Bearister - just out of curiosity (I have tried to stay out of this little hatefest), how is Gingrich "a terrible person, too?" Assuming that he is a terrible campaigner.
<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;621282 said:</div><hr>Of course I think the same thing about Obama. I just don't see a guy willing to actually engage, in a serious way, conservative thought.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Obama watered down virtually every bill he's tried to pass in an attempt to win Republican votes (seriously, compare what he's passed or tried to pass as compared to what he campaigned on -- it's a big difference). The problem is that the Republicans just aren't biting anymore; it's their way or the highway.
<blockquote><div class="name-said">sycasey;621398 said:</div><hr>Obama watered down virtually every bill he's tried to pass in an attempt to win Republican votes (seriously, compare what he's passed or tried to pass as compared to what he campaigned on -- it's a big difference). The problem is that the Republicans just aren't biting anymore; it's their way or the highway.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />The fact that he failed to recognize what you point out does not speak well of his alleged political skills.
<blockquote><div class="name-said">sycasey;621398 said:</div><hr>Obama watered down virtually every bill he's tried to pass in an attempt to win Republican votes (seriously, compare what he's passed or tried to pass as compared to what he campaigned on -- it's a big difference). The problem is that the Republicans just aren't biting anymore; it's their way or the highway.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Compromising with people is FAR different than engaging, in an intellectually curious way, with conservative thought. The fact you/POTUS doesn't understand the different gets to the heart of the point.<br /><br />For example, a key justification for the Bush era tax cuts was that a) by equalizing the tax rate between dividends and long term capital gains you reduce incentives for publicly traded companies to engage in inefficient activities out of consideration of shareholder tax liabilities. You also don't "tax earnings twice" - once at the corporate level and once at the shareholder. NO WHERE in the President's rhetoric c about these tax cuts "No one asked for and which give away $$ to those which can afford to pay" do we have the POTUS discussing the Kind of tax system _HE_ thinks works.<br /><br />There are countless examples of this.<br /><br />That doesn't mean you need to agree with the proceeding paragraph. There are good arguments against equalizing. But to be intellectually engaged is to START from the perspective of acknowledging that there IS some rational thought behind policy positions - and then to lay out why you come to different conclusions.<br /><br />It is the same problem Krugman AND Right wing nuts have - they simply demonize the motives of those they disagree with, rather than actually starting by acknowledging that there are ideas there - just ones that you disagree with.
<blockquote><div class="name-said">southseasbear;621409 said:</div><hr>The fact that he failed to recognize what you point out does not speak well of his alleged political skills.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Agreed, I thought he would be better than that.
<blockquote><div class="name-said">southseasbear;621409 said:</div><hr>The fact that he failed to recognize what you point out does not speak well of his alleged political skills.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I think it goes further than this. They don't bite because they would be essentially admitting to the base rational Obama has said motivates them. If you want compromise you START by acknowledging some legitimacy of the other side, but then suggest that your way is a better solution to accomplishing SOME of what they want as well as other goals/objectives that there solution left off the table.
<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;621410 said:</div><hr>For example, a key justification for the Bush era tax cuts was that a) by equalizing the tax rate between dividends and long term capital gains you reduce incentives for publicly traded companies to engage in inefficient activities out of consideration of shareholder tax liabilities. You also don't "tax earnings twice" - once at the corporate level and once at the shareholder. NO WHERE in the President's rhetoric c about these tax cuts "No one asked for and which give away $$ to those which can afford to pay" do we have the POTUS discussing the Kind of tax system _HE_ thinks works.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I understand your point -- there is definitely a far more polarized rhetoric in American politics right now than there has been in the last century, at least based on what is said publicly, from Obama along with everyone else. I bet if you got someone like Obama in private and asked him what kind of tax system he wanted he could actually give you something like what you ask for. But unfortunately, the current political (and media) environment ensures that such thoughtful, measured comments will largely be ignored.<br /><br />That said, I can't say I honestly think this is the reason Obama can't get Republican support on anything. The substance of the measures he puts forth indicate that he HAS incorporated conservative ideas (for example, his health care plan was very similar to Mitt Romney's); the Republicans want nothing to do with it because their strategy is to play to their base and stonewall whatever the Democrats want.
