PDA

View Full Version : Does one sense of Obama's "bipartisanship" actually amount to...



DenButsu
04-13-2009, 02:30 PM
...just treating the other side seriously?


That's what I was kind of pondering after reading these two articles.

First, from the Post,

This article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/12/AR2009041202629.html?wprss=rss_business), which is a really great read, I think, no matter which angle you're coming from. Ostensibly it's about the West Wing, under Rahm Emmanuel, being much more accessible that under Bush. But in practical terms, the meat of the story is that the reason that access actually means something to Republicans who walk through the door, is that they're finding ears that are actually listening to them.

This second post (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/what-would-bipartisan-obama-look-like.html) is from Nate Silver (yeah, I'm citing him again), who addresses the question of bipartisanship more directly.



But the basic gist, the common theme running through both stories, is that essentially Obama is not outright dismissive of opposing ideas; that he takes them seriously, and weighs on them with consideration. That his administration is not merely assuming to hold the moral high ground, but is open to the possibility not only that there is some shared high ground, but that the opposition might be able to contribute some constructive ideas as to how to identify and navigate it.



Of course, I personally have no idea what' really happening behind the scenes. But it's nice to think that some bridges of civility might actually be under construction, and that in spite of points of disagreement existing, points of agreement might be used some of those gaps.

Cubsrule
04-13-2009, 02:39 PM
...just treating the other side seriously?


That's what I was kind of pondering after reading these two articles.

First, from the Post,

This article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/12/AR2009041202629.html?wprss=rss_business), which is a really great read, I think, no matter which angle you're coming from. Ostensibly it's about the West Wing, under Rahm Emmanuel, being much more accessible that under Bush. But in practical terms, the meat of the story is that the reason that access actually means something to Republicans who walk through the door, is that they're finding ears that are actually listening to them.

This second post (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/what-would-bipartisan-obama-look-like.html) is from Nate Silver (yeah, I'm citing him again), who addresses the question of bipartisanship more directly.



But the basic gist, the common theme running through both stories, is that essentially Obama is not outright dismissive of opposing ideas; that he takes them seriously, and weighs on them with consideration. That his administration is not merely assuming to hold the moral high ground, but is open to the possibility not only that there is some shared high ground, but that the opposition might be able to contribute some constructive ideas as to how to identify and navigate it.



Of course, I personally have no idea what' really happening behind the scenes. But it's nice to think that some bridges of civility might actually be under construction, and that in spite of points of disagreement existing, points of agreement might be used some of those gaps.

Sorry but this is just more dribble about Obama's petty attempts at bipartisanship. I realize you love the guy Betsu, but his attempts at bipartisanship have either been half assed or laughable. Quit trying to defend the guy on this issue. Really the only thing he has done that has appeased the right is keeping Robert Gates, mainly because there is no one on the left that could a better job, but that's my opinion.

ari1013
04-13-2009, 03:38 PM
Who really gives a crap?

All I want is to see him make the right decisions. And for the most part he's doing it.

Cubsrule
04-13-2009, 03:40 PM
Who really gives a crap?

All I want is to see him make the right decisions. And for the most part he's doing it.

In your opinion, what has he done right?

PHX-SOXFAN
04-13-2009, 04:39 PM
In your opinion, what has he done right?

you've already seen what he agrees with regarding foreign policy and economic policy at the least. I've seen you respond to his posts and be involved in the discussions. DId you forget already? I paid attention to his posts and can remember several in addition to what I just referenced, surely you can remember your own discussions of just reference previous posts.

Why is research contually eluding your posts? Is it deliberately trying to bring up more obama bashing? Do you honestly not remember? Or do you just not want to put in the time to research things like this and the army field manual I had to bring to your attention instead of the cliffs notes you threw at me in a previous thread?

Cubsrule
04-13-2009, 04:43 PM
you've already seen what he agrees with regarding foreign policy and economic policy at the least. I've seen you respond to his posts and be involved in the discussions. DId you forget already? I paid attention to his posts and can remember several in addition to what I just referenced, surely you can remember your own discussions of just reference previous posts.

