude helped the GOP pick up over sixty House seats and six Senate seats even as we were "on the verge of extinction." Thanks, Mr. President. Let's do it again some time.

Really? And silly me thought that unemployment was the main cause for Democratic losses.

Then again we shouldn't discount the massive effect of the Van Johnson controversy and the Sestak job offer.

The unemployed were probably some of the most Democratic voters in 2010.

You two don't have to bicker back and forth in every thread. It gets old.

[Badger]

Disagree! The PX-KP rows are what popcorn (or gin ) was invented for! Carry on, gladiators, as I sip wine from my luxury box seat!

[anvi]

Obama never said he transcends politics.  He has said that people expect politicians to act with a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics.  Does he fail to do this sometimes?  Definitely.  All politicians do.  Call 60 Minutes.  

[Badger]

Px, take a note from Badger: when he goes extreme partisan hack, he at least makes it more amusing. 

Um, thanks Phil?

[Napoleon]

Disagree! The PX-KP rows are what popcorn (or gin ) was invented for! Carry on, gladiators, as I sip wine from my luxery box seat!

If we got humor or substance rather than insults and anger, perhaps.
I like both individuals but maybe they need a restraining order haha.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Disagree! The PX-KP rows are what popcorn (or gin ) was invented for! Carry on, gladiators, as I sip wine from my luxery box seat!

I just try to do my best and fill the void left by Marokai.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, the Republicans could have done a lot better than six senate seats.

Uh...at the beginning of 2010, we had 40 seats. After 2008, people were talking about the GOP having a net loss of Senate seats again because of big retirements on our side. Things turned out differently. We now have 47 seats. How much better could we have done? Could we have won Colorado and Nevada in the General? Sure. That's not "a lot" better. Also consider the results of primary contests that are mostly out of the national party's control. There wasn't much better that could have been done. The absolute ceiling was ten or maybe eleven. I'll take what we got.

Obama never said he transcends politics.  He has said that people expect politicians to act with a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics.  Does he fail to do this sometimes?  Definitely.  All politicians do.  Call 60 Minutes. 

He fed into it. He was stressing that he was the change everyone was waiting for. He was the new dawn.  He went on to take cheap shots from the beginning of his administration. Let's not forget the immature "The campaign is over, John" incident during the healthcare reform summit.

Really? And silly me thought that unemployment was the main cause for Democratic losses.

Tell me why his approval rating was 44% in midterm exit polls, px. Was it because people actually really liked him and just had this impulse to say otherwise?

Your knee jerk tendency to spout DNC talking points as if Tim Kaine was handing you your check every other week aside, everyone can admit that Obama lost the trust of the voters in 2010. He rammed an unpopular healthcare overhaul through Congress. People don't like the bill and don't like the way it was passed. It's time to open your eyes and admit that he paid a price for his style in the first two years of his term.

[bullmoose88]

Don't forget Delaware!


(Phil).

[Keystone Phil]

Don't forget Delaware!


(Phil).

I was talking about seats that we still could have won with our candidates in the General. That wasn't happening after the primary.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Tell me why his approval rating was 44% in midterm exit polls, px. Was it because people actually really liked him and just had this impulse to say otherwise?

Your knee jerk tendency to spout DNC talking points as if Tim Kaine was handing you your check every other week aside, everyone can admit that Obama lost the trust of the voters in 2010. He rammed an unpopular healthcare overhaul through Congress. People don't like the bill and don't like the way it was passed. It's time to open your eyes and admit that he paid a price for his style in the first two years of his term.

LOL! Do you know "kid" that Obama is by far the most popular politician in Washington? People certainly trust and like him much more than Bhoener and McConnell. Read a poll if you don't believe me.

And if unemployment was at 7% and falling nobody would have cared even if they passed HCR in the middle of the night with exotic dancers on the floor of the House celebrating its passage.
You talk about talking points but you seem to wallow in them. How it was "rammed" through congress? After six months of negotiations and with a 3/5ths majority in the Senate?

Maybe you prefer the ...bipartisan way through which the Bush tax cuts passed: with 50 votes and Cheney casting the tie-breaker. But then it was apparently a triumph of the will of the people. While Dems passing a bill with 60 votes was an "unprecedented power grab". 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are you kind enough to remind us the circumstances under which he uttered that phrase?

He said it during negotiations with Congressional Republicans after Republicans noted their concern with spending. Great negotiating.

Well, as much as it may surprise you the minority can't FORCE their policies on the majority. Especially when they have settled on a strategy of "No Compromise".

Who said anything about forcing policies on anyone? You don't say "I won" after campaigning on changing politics and all of his other nonsense at negotiations.

You can if the losing side behaves as if they own the place.

Right, px.    They were acting like they owned the place by voicing their concerns over spending. Thanks for your daily dose of hackery.

Where were those concerns during the Bush years? They remembered them when a Democrat was in the White House as a fig-leaf for their obstruction.

They were there. Mike Pence, Jeff Flake, Ron Paul and Tom Coburn were there complaining about spending and even confronting veteran Republicans on their out of control spending. I seem to remember a Republican being in the White House when Pence, Shadegg and others decided to challenge the leadership of the congressional GOP, when Flake and Charlie Bass moved to completely replace the entire House GOP leadership in early 2006.

You guys were just busy and not paying enough attention. Because these were just the fringe kooks of course.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Tell me why his approval rating was 44% in midterm exit polls, px. Was it because people actually really liked him and just had this impulse to say otherwise?

Your knee jerk tendency to spout DNC talking points as if Tim Kaine was handing you your check every other week aside, everyone can admit that Obama lost the trust of the voters in 2010. He rammed an unpopular healthcare overhaul through Congress. People don't like the bill and don't like the way it was passed. It's time to open your eyes and admit that he paid a price for his style in the first two years of his term.

