GOP selective memory

Status
Not open for further replies.
And he'll own the mistakes, too. All of them.

And Bush owns none? Invasion of Iraq based on WMD's existence which turns out to be bogus costing us trillions of dollars?
 
Did Obama make sure the troops left Iraq then after he became president?

No.

Why not?

Again, this is 2010 and whatever mistakes it'll be all his cross to bear. And again in 2011, and in 2012. Let's see, the $1.4 trillion running deficit spending in the first 10 months of 2009 was all Obama's. Govt expansion. All his. Increase in taxes, all his. Obamacare, all his. Cap and trade, all his. And this will be felt for decades to come.
 
Unlike Bush, he owns them thus he shows what accountability is about, unlike Bush.
 
Unlike Bush, he owns them thus he shows what accountability is about, unlike Bush.

well - let's not forget that Obama has reverted quite hefty portion of his policies to Bush policy.

:hmm:
 
More like the promises Obama broke about transparency and his continuing lack of accountability? Where are the jobs? Where did all the pork money go? At $245,000 per job from stimulus money that he signed, I'd say where's the accountability in that one? This is only the beginning. All of these thigns will quickly manifest itself over the next few years.
 
More like the promises Obama broke about transparency and his continuing lack of accountability? Where are the jobs? Where did all the pork money go? At $245,000 per job from stimulus money that he signed, I'd say where's the accountability in that one? This is only the beginning. All of these thigns will quickly manifest itself over the next few years.

it would be nice and more convincing if you can provide facts... something that ACTUALLY happened instead of harping on scenarios that never happened.
 
so show me

Capitol Hill


Stephen Dinan

UPDATED:

As it has come down in history, President Andrew Johnson's narrow escape from being the first president convicted on impeachment charges in 1868 depended on the honorable doings of Sen. Edmund Ross of Kansas.

But David O. Stewart, author of "Impeached," a book looking at the Johnson trial, says it's more likely the president owed his survival to payments made by his allies' $150,000 "acquittal fund" and to the patronage jobs he doled out after the vote, all but turning over to Ross some appointments in Kansas and the Colorado and New Mexico territories.

Vote-trading has a long, inglorious history in Congress, and presidents and party leaders alike have played the role of Monty Hall, the original host of TV's "Let's Make a Deal."

In recent days that's included Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who bargained wherever he could to gain the 60 votes needed to pass his version of health care reform.

A final vote occurred Thursday morning, and the bill passed. On Wednesday, Democrats turned back several challenges, including rejecting two claims that the bill is so broad it violates the Constitution.

Democrats also turned back an effort to add a new rule preventing senators from trading votes in exchange for earmarked spending, voting 53-46 against a rule that just two years ago had passed 98-0. Even Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, who co-sponsored the rule in 2007, voted against it this time.

Senators' change-of-heart may have come based on the realization they never would have gotten this far on health care without the deals Mr. Reid struck.

Behind door No. 1 was Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska's bargain to exempt his state from having to pay for expanded Medicaid costs under the bill. Door No. 2 held $100 million to help Louisiana pay Medicaid costs, which secured Sen. Mary L. Landrieu's vote. Door No. 3 offered extra Medicaid help for Vermont, which preserved the support of Sen. Bernard Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats. And Door No. 4 included protections for Medicare Advantage customers in three states, even as customers in other states face cuts.
It's in the eye of the beholder, though, whether those deals are more or less altruistic than the days of old.

"That's not that different than the patronage jobs; it's just a different kind of trophy to bring home," Mr. Stewart said. "In the 1860s, we didn't have so many massive government programs you could get pieces of."

Still, Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, said there is a difference. In the past, folks traded votes in exchange for specific goodies for themselves or their state: a pet project, say. But, Mr. Gregg said, in this bill, senators bargained for policy changes that actually exempt their states from part of the law they are being asked to support.

"There's nothing like this," said Mr. Gregg, looking back on his quarter-century in Congress. "It balkanizes the country."

Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, said he expects Democrats will hear during their winter break from their constituents angry at the deals.

