Obama is too divisive to be an effective leader.

[Arkie]

Obama has proven he can’t be a bipartisan leader. Instead of trying to work with Congress on a bipartisan plan, he rammed his version of healthcare through without a single Republican vote. He set the tone early that he won’t bring both sides together, but he will push the other side away.

Nothing will change in the next four years if he’s re-elected. He will still fight with Congress and get nothing done. In fact, it will be worse because there’s more hatred from across the aisle than in 2008.

Obama can’t even bring his case to the people because he’s widened the divide between us too. I think Obama is better suited to work in Congress for the Democrats instead of trying to be a bipartisan leader. It’s time to cut our losses and move on.

[Paladin]

Yet you say Obama will win by more than three hundred ECVs. Something is wrong here......

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Arkie

Obama has proven he can’t be a bipartisan leader. Instead of trying to work with Congress on a bipartisan plan, he rammed his version of healthcare through without a single Republican vote. He set the tone early that he won’t bring both sides together, but he will push the other side away.

Nothing will change in the next four years if he’s re-elected. He will still fight with Congress and get nothing done. In fact, it will be worse because there’s more hatred from across the aisle than in 2008.

Obama can’t even bring his case to the people because he’s widened the divide between us too. I think Obama is better suited to work in Congress for the Democrats instead of trying to be a bipartisan leader. It’s time to cut our losses and move on.

Agreed. The last thing the U.S. needs is another Obama term like the last one.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Arkie

Obama has proven he can’t be a bipartisan leader. Instead of trying to work with Congress on a bipartisan plan, he rammed his version of healthcare through without a single Republican vote. He set the tone early that he won’t bring both sides together, but he will push the other side away.

Nothing will change in the next four years if he’s re-elected. He will still fight with Congress and get nothing done. In fact, it will be worse because there’s more hatred from across the aisle than in 2008.

Obama can’t even bring his case to the people because he’s widened the divide between us too. I think Obama is better suited to work in Congress for the Democrats instead of trying to be a bipartisan leader. It’s time to cut our losses and move on.

BS.

Congressmen of both parties will be running for reelection. If anyone wants to be reelected they won't continue to be do-nothings. Christie realizes this.

[Kid A]

But, yeah, it's totally on him for not getting the GOP to work with him.


On healthcare: what bipartisan policy could he have proposed that would have gotten GOP votes? After throwing the left-wing desire for a public option out the window, they bill they passed was based almost entirely on conservative ideas:

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/i...rdable_ca.html

The idea of an individual mandate was popularized by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative think tanks as early as 1989. Today, Heritage cites differences between their idea and the Obama version. Yet the basic principles are the same.

In 1992, Heritage proposed a sweeping reform it called the Heritage Consumer Choice Health Plan. Among the plan’s features:

“Require all households to purchase at least a basic package of insurance, unless they are covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or other government health programs. The private insurance market would be reformed to make a standard basic package available to all at an acceptable price.”

That's the oh so controversial individual mandate. A Heritage Foundation idea to drive more people into the private insurance market.

As President Bill Clinton began to push for a government-run system in 1993, Republicans introduced bills that included an individual mandate. At the time, Newt Gingrich hailed them:
“I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance,” he told “Meet the Press” in 1993. “And I’m prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy, to ensure that everyone as individuals has health insurance.”

As late as 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bipartisan bill that included an individual mandate — still seen as an essentially conservative idea. Gingrich in 2007 argued that “citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.”

Wait, if individual mandate was the GOP alternative to government-run healthcare, why would they decry it as socialism when Obama was president? Couldn't be really cynical politicking could it?

Oh, and some Republican Governor passed a version of it (developed with the same experts who later developed the ACA) in his state, hailing it as a "model for the nation":



But, please tell me again how the president is the one not holding up his end of "bipartisanship."

[Vegas_Bronco]

His report card has definitely become an issue and he should be embarrassed by it.

[orinjkrush]

community organizer tactics have been shown by the Rs to be ineffective in Washington.

if the Rs get in, expect the same obstinate stone walling from the Ds.

we have gridlock and need to get rid of all the career politicians both R and D.

[Mecklomaniac]

In Audacity of Hope Obama said

"Genuine bipartisanship, though, assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained - by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate - to negotiate in good faith. If these conditions do not hold - if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs of the tax cut are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so - the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100 percent of what it wants, go on to concede 10 percent, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this "compromise" of being "obstructionist." For the minority party in such circumstances, 'bipartisanship' comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being 'moderate' or 'centrist.' "

This however has been how his whole term as president has been. Just look at the healthcare bill. Rather than put together a bill that could gain consensus. They put together a bill that only they left was behind, they then tried to add pork (corn husker kick back, Louisana purchase) to bribe a few moderate dems to join the left. When it was all over, they then turned their backs on the blue dog dems and the agreements they made. That is not leadership, that is manipulation.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Mecklomaniac

In Audacity of Hope Obama said



This however has been how his whole term as president has been. Just look at the healthcare bill. Rather than put together a bill that could gain consensus. They put together a bill that only they left was behind, they then tried to add pork (corn husker kick back, Louisana purchase) to bribe a few moderate dems to join the left. When it was all over, they then turned their backs on the blue dog dems and the agreements they made. That is not leadership, that is manipulation.

In Audacity of an a-hole, Mitch McConnell said

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Compromise with that.

[Mecklomaniac]

Originally Posted by houghtam

In Audacity of an a-hole, Mitch McConnell said

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Compromise with that.

Oh please... That is the goal of every member of the out of power party. Tip O'neil at times was pretty harsh with Reagan calling him a "Herbert Hoover with a smile, a cheerleader for selfishness". The goals of Reagan and O'neil were usually completely opposite. They learned how to compromise and work together. Newt Gingrich tried to make Bill Clinton a one term president through impeachment, yet they worked well together.

