Comments on: Reality sinks in

By: matt

matt — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:54:35 +0000

Uh, you obviously didn’t watch the Senate debate where Republicans offered many ideas as amendments, some large and some small, and this is after all Republican ideas and amendments were rejected in committee. On the Senate floor, all Republican amendments were voted down by every single Democrat. Did you know that Republicans offered as an amendment — to waive the INCREASE in taxes on social security benefits that is scheduled to take effect in 2009? That one like others was opposed by all Democrats and therefore defeated. You are also wrong saying the ‘tax cuts’ were Republicans’ ideas…first, in the bill they aren’t even tax cuts, they are temporary tax credits, and Republicans want REAL tax cuts – cuts in marginal rates, not just credits that are temporary. Get your facts straight.

By: MJM

MJM — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:19:31 +0000

Bravo – this is the situation exactly. While I hope Obama well (and not because I believe anything he says, but Canada needs the US to get out of the economic problems), I pretty sure that in the next year, the bloom will fade and people will beging to question what he has been doing. The media will still be cheerleades because they created this guy. But so far if Bush had done even a few of things that Obama has done, the media would have taken Bush down (how does Obama get away with using the stimulus package to move the US Census into the White House? – that is a receipe for some of the most partisan changes to programs/services/elections boundaries all based on the results of the census!)

By: Gaunilon

Gaunilon — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:01:42 +0000

It’s interesting that this article makes no mention that 9 Democrats in Congress voted against the stimulus, alongside the Republicans. The best example of bipartisanship was in opposition to the bill because of all the special-interest projects included in it.

Now, I wonder why the author would have neglected to mention this while blaming the lack of partisanship on Republicans?

By: ChiefRunningWater

ChiefRunningWater — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:24:10 +0000

As a Canadian, I can say two things:

1. Our health care system is absolutely awful.

2. Our economy is doing poorly. However, you don’t notice it because a poorly running Canadian economy isn’t that different from a Canadian economic boost.

Get off your high horse.

By: Jeremy Janson

Jeremy Janson — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:54:31 +0000

If it’s not possible, and you promise it, you are responsible for the willing lie you gave, period. If you were correct, Obama would be either incompetent or a scoundrel by your own admission.

And anyways, it wasn’t Republicans who destroyed California’s industrial towns, and therefore their middle class, to build pleasure palace after pleasure palace on the coast in the place of anything useful.

By: Common Sense

Common Sense — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:36:19 +0000

These Republicans are hyper-partisan, and don’t know how to compromise (with a few notable exceptions like Specter, Snowe, and Collins who get threatened by their party when they do).

This seems quite deliberate, and intended to make bipartisanship unattainable.

Is this what our nation needs at a time like this??

The best solutions come from the middle. I hope that the GOP finally wises up to this one day soon.

By: Debbieqd

Debbieqd — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:57:40 +0000

You really need to get over this “old news.” We’re in a crisis here! The Republicans will regret their behavior by summertime. Have you noticed how hyprocritical they are? They vote “no,” say they won’t take any stimulus money, and now they’re all excited about getting it into their districts and states. Screw them! Who needs bipartisanship with a bunch of unethical fools?

By the way, President Obama is doing just fine. Ask 2/3 of America.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:36:55 +0000

I really think that post-partisan was a line that Obama used, and Americans really didn’t care. They wanted Bush out and someone else in. Despite Obama’s giving good speeches, he could have read the newspaper and Americans would have voted him in. That and the fact that the press loved the idea of voting in the first black American president more than the sexists in the media loved the story of having a first female president or vice president. The Obama lovers in the press and Bush haters did everything they could to hand Obama the presidency. Those who are upset that Obama broke his word on bringing a new tone to Washington were just naive that it could happen in the first place.

By: Odumba

Odumba — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:44:11 +0000

Obama didn’t try. The Republicans were prevented from offering amendments, had any opportunity for debate cut short, and were shut out of conferencing. When Republicans voiced their displeasure to Obama, they were told “I won”.

That’s right Obama, you “won”. Now it’s all on you. The American people will hold you accountable in 2010 and 2012.

By: Odumba

Odumba — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:40:49 +0000

“When President Obama speaks I listen”

Why? Do you like being lied to?

By: Odumba

Odumba — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:40:12 +0000

Like all of Obama’s promises, it has been broken. You remember Obama’s lies about what he would do regarding NAFTA?