He pointed to several Democrats who have had to denounce the deals, including Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, who took to the Senate floor Monday to denounce the bargaining.

Mr. Reid, though, said the trading is no different than what happens with the thousands of earmarks in the dozen annual spending bills.

He said senators should be embarrassed if they weren't able to carve out exemptions.

"There's 100 senators here, and I don't know if there is a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them," he said. "And if they don't have something in it important to them then, it doesn't speak well of them."


The White House has also given the deals a pass, with press secretary Robert Gibbs saying it has long been part of legislating.

Asked how that squared with Mr. Obama's pledge to do things differently, Mr. Gibbs said the end result is what matters.

"Well, I think one of the things that's going to be done differently is, we're going to have health care reform in this country," he said. "The president thinks that's an enormously good thing for the American people."

Deal-making has landed some members of Congress in jail, and has earned others admonishment and ridicule.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was admonished for appearing to trade his political endorsement of a congressman's son in exchange for the member's support for the 2003 Medicare prescription-drug bill.

And in the 1990s, late-night comics joked that President Clinton won votes by offering rides on Air Force One.

Not all of the deals struck on health care reform have clear-cut winners. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, inserted a provision to spend $100 million on a university hospital. He hopes the money goes to the University of Connecticut, but said he wrote the language so that another state could win the money if it has a better proposal.

History suggests dealmakers should beware.

Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, studied the deals Mr. Clinton cut in 1993 to secure passage of the North America Free Trade Agreement, and found that most went unfulfilled.

Opponents of NAFTA were brutal in criticizing Mr. Clinton for offering those, including then-Rep. Sherrod Brown, Ohio Democrat, who was the only congressman to attend a press conference with consumer advocate Ralph Nader blasting the president for horse-trading.

He told the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper he wanted to "shame" members into rejecting the deals.

"Gov. Clinton campaigned for change. All of us campaigned against business as usual," Mr. Brown said. "Unfortunately, the last two weeks of wheeling and dealing in Congress has shown pork-barrel politics at its worst."

Mr. Brown is now a senator who supports the health care reform bill, and has changed his tune on deals.

He told PBS' "News Hour" program this week he didn't like the bargaining that forced Mr. Reid to drop abortion coverage or the government-sponsored public option from the bill, but said "the deals notwithstanding, this bill is good for the country in so many ways."

So far in the health care reform debate, there have been no allegations of senators trading votes for personal gain - which puts them ahead of their predecessor Ross and many other colleagues.

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican, bristles at vote-dealing. "I was always appalled by it when I saw it going on or knew it was going on," he said, adding there were times when other members "were so dense about it, they would brag about it in the cloakroom."

One congressman traded a vote for an invite to the next state dinner at the White House, Mr. Armey said.

Mr. Armey said one reason vote-trading happens is party leaders in Congress often come from the ranks of the Appropriations Committee, where trading is a way of life.

The House has a rule banning members from trading their votes in exchange for getting pork-barrel spending projects, but the Senate does not. The provision that passed the Senate 98-0 in 2007 was dropped from the final version of a House-Senate compromise bill, and never became law.

The 2007 measure was sponsored by Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, and Mr. Durbin. Mr. DeMint was incredulous yesterday when it became clear on the Senate floor Mr. Durbin would no longer support his own legislation.

"This is the DeMint-Durbin amendment," he said, to which his erstwhile partner replied, "Not anymore."


Again.....Yes this has gone on for a long time. But Obama ran on the promise of no more politics as usual. And how about the Reid quote? That's almost as offensive as the one we are discussing in another thread.
 
One doesn't need to spend a whole lot of time to know these things. You just need to know where to look and read. Transparency is a real problem with this administration among other things.
 
One doesn't need to spend a whole lot of time to know these things. You just need to know where to look and read. Transparency is a real problem with this administration among other things.

let's be honest in here. it's nothing to be ashamed about but I know how much time is being spent on a certain subject based on one's activity and/or knowledge.

and yes - transparency is a concern in here but nothing new, right? transparency isn't an issue in here because pretty much every administration does same. The issue in here is that Obama isn't doing what he preached about.