Why is research contually eluding your posts? Is it deliberately trying to bring up more obama bashing? Do you honestly not remember? Or do you just not want to put in the time to research things like this and the army field manual I had to bring to your attention instead of the cliffs notes you threw at me in a previous thread?

Lol, I am gonna take the same route that just about everyone in this forum has with you and not respond. It's too fricken hilarious to read what you post. I'll continue to have my discussion with ari, being as I don't think I was in on the first discussion.

ink
04-13-2009, 05:01 PM
But the basic gist, the common theme running through both stories, is that essentially Obama is not outright dismissive of opposing ideas; that he takes them seriously, and weighs on them with consideration.

You mean outright dismissive as in the first response to your post? :laugh2:


... in spite of points of disagreement existing, points of agreement might be used some of those gaps.

Exactly. While disagreements may persist, at least the partisan rancor settles down long enough for people to hear each other's ideas.

Unlike a sport, where the goal is simply to beat the other team, politicians are not supposed to "beat" other politicians and other Americans. They're supposed to be productive. They can't do that when they treat their term of office as the regular season and the election campaign as the playoffs. They have to treat their term of office as their mandate and actually achieve something with their peers from either side of the aisle.

I like any thread that de-emphasizes partisanship. :D

Seppuku
04-13-2009, 05:02 PM
I think the trouble is that different people have different ideas of what bi-partisanship should mean. Some seem to think it should be listening to what the other side can bring to the table and then trying to make what seems to be the best choice based on the options presented. This flip side to this is people thinking this should mean equal time and equal input to the final structure. I don't agree with this second view but I can see why the minority will want to hold this standard. Being given a turn and a voice that is heard and then over-ridden is not what the ex-majority is used to. They are used to running roughshod over everything and being allowed to run amuck.

News flash !!! Bi-partisanship does not mean that the minority party gets the final say on anything.

dbroncos78087
04-13-2009, 05:04 PM
News flash !!! Bi-partisanship does not mean that the minority party gets the final say on anything.

That sounds like the traditional Sean Hannity definition. I think most conservatives understand that there will be give and take but as the minority you should expect more take than give. You were voted into the minority because you dont represent what the majority of people think, but on the same token you do represent a majority of what your particular constituents want.

PHX-SOXFAN
04-13-2009, 05:06 PM
Lol, I am gonna take the same route that just about everyone in this forum has with you and not respond. It's too fricken hilarious to read what you post. I'll continue to have my discussion with ari, being as I don't think I was in on the first discussion.

there have been numerous discussions that you have been involved in which ari has stated his agreement with obama's foreigh and economic policy decisions. refresh yourself.

Cubsrule
04-13-2009, 05:09 PM
there have been numerous discussions that you have been involved in which ari has stated his agreement with obama's foreigh and economic policy decisions. refresh yourself.

Really, I mean you're really gonna fight this :sigh:

Cubsrule
04-13-2009, 05:12 PM
That sounds like the traditional Sean Hannity definition. I think most conservatives understand that there will be give and take but as the minority you should expect more take than give. You were voted into the minority because you dont represent what the majority of people think, but on the same token you do represent a majority of what your particular constituents want.

I think thats a little extreme, its not so much beliefs anymore as it is with the issues and popularity. Bush got in because Kerry was an idiot and the Iraq war was the biggest issue, which Republicans tend to be more trusted with. Likewise Obama got elected because McCain was an idiot and Bush was an unpopular President, while the biggest issue was the economy, which the public tends to trust more to Democrats.

Seppuku
04-13-2009, 05:37 PM
That sounds like the traditional Sean Hannity definition. I think most conservatives understand that there will be give and take but as the minority you should expect more take than give. You were voted into the minority because you dont represent what the majority of people think, but on the same token you do represent a majority of what your particular constituents want.