<blockquote><div class="name-said">sycasey;621421 said:</div><hr>I understand your point -- there is definitely a far more polarized rhetoric in American politics right now than there has been in the last century, at least based on what is said publicly, from Obama along with everyone else. I bet if you got someone like Obama in private and asked him what kind of tax system he wanted he could actually give you something like what you ask for. But unfortunately, the current political (and media) environment ensures that such thoughtful, measured comments will largely be ignored.<br /><br />That said, I can't say I honestly think this is the reason Obama can't get Republican support on anything. The substance of the measures he puts forth indicate that he HAS incorporated conservative ideas (for example, his health care plan was very similar to Mitt Romney's); the Republicans want nothing to do with it because their strategy is to play to their base and stonewall whatever the Democrats want.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />If you read my critique of Obama as justified the knuckle headed positions of the idiots in the Congressional GOP caucus that is my fault. At LEAST in a way equal to POTUS, they have refused to intellectually engage the left - to your example not acknowledging that the uninsured status of millions of American's creates both a very inefficient healthcare system as well as reflects the inherent instability of an employer-based system.<br /><br />There are exceptions. I think Ryan is precisely on target with how bringing consumer choice to medicare is the only way to get costs under control. A "grand bargain" missed would have been for POTUS to seize upon that, tweak it to meet equity concerns (treat the voucher as an opening offer and say you want to ensure progressvity) and run. Play golf with HIM rather than the son of the tavern owner. The fact that he didn't makes me believe he just doesn't "get" the intellectually honest thoughts that sit behind market-based solutions.
<blockquote><div class="name-said">FingeroftheBear;621430 said:</div><hr>The problem with the current GOP is they're playing to WIN not to govern, solve problems or build the country. Since they're not the party of the POTUS that means defense and impeding movement, stonewalling as you mention.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Congressman Ryan provided a solution to the biggest fiscal challenge the country faces - the exploding cost of health care for Retirees. The Dems handed back his head cut from his body.
<blockquote><div class="name-said">FingeroftheBear;621430 said:</div><hr>The problem with the current GOP is they're playing to WIN not to govern, solve problems or build the country. Since they're not the party of the POTUS that means defense and impeding movement, stonewalling as you mention.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I think they were playing for Obama to lose and he did. Obama had a Democratic President, House and Senate for two years. He had ample time to pass legislation and win support for it. I think he made two crucial mistakes a) the first stimulus bill did not come off as a jobs bill but as a pork feast larded with the usual democratic priorities and b) he wasted a year on health care in return for which he got a bill nobody understands, or cares about. Both of those led directly to the Republicans winning back the House so the Republican strategy was a good one. The problem for them is that they can't keep doing this forever (or couldn't if Obama knew what he was doing)
<blockquote><div class="name-said">GB54;621443 said:</div><hr>I think they were playing for Obama to lose and he did. Obama had a Democratic President, House and Senate for two years. He had ample time to pass legislation and win support for it. I think he made two crucial mistakes a) the first stimulus bill did not come off as a jobs bill but as a pork feast larded with the usual democratic priorities and b) he wasted a year on health care in return for which he got a bill nobody understands, or cares about. Both of those led directly to the Republicans winning back the House so the Republican strategy was a good one. The problem for them is that they can't keep doing this forever (or couldn't if Obama knew what he was doing)<hr></blockquote><br /><br />BINGO! Professionally I do a bunch of work in transportation planning. I am struck by the fact that Washington doesn't really get that road construction has become <br /><br />A) REALLY labor efficient with heavy equipment doing so much of work that used to be done manually <br /><br />B) REALLY technical - meaning that that there are structural barriers for unemployment labor to easy shift into driving heavy equipment<br /><br />But hey - Paul Krugman is a construction expert so if you throw money at roads it will mean jobs ;-)
<blockquote><div class="name-said">FingeroftheBear;621430 said:</div><hr>The problem with the current GOP is they're playing to WIN not to govern, solve problems or build the country. Since they're not the party of the POTUS that means defense and impeding movement, stonewalling as you mention.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Oh my! The Right has finally read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Took them long enough.
<blockquote><div class="name-said">GB54;621443 said:</div><hr>b) he wasted a year on health care in return for which he got a bill nobody understands, or cares about.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Personally, I don't think the efforts to reform the health care system were a "waste" exactly, but he did get a bill that was confusing and the effects of which (assuming there are some) won't be felt until after his first term is up. Again, it was too watered-down.