[NUB]

Before the President even began his term the Republican leadership said their #1 priority for the next four years was to stonewall the executive branch. In the midst of an economic crisis that threatened quite literally the entire world, that was the GOP's focus.

[Garcia Bronco]

I don't think, but he'll be a lame duck President in two years if he wins.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Mecklomaniac

Oh please... That is the goal of every member of the out of power party. Tip O'neil at times was pretty harsh with Reagan calling him a "Herbert Hoover with a smile, a cheerleader for selfishness". The goals of Reagan and O'neil were usually completely opposite. They learned how to compromise and work together. Newt Gingrich tried to make Bill Clinton a one term president through impeachment, yet they worked well together.

Bill Clinton lied under oath and did that dumb **** to himself.

[Rohirrim]

The Republicans are willing to meet with the president, or the Democrats, but they absolutely refuse to compromise. On anything. It doesn't matter what it is. If Obama makes an offer to cut spending and asks for more taxes on the rich, they will walk away. Period. That's not compromise. That's, "My way or the highway."

[Pseudofool]

Originally Posted by Mecklomaniac

In Audacity of Hope Obama said



This however has been how his whole term as president has been. Just look at the healthcare bill. Rather than put together a bill that could gain consensus. They put together a bill that only they left was behind, they then tried to add pork (corn husker kick back, Louisana purchase) to bribe a few moderate dems to join the left. When it was all over, they then turned their backs on the blue dog dems and the agreements they made. That is not leadership, that is manipulation.

Obamacare is a conservative idea. Liberals want single payer. Liberals DID compromise over healthcare.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The Republicans are willing to meet with the president, or the Democrats, but they absolutely refuse to compromise. On anything. It doesn't matter what it is. If Obama makes an offer to cut spending and asks for more taxes on the rich, they will walk away. Period. That's not compromise. That's, "My way or the highway."

QFT. The republicans are willing to compromise...

...as long as everything is done their way.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Pseudofool

Obamacare is a conservative idea. Liberals want single payer. Liberals DID compromise over healthcare.

The Right has gone so extremist they've completely lost their bearings. They think a centrist like Obama is some kind of Bolshevik. It's like talking to crazy people.

[Mecklomaniac]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The Republicans are willing to meet with the president, or the Democrats, but they absolutely refuse to compromise. On anything. It doesn't matter what it is. If Obama makes an offer to cut spending and asks for more taxes on the rich, they will walk away. Period. That's not compromise. That's, "My way or the highway."

Obama played "My way or the highway" right from the start. "I won"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html

It only got worse from here

"Republicans gotta sit in the back". The various car, Slurpee and mop analogies. "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking." Lecturing the supreme court at the state of the union.

It also didn't help that Nancy Pelosi ran the house as a tyrant.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The Right has gone so extremist they've completely lost their bearings. They think a centrist like Obama is some kind of Bolshevik. It's like talking to crazy people.

The OP is all the proof of this you need.

He's actually arguing, with a straight face, that Obama refuses to compromise with the rethugs?

Holy cow - that's getting things bass-ackwards to a pathological degree.

[Mecklomaniac]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The Right has gone so extremist they've completely lost their bearings. They think a centrist like Obama is some kind of Bolshevik. It's like talking to crazy people.

Obama was one of the most liberal senators (National Journal had he rated as the most liberal). Trying to pretend he is some sort of pragmatic Bill Clinton new democrat is insane.

[Mecklomaniac]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

The OP is all the proof of this you need.

He's actually arguing, with a straight face, that Obama refuses to compromise with the rethugs?

Holy cow - that's getting things bass-ackwards to a pathological degree.

Where is the evidence. Where has he tried to compromise. He has shown no leadership.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Mecklomaniac

Where is the evidence. Where has he tried to compromise. He has shown no leadership.

Those first two years in office when his party controlled both chambers, for starters.

He could have rammed through the "socialist agenda" the right-wing straw man artists screech about, but he chose to play nice with the rethugs instead.

But my point was that the OP's claim is hilarious insofar as the rethugs have obstructed, blocked, and filibustered everything Obama has tried to do....and the OP is complaining that Obama refuses to compromise? Talk about a massive projection!

[Mecklomaniac]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Those first two years in office when his party controlled both chambers, for starters.

He could have rammed through the "socialist agenda" the right-wing straw man artists screech about, but he chose to play nice with the rethugs instead.

But my point was that the OP's claim is hilarious insofar as the rethugs have obstructed, blocked, and filibustered everything Obama has tried to do....and the OP is complaining that Obama refuses to compromise? Talk about a massive projection!

BS


He didn't slam through a "socialist agenda" not because he was trying to compromise with Republicans but because blue dog dems wouldn't go along with it.

If you want to talk obstructing, what has the feckless Harry Reid done in the last two years.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Mecklomaniac

Where is the evidence. Where has he tried to compromise. He has shown no leadership.

why are you even trying to debate with this liberal moron.. it is a total waste of band width..

by even quoting him you empower, someone so far left winger he has no idea what he left looks like..

empower him and he just keeps posting cartoons.. or a quote from lanny davis a socialist at best.. clitons lackey left lawyer..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Mecklomaniac

BS


He didn't slam through a "socialist agenda" not because he was trying to compromise with Republicans but because blue dog dems wouldn't go along with it.

If you want to talk obstructing, what has the feckless Harry Reid done in the last two years.

The lack of a majority in both chambers didn't stop your hero GeeDubya from ramming a radical right-wing agenda down America's throat.

As for Obama, can you name one instance in which the rethugs have compromised with him on anything?