wrote in message news:fdc22e72-2885-4f05-ad4f-
On Sep 8, 6:43 pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Higgs Boson" wrote in message

stuff snipped

The Mad Dogs' undeviating mission is to undermine the President -- not
difficult with such a wuss! -- but that extends to sabotaging his
nominees to the Federal Bench, such that many jurisdictions have been
lacking enough judges since the Bush era. The Mad Dogs also sabotage
Obama's nominees to important Administration posts. Upon which
President Wuss caves and throws perfectly good nominees under the
bus. Latest: Elizabeth Warren, who would have made something of the
hard-won Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

(Note to self: Look up a REALLY good quote from Shakespeare to
illuminate this situation...)

I think the line from Richard III is appropriate, at least for how I feel
about Obama these days and his dogged but damned and ineffectual attempts
at
bi-partisanship:

Richard III - Act 4. Scene II

Made I him king for this?"

--
Bobby G.

You still bitchin about how tough it's been for
Obama?

Obviously you didn't understand a word I said. sigh You really do see
the world in an odd way and extremely partisan and defensive way. I am
bitchin' *precisely* because he made it deliberately tougher for himself by
not seizing the advantage when he had it and ramming through an agenda
quickly without trying to fruitlessly draw the Republicans into the process.

Sadly, a part of me thinks it was the right thing to do but ONLY if both
sides are truly interested in discussion and not policy statement spewing.
If we don't return the days where the Capitol is not a warzone and our
representatives no longer even share meals with their counterparts across
the aisle, we're in trouble.

I'm mostly mad at Obama for not ending the AfRaq wars a few billion dollars
ago. The Shakespeare quote is made by one of Richard's co-conspirators who
complains, when Richard fails to reward him as promised, saying, in effect,
"I helped make this guy king, but what good has it done me?" (made I him
king for this?). Capiche?

He had 2 years where his party had control of the Senate and the House.

That's an illusion. People crossed party lines, went "independent", went
"rogue" and even switched parties. There were naked bribery offers made to
get people to switch their votes. That's the irony of all this partisan
crap. It's soooo
rare these days for supermajorities to emerge and I believe that when they
do it's the ONLY time politicians can claim a "mandate" from the people.
Yet they claim they are annointed by the people and God to do some very
partisan things when the margin of victory is laughably small.

This will surprise you Chet, since you feel you know everything about me. I
believe Obamacare is unfortunately one of those things where Obama seized on
a mandate that wasn't there. Ironically, socialized medicine is already
here, and it's been here for quite some time with Medicare. Why Obama
insisted on a whole new system eludes me. Extending Medicare to people in
their 50's would have solved much of the insurance problem. People in that
age bracket, especially out-of-work ones, just can't afford the premiums
private insurers demand.

Reagan got what he wanted when he never had the House and only had the
Senate for part of the time. Same with Clinton. Every other president in
modern times would have thought it a dream come true to have their party in
control of the House and Senate.

Modern times have changed greatly in just the last 20 years. Congress is
now a war zone, a result of Newt's plan to punish
anyone who crossed party lines to vote with the Dems. The atmosphere that
Obama and probably every president after him will face is going to be a lot
different than the cooperation that both Reagan and Clinton got from
Congress when times were flush.

One thing you've overlooked. There was that pesky little added bonus of an
economy that had frozen solid and took a lot of gummint money to loosen
(badly) again. It tends to put a damper on what Congress is willing to do
for any President. Obama took office with about the worst hand ever dealt
an incoming president.

For Obama, well it was just one more handicap that kept him from doing
his job.....

For once, I'd like to hear one of you true Republicans acknowledge that
Obama took over the reins of a very sick economy with a lot of deep,
systemic problems in the regulatory agencies, the tax codes and the job
market. Add to that a Congress that's voting more and more along pure party
lines rather than what's good for the country as a whole and it turns into a
very bad time to be elected President.

Despite all the criticisms lodged against him, so far, all I hear from the
right is "cut taxes" and "starve government" as if throwing more people out
of work is going to help reboot a frozen economy with over a trillion
dollars of assets that no one really knows how to price (mortgage based
toxins).

We sold our living wage manufacturing jobs to China. Then we sold them all
the equity in our vast housing and real estate inventory. Wall St., like a
swarm of hungry termites, has eaten away the meat of the United States and
left mostly an empty shell. What's left to sell? Our natural resources?
Our armed forces? What are we going to make? Who will we sell it to?

The vast economic convulsion of 2008 reset a lot of norms. Neither the
Republicans nor the Democrats have any
realistic plan to recapture the jobs we rolled up and shipped overseas.
They are gone, baby, gone. But I get the strong sense that the Republicans
would gladly rain down another year of economic woe so they can position
themselves as potential saviors in 2012. Cutting government spending will
certainly cause the unemployment rate to skyrocket and consumer demand to
slack off even more. I think more and more people understand that may be
precisely what Republicans want to do to set the stage for 2012.

--
Bobby G.