I like the idea, and the perception, of Obama listening for good ideas and implementing the best of what he hears regardless of where it originates. Whether or not this is the case, we can't prove or disprove. We have been overexposed though, through various media outlets, to the bluster from the right that their ideas are not being implemented. In some cases it has been that we are moving away from what they believe are the correct paths to follow. The problem has been that the input they are shouting about (that I have seen, anyway) is a rehash of the same failed policies they had implemented when they were the majority. If it didn't work then, don't expect that the left is going to listen now and continue the failed policies of the right. It is supposed to be a house cleaning with new input. I'm thinking that the left is just waiting for something new and worth trying so they can be bipartisan.

Cubsrule
04-13-2009, 05:49 PM
I like the idea, and the perception, of Obama listening for good ideas and implementing the best of what he hears regardless of where it originates. Whether or not this is the case, we can't prove or disprove. We have been overexposed though, through various media outlets, to the bluster from the right that their ideas are not being implemented. In some cases it has been that we are moving away from what they believe are the correct paths to follow. The problem has been that the input they are shouting about (that I have seen, anyway) is a rehash of the same failed policies they had implemented when they were the majority. If it didn't work then, don't expect that the left is going to listen now and continue the failed policies of the right. It is supposed to be a house cleaning with new input. I'm thinking that the left is just waiting for something new and worth trying so they can be bipartisan.

This was from the times,

A worthy Republican Plan (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/13/a-worthy-house-republican-plan/)

What exactly are you referring to as failed policies that they are pushing now, lower taxes?

ari1013
04-13-2009, 07:32 PM
Do you want specifics or overall?

For instance, I think he's handling the economy as well as I could have expected. Would you like specifics on that? I'm sure I could bore you with details, but I'll spare you for now and focus on foreign policy and domestics:

I think he's got a good plan on the ground in Iraq and a winning plan in Afghanistan. I also support the drone-attacks in Waziristan. I think he was crafty in his orders regarding the pirates. I also support his movements towards rebuilding a lost relationship with Cuba. Finally, I'm pretty happy with relations with Israel. I was very upset when I heard Chas Freeman was going to be given a senior post, but I'm glad he was forced to have his name pulled. Finally, I'm pretty happy with the new Pentagon budget. It's still way too porky for me, but at least he's started the ball rolling on dumping the Cold War era weaponry that we're still building.

Regarding domestic issues, I'm very happy he got SCHIP passed so quickly. I'm also right behind him on the carbon credits push. I'm not at all excited by the whole faith council thing he's setting up. I think that's simply a PR stunt that's he's just going to end up wasting time on.

ari1013
04-13-2009, 07:34 PM
This was from the times,

A worthy Republican Plan (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/13/a-worthy-house-republican-plan/)

What exactly are you referring to as failed policies that they are pushing now, lower taxes?
What a joke. They made some projections in there stating that the economy in 2080 would be better under them than under Obama. I think I got stupider by reading that blue packet.

lakersrock
04-13-2009, 08:14 PM
In your opinion, what has he done right?

He told the Navy they could blow the heads off of those stupid pirates. He also said he would further take care of that problem. Another thing he did right is keeping the spying of terrorists going. He bashed Bush for it and such, but now that he's President, he knows it's crucial to protecting Americans.

Cubsrule
04-13-2009, 08:23 PM
What a joke. They made some projections in there stating that the economy in 2080 would be better under them than under Obama. I think I got stupider by reading that blue packet.

Yet it seems possible the economy could be turned around by 2010 without ever needing a stimulus. If it does that stimulus will be the joke.

Cubsrule
04-13-2009, 08:25 PM
He told the Navy they could blow the heads off of those stupid pirates. He also said he would further take care of that problem. Another thing he did right is keeping the spying of terrorists going. He bashed Bush for it and such, but now that he's President, he knows it's crucial to protecting Americans.

Of course, basically that and keeping Gates as secretary are really his only two victories in my opinion.

SmthBluCitrus
04-13-2009, 09:23 PM
Of course, basically that and keeping Gates as secretary are really his only two victories in my opinion.

Personally, I think first 100 days talk is trite. But, when compared with the likes of our previous presidents, I'll gladly take what Obama has done and call it a day.