LOL! Do you know "kid" that Obama is by far the most popular politician in Washington? People certainly trust and like him much more than Bhoener and McConnell. Read a poll if you don't believe me.

And if unemployment was at 7% and falling nobody would have cared even if they passed HCR in the middle of the night with exotic dancers on the floor of the House celebrating its passage.
You talk about talking points but you seem to wallow in them. How it was "rammed" through congress? After six months of negotiations and with a 3/5ths majority in the Senate?

Maybe you prefer the ...bipartisan way through which the Bush tax cuts passed: with 50 votes and Cheney casting the tie-breaker. But then it was apparently a triumph of the will of the people. While Dems passing a bill with 60 votes was an "unprecedented power grab". 

Not necessarily. If the economy was improving it would also have dropped in importance as an issue as well, allowing a void to be filled by health care, by anger at procedural nonesense, and by the deficit.  Also those ethical problems with Rengell and others would have received more attention. The economy served to magnify problems for the Democrats but it most certainly wasn't the only driving force in the election. Without a bad economy, the Republicans taking over would have been a 1994 style surprise that wasn't even that clear by late summer and really only became more visible after labor day. In this way the Democrats may have benefitted by knowing in advance and thus allowing them to plan accordingly. The point is, it still could have happened.

Its like saying the Republicans wouldn't have lost the Congress in 2006 had it not been for Iraq. There is no way to know and there were other issues working against the Republicans that year like the scandals and some of the social issues.

[Keystone Phil]

LOL! Do you know "kid" that Obama is by far the most popular politician in Washington? People certainly trust and like him much more than Bhoener and McConnell. Read a poll if you don't believe me.

Wow. You're going to cite approval polls of people like Boehner and McConnell? You'd be one of the people complaining that polls about Pelosi and Reid don't matter and that would be correct. National polls gauging popularity of figures that aren't elected nationally don't really matter because people hardly know anything about them when compared to the President.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Totally subjective and without any proof.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, etc. The majority it receives has nothing to do with it being rushed through.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most people supported the tax cuts, for starters.

[Landslide Lyndon]

LOL! Do you know "kid" that Obama is by far the most popular politician in Washington? People certainly trust and like him much more than Bhoener and McConnell. Read a poll if you don't believe me.

Wow. You're going to cite approval polls of people like Boehner and McConnell? You'd be one of the people complaining that polls about Pelosi and Reid don't matter and that would be correct. National polls gauging popularity of figures that aren't elected nationally don't really matter because people hardly know anything about them when compared to the President.

I never said that Pelosi's favorables didn't matter. I just said that they were at about the same level as Bhoener's and McConnell's, so you can't say that Democrats lost the House because of her (un)popularity.
And the fact that they aren't as well known as Obama doesn't change the fact that their unfavorables are twice their favorables. Obviously even those who know them like Obama more.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, objective and empiric after watching politics for a long time. Voters want results and don't care how government achieves them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, rushed through after five months of negotiations with Republicans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, duh! Who says no when they give him free money?

[Keystone Phil]

And the fact that they aren't as well known as Obama doesn't change the fact that their unfavorables are twice their favorables. Obviously even those who know them like Obama more.

I bet Boehner's favorables are around 20% and unfavorables are around 40%. That would satisfy your claim and still leave 40% having no opinion/not knowing enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ha! You can't cite a single piece of evidence that backs up your claim besides "I've watching politics for a long time." Ok. That's going to be my excuse for backing up wild claims, too. You're taking a policy that you support but is unpopular here and saying that a totally independent issue would have made it popular. Ridiculous!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which Republicans were bought off? Also, again, negotiating doesn't mean saying, "I won."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good job refuting my point!

[Napoleon]

px75 will make excuses for any Democrat and if you try to be an impartial liberal analyst you become a concern troll.

Phil, of course, is right that people don't (or at least didn't) know Boehner like they did Pelosi, and even if they hated him, he wasn't in the position of power that mattered the last Congress.

The idea that voters want "results" and don't care how they are achieved is laughably absurd.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ha! You can't cite a single piece of evidence that backs up your claim besides "I've watching politics for a long time." Ok. That's going to be my excuse for backing up wild claims, too. You're taking a policy that you support but is unpopular here and saying that a totally independent issue would have made it popular. Ridiculous!

Well how about that: voters approved of Bush for "keeping America safe" even though he achieved(?) it through torture, illegal wiretapping and curtailing civil liberties.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, Republicans couldn't be bought off. They were already sold to insurance companies.
Anyway, if you bothered to read anything else besides RedState then you would know that the Louisiana and Nebraska provisions were actually sound policy decisions. The Nebraska provision was expanded to the entire country after all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you!

[Napoleon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ha! You can't cite a single piece of evidence that backs up your claim besides "I've watching politics for a long time." Ok. That's going to be my excuse for backing up wild claims, too. You're taking a policy that you support but is unpopular here and saying that a totally independent issue would have made it popular. Ridiculous!

Well how about that: voters approved of Bush for "keeping America safe" even though he achieved(?) it through torture, illegal wiretapping and curtailing civil liberties.

Those are policy issues all on their own, not methods of implementing a policy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, Republicans couldn't be bought off. They were already sold to insurance companies.
Anyway, if you bothered to read anything else besides RedState then you would know that the Louisiana and Nebraska provisions were actually sound policy decisions. The Nebraska provision was expanded to the entire country after all.[/quote]

Both parties accepted money from insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Big deal!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you!
[/quote]

:/