By: MARY

MARY — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:35:10 +0000

I am a conservative. I give credit to President Obama for his part in reaching out to Republicans.
My problem is with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid. Everytime they get a microphone they bash the Republicans over and over and over. It gets old. Mrs Pelosi is the “Speaker of the House” and with that title she represents the House and she does an awful job at it. Everytime I hear her speak I cringe.
When President Obama speaks I listen.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:34:28 +0000

Maybe a quick look in the mirror will help. Surely the Democrats aren’t seeking any political advantage with their pandering to the labor unions, trial lawyers, and those they continue to buy with the handouts from the taxpayers. But of course to get past the partisanship, those with differing points of view, must accept as gospel the world according the presidential messiah.

By: shoey

shoey — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:53:22 +0000

the writer of this article get points for trying to present both sides fairly, but like most reporters the writer is unable to truly understand any political position they didn’t learn from their Socialist Professors in college.

only when ppl start being truly fair and honest can we begin to trust one another again, we do not trust each other right now and this can lead to the break up of our society whether you all want to believe it or not

By: MEM

MEM — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:34:43 +0000

BO listens to republicans and says “I won” you lost, does what he wants and complains they dissent. Yes — elections have consequences. Let the dems own porkulous bill and suffer the consequences. If the bill is so great, why did he want republican cover?

By: fredt

fredt — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:04:03 +0000

What is the purpose of having political parties if they are not “partisan”?- that is, having a world view and ethos different from their opponents. It is ludicrous to expect those who consider the opposition to be wrong to cooperate with them.

As for the “wailing and gnashing of teeth” concerning Republicans – how hypocritical. The Democrats have spent 8 years in the most vicious and partisan attacks ever- to say nothing of the left-wing (read Democrat) media.

By: Rakehell

Rakehell — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:01:53 +0000

“The problems we face today won’t be solved by the same minds that created them.” -Einstein

President Obama’s goal in crafting an economic stimulus package wasn’t to please every Republican nor satisfy their every whim. After all, many of the minds that created the problems we face are still in office. They will prove to be no help at all.

Tax cuts, especially $8 a week, will not fix a broken economy. That is the ONLY Republican idea I’ve seen advanced since the inaugaration. Even though that money is entirely wasted in real economic terms because it has very low velocity, Obama included it to give the Republicans what they wanted. As we see that was a pointless offer.

The Republicans are indeed led by the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity and thus have no interest in the welfare of the country at all. They don’t share President Obama’s interest in an intellectual debate of ideas that would lead to a consensus on solutions. Far from it simply because their so-called ideas are easily refuted and cannot stand the test of rigorous debate.

At any rate, President Obama tried – more than I can say for the last administration. If the Republicans don’t want on the train then they will be left standing at the station. In 2010, there will be fewer of them as well.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:22:02 +0000

Post partisanship is just not possible with people like the republicans.

Republicans do not believe in any program that does not either help their friends ie those in the upper class or at least gives them some political advantage.

In fact if some program helps the poor, it really makes the republicans very angry. This reaction is almost instinctive so that even they don’t understand the exact reason.

By: What happened to Barack Obama’s post-partisan America? « Is Criticizing Obama A Crime?

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:01:32 +0000

[...] Luiza Ch. Savage MACLEANS.CA [...]

By: Brett

Brett — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:49:40 +0000

“The rejection by Republicans wasn’t just an embarrassment—it was a shot straight at the heart of Obama’s appeal”

I am sure that this was not the true aim of thier obstructionist attitude. I am sure they wanted to compromise and not just say it’s our way our the high way because we are right and your wrong. In case you did not notice I am being sarchastic! Well you guys lost the election and rightly so. Your ideals are wrong and if you look north you can see evidence that proves it.

The only country not feeling this crunch is Canada. Hmm lets see what have they done we did not? they kept strict regulations on the finacial system, they kept money tight when we were giving it away and they have socialized medicine. GASP!! oh no lets not be like Canada, the only country solvent right now…

By: Scott Tribe

Scott Tribe — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:55:12 +0000

The Republicans definition of bi-partisanship seems to be to demand the Democrats put in everything they want enacted. They forget they aren’t controlling the presidency or the Congress.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:39:00 +0000

Yes indeed! The strange thing is why anyone took it very seriously to begin with, as when it comes to a non partisan democracy it would be like a courtroom with just the judge. Our democracies today have to be completely partisan by design and indeed by their very nature … now there are times when the parties can come together on a certain issue or issues however this would be more of a temporary expediency to a specific crisis (and more often than not would probably not deal with whatever very well). The old adage about our process being a forge where competing ideas and principles are purified and played out is very appropo and deluding yourself by buying into a potential leader actually meaning what he is saying is … well I can’t think of a term that doesn’t sound insulting. The bottom line is that even Obama said as much as I caught one interview with him when this subject came up and he said : I want to try some bipartisan approaches but I’m not a SAP! (ROFL LMAO) I give this guy major cudos for this as well as subtract a few cudos from the frustrated Obamaniacs.