Of course you're not going to like what Obama's done, you're a conservative and your party is in the minority ... mostly powerless, save some obstructionism.

Both the Gates move and the pirate episode are completely military -- Gates was an incredibly bipartisan move, and the killing of the pirates was an incredibly hawkish move. I find it interesting that those are the only two "victories" that you see though.

I'm with ari here; I think Obama's managed to get a lot accomplished in a rather short amount of time. SCHIP expansion is great, modernizing the military is great (so is scrapping the F22 which has been burdened with over-costs -- and will put other lines back on; more F16s, C5s, etc ...), getting a stimulus in place was great ... among other things.

There have been a lot of "victories" imo.

Seppuku
04-13-2009, 11:30 PM
Yet it seems possible the economy could be turned around by 2010 without ever needing a stimulus. If it does that stimulus will be the joke.


Really? How would anyone know this? Are there alternate universes running so we can check on how the non-stimulous model is doing? I didn't realize we were doing fiction.

Cubsrule
04-13-2009, 11:33 PM
Personally, I think first 100 days talk is trite. But, when compared with the likes of our previous presidents, I'll gladly take what Obama has done and call it a day.

Of course you would, we have different philosophies of what's right and wrong.


Of course you're not going to like what Obama's done, you're a conservative and your party is in the minority ... mostly powerless, save some obstructionism.

For now, we'll see what happens in 2010, hopefully we get some leadership. Ryan's done a pretty good job of trying to steer us in the right direction.


Both the Gates move and the pirate episode are completely military -- Gates was an incredibly bipartisan move, and the killing of the pirates was an incredibly hawkish move. I find it interesting that those are the only two "victories" that you see though.

Actually I would argue that there was no one on the left that could do as of job as him. But that and the pirates thing are the only moves that have made me tip my cap or tried to be bipartisan.


I'm with ari here; I think Obama's managed to get a lot accomplished in a rather short amount of time. SCHIP expansion is great, modernizing the military is great (so is scrapping the F22 which has been burdened with over-costs -- and will put other lines back on; more F16s, C5s, etc ...), getting a stimulus in place was great ... among other things.

The SCHIP is a good idea, but were paying for it the wrong way. I mean I realize on the outside raising taxes on cigarettes seems like a good idea. The problem is the more they take away the less they sell. Meaning the less money the federal government gets from its sales. And no, the stimulus was a horrible idea, especially if we're out of the recession by 2010 as might be the case.


There have been a lot of "victories" imo.

In your opinion maybe, but then again you're a liberal and I'm a conservative.

Cubsrule
04-13-2009, 11:35 PM
Really? How would anyone know this? Are there alternate universes running so we can check on how the non-stimulous model is doing? I didn't realize we were doing fiction.

Well the first quarter numbers are in and banks are doing a lot better than expected. Now of course it doesn't mean we're out of it, but if we see 3 or 4 more quarters of positive growth it likely means we're out of it. Thus why I said possible.

ari1013
04-13-2009, 11:38 PM
Yet it seems possible the economy could be turned around by 2010 without ever needing a stimulus. If it does that stimulus will be the joke.
Of course it will. But the question is how bad do you want it to get between now and July 2010?

SmthBluCitrus
04-13-2009, 11:39 PM
CR -- the projections that have us "out" of the recession by Q4-2009 to Q2-2010 are based on the stimulus. Therefore, the stimulus will be doing the job it was legislated for.

Had the stimulus not been pushed through it would be likely that we would see continued downturn.

This is another flawed assumption that you're running on. That since the economy appears to be getting better, the stimulus wasn't necessary -- when it's the stimulus money that's having the desired effect.

Cubsrule
04-13-2009, 11:47 PM
Of course it will. But the question is how bad do you want it to get between now and July 2010?

Well the first quarter this year thus far has positive results. I am not sure, hell even the best economists don't know how good or bad it will get. Everything at this point is just an educated guess.