Delayed closing of Gitmo Camp. Reversal of war policy to Bush policy. Reversal of foreign policy on Iran back to Bush policy. Now what's going on? :hmm:
 
Bush and Cheney were transparent???????
Relevantly speaking......not even close.
One keeps saying don't speak of past prez.
How convenient to have no comparisons for one's spin.
Doesn't matter how fast one finds info.....making it a daily requirement is still obsessive negativity.
 
Bush and Cheney were transparent???????
Relevantly speaking......not even close.
One keeps saying don't speak of past prez.
How convenient to have no comparisons for one's spin.
Doesn't matter how fast one finds info.....making it a daily requirement is still obsessive negativity.

yes but point is - Obama isn't doing what he preached for months.
 
let's be honest in here. it's nothing to be ashamed about but I know how much time is being spent on a certain subject based on one's activity and/or knowledge.

and yes - transparency is a concern in here but nothing new, right? transparency isn't an issue in here because pretty much every administration does same. The issue in here is that Obama isn't doing what he preached about.

Delayed closing of Gitmo Camp. Reversal of war policy to Bush policy. Reversal of foreign policy on Iran back to Bush policy. Now what's going on? :hmm:

Eight times Obama promised open transparency with the health care by putting the full spotlight on it on CSPAN. That never happened. This is only one simple example out of the many under the guise to be the “most ethical government ever” by Nancy Pelosi while Obama promised “hope” and “change”, and that both promised transparency in government. When did that ever happened. Do you even know the running joke about Geithner? Or about Obama's promise on getting rid of lobbyists? The pharmaceutical companies? And so on? If not, you're behind the 8 ball.

Yes, I spend some time on Obama since he is, unavoidably, the news every day and is part of every day politics. Spend every waking hours over Obama? No. I'm just very well informed in politics and have an interest just as I am informed about the environment and science and have a deep interest in them. It doesn't take much to learn these things and the news. For you, it might. Not so with me.
 
Eight times Obama promised open transparency with the health care by putting the full spotlight on it on CSPAN.
Probably cuz he was being cock-blocked by Republicans :dunno:

That never happened. This is only one simple example out of the many under the guise to be the “most ethical government ever” by Nancy Pelosi while Obama promised “hope” and “change”, and that both promised transparency in government. When did that ever happened.
When is Pelosi ever gonna leave?

Do you even know the running joke about Geithner? Or about Obama's promise on getting rid of lobbyists? The pharmaceutical companies? And so on? If not, you're behind the 8 ball.
well it's not that I'm behind the 8-ball but I, like million others, just don't care because in the end - it'll work out. :)

Yes, I spend some time on Obama since he is, unavoidably, the news every day and is part of every day politics. Spend every waking hours over Obama? No. I'm just very well informed in politics and have an interest just as I am informed about the environment and science and have a deep interest in them. It doesn't take much to learn these things and the news. For you, it might. Not so with me.
cool. curious - do you make a living relating to this political stuff?
 
Well, when people do care they get more involved. It doesn't help the situtation when the one is bankrupting this nation of ours saddling us and future generations with even more debt into the trillions, bigger govt and the loss of states' rights against an increasingly more centralized govt.
 
Well, when people do care they get more involved. It doesn't help the situtation when the one is bankrupting this nation of ours saddling us and future generations with even more debt into the trillions, bigger govt and the loss of states' rights against an increasingly more centralized govt.

Read the facts.. it was Bush that bankrupt the economy:

Conservatives claim Obama's policies are weakening the dollar. Let's examine the evidence. - By Daniel Gross - Slate Magazine

What's so funny is that "As early as July 2008—months before the presidential election—McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin blamed the weak dollar on Obama."

"The expensive components of the bailout—the TARP, the formal assumption of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's debts, the rescue of AIG—started on Bush's watch, not on Obama's. What's more, the soaring deficit is as much a function of a collapse in tax revenues as of reckless new spending. Did you know that in the first two months of the current fiscal year, spending is actually down 4 percent from the first two months of last fiscal year? (Alas, revenues are down 4.3 percent.)"

Don't be talkin about spending!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top