Are Republcians against hope and change?

PostmodernProphet said:
?????....where did you get the silly idea that Democrats worked with Reagan?......have you ever heard of Tip O'Neil?......
Click to expand...

Tax cuts and SDI were the two most important initiatives that Reagan passed, leading to the Bull Market and the collapse of the USSR. Reagan had to give something back (compromise), so we never got any spending cuts.

The fact remains, the Congressional Democrats (chiefly O'Neil) worked with Reagan by passing these crucial acts. They may not have been as conciliatory towards him if not for their bad experiences of warring with Carter over everything for 4 years. Basically, they saw Reagan as an opportunity to get something accomplished for a change, and went along with him to achieve that objective.
 
Threedee said:
Tax cuts and SDI were the two most important initiatives that Reagan passed, leading to the Bull Market and the collapse of the USSR. Reagan had to give something back (compromise), so we never got any spending cuts.

The fact remains, the Congressional Democrats (chiefly O'Neil) worked with Reagan by passing these crucial acts. They may not have been as conciliatory towards him if not for their bad experiences of warring with Carter over everything for 4 years. Basically, they saw Reagan as an opportunity to get something accomplished for a change, and went along with him to achieve that objective.
Click to expand...

As did Congressional Republicans under LBJ and to a degree, Clinton.
 
Annie said:
As did Congressional Republicans under LBJ and to a degree, Clinton.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the Johnson relationship with Congress, but I can't really say that the Clinton years resemble the picture I illustrated. Clinton and Congress worked together on trade and little else. He opposed the Contract and they opposed his policies. Remember, Congress caused a shutdown, and Clinton took the opportunity to sleep with interns.

For one thing, if the Gingrich Congress had come in under a re-elected Bush, and Clinton not arrived until 1997, they may have experienced a similar situation that O'Neil had experienced with Carter, because they probably would have hated Bush for 3 years. That never happened, though...
 
Threedee said:
I'm not sure about the Johnson relationship with Congress, but I can't really say that the Clinton years resemble the picture I illustrated. Clinton and Congress worked together on trade and little else. He opposed the Contract and they opposed his policies. Remember, Congress caused a shutdown, and Clinton took the opportunity to sleep with interns.

For one thing, if the Gingrich Congress had come in under a re-elected Bush, and Clinton not arrived until 1997, they may have experienced a similar situation that O'Neil had experienced with Carter, because they probably would have hated Bush for 3 years. That never happened, though...
Click to expand...

If not for Congressional Republicans the Civil Rights Act would not have passed, not in the form that it did.
 
Annie said:
If not for Congressional Republicans the Civil Rights Act would not have passed, not in the form that it did.
Click to expand...

Oh, whoops, yeah, that one slipped my mind. If not for Congressional Republicans (specifically Sen. Dirksen), the CRA would not have passed at all. Dirksen led the fight against the 80-day filibuster to ultimately get Cloture. Plus, the Republicans supported the Act at a much higher rate than Dems.
 
Threedee said:
Tax cuts and SDI were the two most important initiatives that Reagan passed, leading to the Bull Market and the collapse of the USSR. Reagan had to give something back (compromise), so we never got any spending cuts.

The fact remains, the Congressional Democrats (chiefly O'Neil) worked with Reagan by passing these crucial acts. They may not have been as conciliatory towards him if not for their bad experiences of warring with Carter over everything for 4 years. Basically, they saw Reagan as an opportunity to get something accomplished for a change, and went along with him to achieve that objective.
Click to expand...

O'Neill at odds with President Ronald Reagan

O'Neill was a leading opponent of the Reagan administration's domestic and defense policies. Following the 1980 election, with the U.S. Senate in Republican hands, O'Neill became the leader of the congressional opposition. This rivalry between O'Neill and Reagan was comparable to that of President Bill Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. O'Neill called Reagan the most ignorant man who had ever occupied the White House.[8] O'Neill also said that Reagan was "Herbert Hoover with a smile" and "a cheerleader for selfishness" and "an amiable dunce." He also said that Reagan's policies meant that his presidency was "one big Christmas party for the rich." Privately, O'Neill and Reagan were always on cordial terms, or as Reagan himself put it in his memoirs, they were friends "after 6PM." O'Neill in that same memoir when questioned by Reagan regarding a personal attack against the President that made the paper, explained that "before 6PM it's all politics."[9] Reagan once compared O'Neill to the then-popular arcade game Pac-Man in a speech, saying that he was "a round thing that gobbles up money". He also once joked he had received a valentine card from O'Neill: "I knew it was from Tip, because the heart was bleeding."
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tip_O'Neill#O.27Neill_at_odds_with_President_Ronald_Reagan
 
