Democratic convention

  • Thread starter Thread starter scipio337
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
katcecelia said:
so… I notice no one has comments re: our sister in Christ… Nancy Pelosi a taboo topic? As you can see from the number of posts I’ve made, I’m new to this…
Click to expand...
Welcome! NP isn’t taboo AFAIK…so fire away. I didn’t listen to her speech…I don’t have that much patience.
 
gilliam said:
Politics has ALWAYS been a blood sport. It isn’t any different today than in the past. The country is more evenly split, but that doesn’t mean people are any more or less vehement in their views.

Listening to some of the great speeches by Reagan, JFK, LBJ and Clinton finding out the back story to them helps greatly in understanding this. We have some of the phone calls made by LBJ, those give great insite into what happens behind the scenes in politics and some of the great decisions that are dealt with. These guys were leaders and the American public knew it. (although Clinton had a great fall in the middle of his presidency that he really didn’t recover from) I don’t see it with Obama. Obama seems out of his league. Maybe he is learning… people do grow into the office. But the events of the last week aren’t proving that to me.
Click to expand...
I agree. Presidential historians speak of ruthless, bloodthirsty politics in the 1800’s. I also agree about Obama compared to the other men you mention. There has definitely been a decline in the leadership skills of presidents, and just when you think it can’t get any worse, an even less qualified candidate comes along from one party or the other.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
A great orator isn’t necessarily a good leader and vice versa. People are only leaders in terms of what they are capable of accomplishing and what they have accomplished.
Click to expand...
Wow. I was reading along thinking, “EmperorNapoleon is actually saying something sensible that I agree with…”
EmperorNapoleon said:
So, in that sense, its very difficult for Obama to appear a strong leader in a system of government in which, to get anything done, he is Constitutionally constrained to rely on people who made it their number one priority to sabotage his presidency at all costs instead of cooperating to accomplish great things as they did with Clinton in the 90s.
Click to expand...
…and then you devolved into excuse making for Obama’s utter failure. Clinton and Gingrich were bitter enemies and there was a lot of nastiness on both sides, but they managed to get a lot more done. Blaming the other side for Obama’s failure is pathetic.
 
rlg94086 said:
…and then you devolved into excuse making for Obama’s utter failure. Clinton and Gingrich were bitter enemies and there was a lot of nastiness on both sides, but they managed to get a lot more done. Blaming the other side for Obama’s failure is pathetic.
Click to expand...
Gingrich was willing to compromise with Clinton and vice versa for the good of the nation. A failure to consider or pass legislation is not the failure of the President. It is the failure of a party with the public position that they don’t care whats in the best interest of the nation as long as they can destroy Obama. And yes, it is very pathetic of the GOP and its incredible that they’ve allowed themselves to be held hostage by their radical fringe elements.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Gingrich was willing to compromise with Clinton and vice versa for the good of the nation. A failure to consider or pass legislation is not the failure of the President. It is the failure of a party with the public position that they don’t care whats in the best interest of the nation as long as they can destroy Obama. And yes, it is very pathetic of the GOP and its incredible that they’ve allowed themselves to be held hostage by their radical fringe elements.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, those “radical fringe elements” are becoming the mainstream.
 
And the dems aren’t hostage to their radical fringe elements? Is that because the “radicals” aren’t the fringe?
 
meltzerboy said:
Unfortunately, those “radical fringe elements” are becoming the mainstream.
Click to expand...
I think the American people will tire of it very quickly. They’re good when it comes to verbal abuse and conspiracy theories but there is no substance to anything they say or propose.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Gingrich was willing to compromise with Clinton and vice versa for the good of the nation. A failure to consider or pass legislation is not the failure of the President. It is the failure of a party with the public position that they don’t care whats in the best interest of the nation as long as they can destroy Obama. And yes, it is very pathetic of the GOP and its incredible that they’ve allowed themselves to be held hostage by their radical fringe elements.
Click to expand...
So, Romney and Boehner are “radical fringe elements?” Our radical fringe elements would take exception to that. 😛

But, hey, what else can you say, when your president is weaker than circus lemonade?
 
rlg94086 said:
So, Romney and Boehner are “radical fringe elements?” Our radical fringe elements would take exception to that. 😛
Click to expand...
Romney and Boehner aren’t the ones calling the shots. Boehner isn’t passing out lobbying checks on the house floor anymore and Romney is barely a Republican.
rlg94086 said:
But, hey, what else can you say, when your president is weaker than circus lemonade?
Click to expand...
I don’t consider a man who refuses to cave on his principles to the party of no to be weak. What I do find to be a display of weakness is a party so vulnerable to partisanship that it would rather see Americans unemployed than Obama proved right.
 
katcecelia said:
And the dems aren’t hostage to their radical fringe elements? Is that because the “radicals” aren’t the fringe?
Click to expand...
Well, ~1/2 of their radical fringe booed God and Jerusalem today, but I guess they haven’t completely taken over because the chair ruled that they were less than 1/3.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Romney and Boehner aren’t the ones calling the shots.
Click to expand...
Got it. So, the “radical fringe” call the shots and they made sure Romney, who isn’t “radical fringe,” became the candidate. That would only make sense to a Democrat. :whacky:
 
rlg94086 said:
From the link:

I don’t get it: either the tea party is dead or it’s all-powerful and controls the GOP. If the Republican party is dominated by the tea party, why is their presidential candidate a moderate?*

Exactly. EmperorNapoleon and Meltzerboy seem to struggle with this same paradox.
Click to expand...
So does the Republican Party, which I think is undergoing a paradigmatic shift. Sort of like growing pains. Romney is the ideal candidate at this time since he is at once an establishment moderate and a “severe” conservative.
 
rlg94086 said:
Exactly. EmperorNapoleon and Meltzerboy seem to struggle with this same paradox.
Click to expand...
Its hardly a paradox. Controlling the party doesn’t translate into controlling the entire Republican electorate which determines who the nominee will be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top