2012 Presidential Campaign - Obama vs. Romney

[Comish]

Now you can argue that is obstructionism, but without control of most of the governing apparatus, how is the GOP culpable?

Uhhhh . . . not sure if serious.

 

If you are in fact serious . . . you might want to check it out. It's not complicated.

Except for filibusters and the threat of filibusters..........what are their options when Harry Reid and the controlling committees run by the majority party can prevent bills from even getting a hearing??

[carlfense]

Now you can argue that is obstructionism, but without control of most of the governing apparatus, how is the GOP culpable?

Uhhhh . . . not sure if serious.

 

If you are in fact serious . . . you might want to check it out. It's not complicated.

Except for filibusters and the threat of filibusters..........what are their options when Harry Reid and the controlling committees run by the majority party can prevent bills from even getting a hearing??

Do you mean to ask how the GOP is culpable other than obstructionism through the threat of filibusters?

[Comish]

Yes.

 

And while it's bad when EITHER side uses it, if it is the only weapon in the arsenal to stop what you believe is really bad legislation.........well then you have to utilize it.

 

To me it's a far less onerous tactic than having the majority leader not even ALLOW legislation to come to the floor for discussion.

[carlfense]

Yes.

 

And while it's bad when EITHER side uses it, if it is the only weapon in the arsenal to stop what you believe is really bad legislation.........well then you have to utilize it.

 

To me it's a far less onerous tactic than having the majority leader not even ALLOW legislation to come to the floor for discussion.

The only problem being that they have used it on nearly ALL legislation. That's unprecedented.

 

Here's the problem: you seem to be saying that the Democratic controlled Senate doesn't pass anything with the implication that it's the fault of the Democratic majority. Perhaps you agree with Republican Senate nominee Richard Mourdock.

I have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view.

[Comish]

Yes.

 

And while it's bad when EITHER side uses it, if it is the only weapon in the arsenal to stop what you believe is really bad legislation.........well then you have to utilize it.

 

To me it's a far less onerous tactic than having the majority leader not even ALLOW legislation to come to the floor for discussion.

The only problem being that they have used it on nearly ALL legislation. That's unprecedented.

 

Here's the problem: you seem to be saying that the Democratic controlled Senate doesn't pass anything with the implication that it's the fault of the Democratic majority. Perhaps you agree with Republican Senate nominee Richard Mourdock.

I have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view.

Actually, that's a clever twist on the dem's historical vision of bipartisanship which truly DOES consist of the Pub's doing the compromising.

 

To Wit: Harry Reid saying in a twit in the aftermath of the 2010 elections........."I will NOT compromise with any Republican"

 

Somehow, it's assumed that any compromise begins and ends with Pubs coming over to the Dem's side. I'll give Mourdock credit for turning it around while making a point.

[carlfense]

Actually, that's a clever twist on the dem's historical vision of bipartisanship which truly DOES consist of the Pub's doing the compromising.

 

To Wit: Harry Reid saying in a twit in the aftermath of the 2010 elections........."I will NOT compromise with any Republican"

 

Somehow, it's assumed that any compromise begins and ends with Pubs coming over to the Dem's side. I'll give Mourdock credit for turning it around while making a point.

Got a link? Here's what I see: http://bit.ly/Jk61SN

 

Perhaps you are paraphrasing in the guise of a direct quotation. Please advise.

[Mavric]

Now you can argue that is obstructionism, but without control of most of the governing apparatus, how is the GOP culpable?

Uhhhh . . . not sure if serious.

 

If you are in fact serious . . . you might want to check it out. It's not complicated.

Interesting that you left out the biggest part of Comish's quote:

 

Except for the inconvenient fact that for 2 years, he had the Senate, the House and the White House and STILL never got a budget.

 

The Dems had total control - including a filibuster-proof majority - for two years. They could have done whatever they wanted and the Republicans couldn't have stopped it. Which is how the ACA got passed, incidentally.

 

It is true that the Republicans have learned how to use the filibuster very effectively from the Dems (you just can't see the tongue in my cheek) but that again implies that the Dem's have the right answers and the Republicans won't let them do it which is exactly what you are accusing the Republicans of doing.

[carlfense]

Interesting that you left out the biggest part of Comish's quote:

 

Except for the inconvenient fact that for 2 years, he had the Senate, the House and the White House and STILL never got a budget.

 

The Dems had total control - including a filibuster-proof majority - for two years. They could have done whatever they wanted and the Republicans couldn't have stopped it. Which is how the ACA got passed, incidentally.

Are you confused . . . or lying . . . or both? Or did you just not bother to check?

[Mavric]

 

http://www.realclear...ollege_map.html

 

I had been looking at this for a couple days so I'm glad you brought it up. I would agree with them that Obama probably has the 253 votes all but locked up.

 

I would also agree with them on 170 for Romney although I would think that Arizona would be more likely for the last 11 than Indiana. AZ has voted Republican the last three elections with McCain getting 54% (obviously being his home state helped) but what the government and the voters of AZ have done the last couple years have been challenged quite a bit by Obama so I would guess it will fall Republican.

 

That obviously leaves Romney with a lot of ground to make up. Even if Obama only got Colorado, Iowa & New Hampshire on top of the above - which wouldn't be surprising at all - that would be 19 more for 272 and the victory.

 

I think Romney would have a decent shot and grabbing a lot of votes in MO, NC, OH, and FL as Obama didn't get more than 51% of the vote in any of those states four years ago so it wouldn't take much for them to swing back the other way but even getting those and Virginia (53% Obama in 08) wouldn't quite be enough. He'll have to grab at least one of the "tougher" states to get over the top. Could get interesting.

[Comish]

Obama does have a strong lead but only because of the electoral college.

But a VP pick of Rubio would help close the gap in a hurry by delivering Florida.

North Carolina is now a solid Romney state after the last few days.

Most of the other toss-ups I'm guessing will go red. (again.......just my guess......so feel free to disagree......just giving my opinion)

 

That leaves Ohio (as usual) to be the determiner.

 

Lots to be decided yet, but I predicted a year ago that Obama would not be re-elected regardless of the Pub nominee and I stand by it.

[Mavric]

Interesting that you left out the biggest part of Comish's quote:

 

Except for the inconvenient fact that for 2 years, he had the Senate, the House and the White House and STILL never got a budget.

 

The Dems had total control - including a filibuster-proof majority - for two years. They could have done whatever they wanted and the Republicans couldn't have stopped it. Which is how the ACA got passed, incidentally.

Are you confused . . . or lying . . . or both? Or did you just not bother to check?

Neither, although it technically wasn't quite for two years. After Arlen Specter switched parties in April 2009, the Dems had 58 of their own for the remainder of the term. Adding the two who call themselves "independents" for the purpose of the election but are Democrats for all intents and purposes give you 60.

[carlfense]

1. It wasn't two years. (14 months)

2. You said Democrats.

 

The walk back is noted.

 

 

[Mavric]

1. It wasn't two years. (14 months)

2. You said Democrats.

 

The walk back is noted.

1. I concede I overstated the timeframe.

2. Yes. Democrats. I don't see how calling yourself an "independent" counts for much when you (a) were elected as a Democrat for 26 years and only changed to "Independent" when you were beaten or (b) describe yourself as a socialist or (a & b) caucus with the democrats. A Rose by any other name...

[carlfense]

1. I concede I overstated the timeframe.

2. Yes. Democrats. I don't see how calling yourself an "independent" counts for much when you (a) were elected as a Democrat for 26 years and only changed to "Independent" when you were beaten or (b) describe yourself as a socialist or (a & b) caucus with the democrats. A Rose by any other name...

 

1. Wrong about the timeframe.

2. Wrong about Democrats.

 

Other than that, good work.

[carlfense]

Comish? Can you back up your claims?

 

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/53115-2012-presidential-campaign-obama-vs-romney/page__view__findpost__p__953414