Jarod said:
Iraq Policy changed, Afganistan policy changed, we have a president who can speak in complete sentences... thats changed. Enviromental policy has changed, drug policy has changed, The pholosophy of those placed on the s.Ct has changed.... America's immage abroad has changed, The average intelegence Quotia of Washington D.C. has increased, the DOW has changed, the rate of increase of job loss has changed, the amount of Americans loosing there lives has changed, the taking away rights by the government of those accused of crimes has ceased... Ill come up with more... but that was just off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

you're posting drunk again, aren't you.......
 
Jarod said:
Iraq Policy changed, Afganistan policy changed, we have a president who can speak in complete sentences... thats changed.
Click to expand...

I was reading about the changes in the Afganistan war. The new rules of engagement mean our soldiers are under much stricter controls. It was a change designed to make us look better.

So this change is going to cost us american lives in the interest of public relations.

Is that a change you are proud of?
 
WinterBorn said:
You are just laying one generality on top of another.

Have I ever supported Bush?

Or are you ok with this "you guys are bad!" whining from one side but think its great from the other?
Click to expand...

Maybe you did not support him, but Republicans/conservatives in general did!
 
Jarod said:
Maybe you did not support him, but Republicans/conservatives in general did!
Click to expand...

Yes they did. And the played the very dangerous game of "Follow the Leader no matter where he takes us".

But isn't that what you are doing too?
 
Threedee said:
This doesn't change the fact that they sat down and got some important things done. Like I said, O'Neil didn't have to respect Reagan or his ideals to understand that he was no Jimmy Carter, and that fact was enough to motivate him and the Congressional Democrats.
Click to expand...

I think you are overlooking the fact that the Democrats were the minority party in the Senate after the 1980 elections....those initiatives didn't pass because of the support of the Democratic Party, they passed despite the opposition.......
 
As long as both sides continue this partisan bullshit, the only changes are the letter after the majority leader's name. And the only hope is for one side or the other to finally realize that the game they are playing is ridiculous and that they need to do their job.


Politics has become a team sport with two teams. Neither team cares about right/wrong or about doing their job. The just care about their side winning the next round of elections.
 
Im all for having a 3rd party... but this Tea Party bullshit of merely supporting the Republicans is silly.

President Obama is not liberal enough for me, and I would like to see less politics as usual. What would you suggest he do to shake things up?
 
WinterBorn said:
As long as both sides continue this partisan bullshit, the only changes are the letter after the majority leader's name. And the only hope is for one side or the other to finally realize that the game they are playing is ridiculous and that they need to do their job.


Politics has become a team sport with two teams. Neither team cares about right/wrong or about doing their job. The just care about their side winning the next round of elections.
Click to expand...

there is much truth in that... but it really is nothing new.
 
Jarod said:
Im all for having a 3rd party... but this Tea Party bullshit of merely supporting the Republicans is silly.

President Obama is not liberal enough for me, and I would like to see less politics as usual. What would you suggest he do to shake things up?
Click to expand...

The politicians won't change on their own. As long as they have constituents who will follow them in this partisan effort, nothing will change.

What needs to happen is a discussion of the issues without slamming the liberals or conservatives, democrats or republicans.

If the people stayed focused on the issues the politicians would follow.
 
WinterBorn said:
The politicians won't change on their own. As long as they have constituents who will follow them in this partisan effort, nothing will change.

What needs to happen is a discussion of the issues without slamming the liberals or conservatives, democrats or republicans.

If the people stayed focused on the issues the politicians would follow.
Click to expand...

Call me a blind follower, to me it appears President Obama is trying to stay focused on the issues.

Calling for a discussion on healthcare that the Republicans refuse to attend...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top