Cubsrule
04-13-2009, 11:48 PM
CR -- the projections that have us "out" of the recession by Q4-2009 to Q2-2010 are based on the stimulus. Therefore, the stimulus will be doing the job it was legislated for.

Had the stimulus not been pushed through it would be likely that we would see continued downturn.

This is another flawed assumption that you're running on. That since the economy appears to be getting better, the stimulus wasn't necessary -- when it's the stimulus money that's having the desired effect.

You do realize that almost none of the stimulus money has been dispersed yet and things were better in the first quarter? And its not an assumption, thus why I said possible.

ari1013
04-14-2009, 12:07 AM
Well the first quarter this year thus far has positive results. I am not sure, hell even the best economists don't know how good or bad it will get. Everything at this point is just an educated guess.
Well almost every economist has independently come up with basically the same exact projections so that's gotta be telling.

ari1013
04-14-2009, 12:09 AM
You do realize that almost none of the stimulus money has been dispersed yet and things were better in the first quarter? And its not an assumption, thus why I said possible.
1st quarter GDP numbers aren't out yet officially. 2 weeks ago we got the final numbers for 4th quarter 2008 at -6.3%.

Cubsrule
04-14-2009, 12:16 AM
1st quarter GDP numbers aren't out yet officially. 2 weeks ago we got the final numbers for 4th quarter 2008 at -6.3%.

Still though, could they be that far off?

gcoll
04-14-2009, 01:07 AM
I think Obama is willing to humor the Republicans, but at the end of the day....I doubt he adopts any of their policies, or takes any of them too seriously.

With the way people like Robert Gibbs act, I don't buy that there will be too much more civility in Washington either.

Basically. I'll wait and see if this amounts to anything, but it probably won't.

lakersrock
04-14-2009, 01:13 AM
I think Obama is willing to humor the Republicans, but at the end of the day....I doubt he adopts any of their policies, or takes any of them too seriously.

With the way people like Robert Gibbs act, I don't buy that there will be too much more civility in Washington either.

Basically. I'll wait and see if this amounts to anything, but it probably won't.

I think he will agree with Republicans on small issues to make it look as if he's really bi-partisan. We all know that on his main things he is gonna tell the Republicans to shove it. He wants to spend money and they don't. So, he'll listen, but everyone knows he doesn't give a crap what they say on the big stuff, he's already got his mind made up to spend as much as possible. That's not trying to incite anything either. The guy is a spender, just look at what he's dropped in 100 days.

ari1013
04-14-2009, 08:30 AM
Still though, could they be that far off?
Original projections for 2008Q4 were at -3.8% then they got revised to -6.3%. So yes, they really could be anything.

ari1013
04-14-2009, 08:30 AM
I think he will agree with Republicans on small issues to make it look as if he's really bi-partisan. We all know that on his main things he is gonna tell the Republicans to shove it. He wants to spend money and they don't. So, he'll listen, but everyone knows he doesn't give a crap what they say on the big stuff, he's already got his mind made up to spend as much as possible. That's not trying to incite anything either. The guy is a spender, just look at what he's dropped in 100 days.
They don't want to spend money? I beg to differ. They want to spend quite a bit -- just not on the things he's spending on.

Seppuku
04-14-2009, 04:29 PM
They don't want to spend money? I beg to differ. They want to spend quite a bit -- just not on the things he's spending on.

The previous admin taking us from a surplus to doubling the debt seems to be lost in memory. Of course the entire overspending on this stimulous package thing is due to the instant collapse of our markets, banks, home ownership, job market, etc -from thriving to disaster- at the moment that Obama took office. Obama wouldn't have to spend this money if his election hadn't caused all of the trouble he is now trying to solve.

PHX-SOXFAN
04-14-2009, 06:37 PM
The previous admin taking us from a surplus to doubling the debt seems to be lost in memory. Of course the entire overspending on this stimulous package thing is due to the instant collapse of our markets, banks, home ownership, job market, etc -from thriving to disaster- at the moment that Obama took office. Obama wouldn't have to spend this money if his election hadn't caused all of the trouble he is now trying to solve.

his election caused the trouble?:confused: