Comments on: Why Obama Has to Fail

By: Robert Nowall

Robert Nowall — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:45:44 +0000

Sure…while the Republicans were in the middle of crafting their compromise position on the DREAM Act and illegal immigration, Obama discarded debate (and law) by issuing an executive order.

It should be pointed out, too, that many of the new crop of Republicans coming in have come to the conclusion that their predecessors have compromised *enough.*

By: John Armstrong

John Armstrong — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:34:42 +0000

Robert – can you give us a couple of those instances where the republicans proposed compromise?

By: donn

donn — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 19:48:57 +0000

Republicans are trying to save us from going over a cliff. 40 Plus months of over 8% unemployment. Complete mis-direction of attention to real problems during his term. Tax the Rich? You could confiscate the money of the “Rich” and it would make hardly a dent. yet we argue about it forever. We don’t have a tax problem we have a spending problem. healthcare? why doesn’t the government running 1/7 of the economy by power hungry bureaucrats scare more people? I could go on, but the left is uninterested in facts. They call looking at facts hate speech and call you intolerant and ascribe all sorts of nefarious motives. There used to be democrats you could discuss ideas with. Now it seems you can’t ask a question without being called a name instead of some thoughtful response.

By: H. E. Parmer

H. E. Parmer — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 06:42:27 +0000

Democrats have long seen “compromise” as meaning “doing what Democrats want,” Yes, we all remember how the Democrats steamrollered welfare "reform", NAFTA and financial deregulation through Congress over the objections of the poor, helpless Republicans. How under Bush II Republican priorities were constantly thwarted: No Democrats voted for tax breaks, or giveaways to Big Pharma aka Medicare Part D, or No Child Left Behind, or the PATRIOT Act or Homeland Security (I still think it sounds better in the original German). And just look at how those intransigent jerks have been abusing the filibuster lately to block any bill that can't scrape up a 60-vote majority! They've invoked that anti-majoritarian rule a record number of times in the last few years. Oh, wait ... It's also been an especially bad week, in an especially bad summer, for folks like Nate, so we should cut him some slack. I mean, having one of your primary denialist heroes look at the effin' data for three years and completely reverse himself has just got to leave a welt. I also suspect there are a fair number of farmers all over the Midwest right now who might have a slight difference of opinion with you concerning the kooky cultishness of global warming.

By: Robert Nowall

Robert Nowall — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:58:33 +0000

Since Democrats have long seen “compromise” as meaning “doing what Democrats want,” and since a new group of Republicans has come in that will not see compromise as having that meaning, it’s up to the Democrats to bend.

Obama hasn’t failed because the Republicans opposed him—he failed on his own.

By: Howard Brazee

Howard Brazee — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:56:57 +0000

I wonder about trade offs between short term and long term. If the world economy stays the way it is (which has virtually nothing to do with the American president) – would the voters blame the administration’s party? Would they be smart enough to figure policies that they want changed are Congressional, not administrative?

Would we be willing to make things worse in the short run, allowing the *other* party to get the blame and hang itself?