<blockquote><div class="name-said">sycasey;621469 said:</div><hr>Personally, I don't think the efforts to reform the health care system were a "waste" exactly, but he did get a bill that was confusing and the effects of which (assuming there are some) won't be felt until after his first term is up. Again, it was too watered-down.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I think the question is why in 2009? At a time when the economy is losing thousands of jobs a month it just made no political sense to spend time on healthcare. I can not wait for the memoirs to see how they justify that choice.<br /><br />Moreover, I would argue that it is the most convoluted part of our economy - with NO way to make it not confusing, water downed, etc. The lack of Washington experience showed front and center with deciding to take that one one first thing
<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;621475 said:</div><hr>I think the question is why in 2009? At a time when the economy is losing thousands of jobs a month it just made no political sense to spend time on healthcare. I can not wait for the memoirs to see how they justify that choice.<br /><br />Moreover, I would argue that it is the most convoluted part of our economy - with NO way to make it not confusing, water downed, etc. The lack of Washington experience showed front and center with deciding to take that one one first thing<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I suppose, though really I see this criticism (that it was not politically smart) as different from the notion that it was not good policy. In retrospect, I agree it seems clear that he should have pushed a jobs bill first. The health care plan itself probably could have been sold better too (not to the Republicans, but to the general public).
<blockquote><div class="name-said">sycasey;621484 said:</div><hr>I suppose, though really I see this criticism (that it was not politically smart) as different from the notion that it was not good policy. In retrospect, I agree it seems clear that he should have pushed a jobs bill first. The health care plan itself probably could have been sold better too (not to the Republicans, but to the general public).<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I might argue that it ignored the critical issue in health care - controlling costs of AGING AMERICANS. While the working uninsured are a moral problem and the cost shifting had to be addressed, it is dwarfed by the challenges of the unsustainable medicare cost curve. The President''s plan picked at that at the margins.
Greatest nation on earth and the best we can come up with is Obama and that sad parade of republican wanna be candidates?? I think there should be a prerequisite that all candidates must be Cal grads and support the Bears. Yep, that would solve a lot of problems. GO BEARS!!
Bearister - I'm interested in YOUR opinion, not that of some journalist. <br /><br />You have struck me as being pretty level-headed and I was interested in how you see it.<br /><br />Did you perhaps speak prematurely or without thought. We've all done it. You have not seemed like a bandwagoner in the past.<br /><br />And, the tone! Hardly gracious, especially in light of a simple question.
<blockquote><div class="name-said">Rushinbear;621513 said:</div><hr>Bearister - I'm interested in YOUR opinion, not that of some journalist. <br /><br />You have struck me as being pretty level-headed and I was interested in how you see it.<br /><br />Did you perhaps speak prematurely or without thought. We've all done it. You have not seemed like a bandwagoner in the past.<br /><br />And, the tone! Hardly gracious, especially in light of a simple question.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I think he is plenty smart. I don't care for his conservative politics. I don't care for his arrogant, dismissive, and whiny attitude during the debates. On more than one occasion I have wanted to shoot my TV set a la Elvis Presley when watching him on Fox. The way he has treated the women in his life does not comport with the code of honor and decency that I believe should govern all men's lives. Naturally he is entitled to live his life the way he wants as long as it isn't illegal. I just don't a have to approve of it or vote for him. Summation: He's a douche.:axe
George Christopher was a crook. He was convicted of putting chalk in his dairy's milk before going into politics, and took bribes (allegedly) from Charles Harney to put the ballpark at Candlestick point--probably the single worst site in SF.
<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="" />" />" />" />" />"> Thanks. Not my take, but a thoughtful view, nonetheless. <br /><br />Parenthetically, is there any Republican, running or not, who you would consider voting for?
<blockquote><div class="name-said">Rushinbear;621585 said:</div><hr><img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="" />" />" />" />" />"> Thanks. Not my take, but a thoughtful view, nonetheless. <br /><br />Parenthetically, is there any Republican, running or not, who you would consider voting for?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />No, Sir.
<blockquote><div class="name-said">FingeroftheBear;621607 said:</div><hr>Actually the bigger factor isn't using Rules for Radicals but the Right buying media and controlling the message. Corporations own all the major media outlets. <br /><br />Also, a note of difference, when the true .01% (or their backers) take on impeding progress it's not radicalism but fascism.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />My point is the Right need to learn from the Left and borrow what works without regard to who thought of the idea first.