Favorite editorial cartoons: February 09

cagle00.gif


sack.jpg


tmdho090130.gif


beattie.jpg


bors.jpg


zyglis.gif


994-02032009Siers.slideshow_main.prod_affiliate.91.jpg


MP0204.gif





TMW02-04-09original.gif
 
I don't get the liberal media's interpretation of bipartisanship. i suppose they think republicans should just roll over and take whatever they throw out there and that would be equal to bipartisanship and all else would not. what i don't get is why they care? with as many seats as they hold they should be able to pass anything they want.
 
Robb Graves said:
I don't get the liberal media's interpretation of bipartisanship. i suppose they think republicans should just roll over and take whatever they throw out there and that would be equal to bipartisanship and all else would not. what i don't get is why they care? with as many seats as they hold they should be able to pass anything they want.

Exactly. Instead, they held their hand out to the Republicans, added in tax cuts and other things they wanted, bent over backwards to take their points into consideration, and then the Republicans voted against the bill in unison. The GOP could have had a big say in making the bill more central but instead they would rather hold their breath until they turn blue. Yeah, that'll accomplish a lot.

So you're right, why even try? During Bush's term when the GOP held Congress, they never consulted the Democrats; they'd have closed door meetings without them and then pass a bill without any input whatsoever from the minority party.

Obama has tried to hold his hand out and run in a bipartisan fashion but it only works if the other guy is willing to do it too. Politics is all about compromise, but if all the GOP wants to do is put up brick walls, that's not the democrat's fault.
 
I agree and disagree. i don't think Obama’s little visit to congress really was much more than a showing of "good intentions" before he tried to cram Pelosi’s ridiculous bill down their throats calling it his own, so I am not surprised that they didn't go for it.

I think what the republican's are doing now is trying to be as anti-democrat as possible (sans a few bad eggs) so that if this all fails they can tout to the press that they were always so vehemently against it. it's really the only thing they have left since they lost all of their power.

I agree that the Dems should just steam roll them. let America be run by an all democratic government for a while and see where it goes. there's all these if's and maybes people talk about. like IF we left the Democrats rule, America will become socialist. well if so, let it happen, then the people can rise up and take it back... or do whatever it is the people do when that would happen.
 
Robb Graves said:
I agree and disagree. i don't think Obama’s little visit to congress really was much more than a showing of "good intentions" before he tried to cram Pelosi’s ridiculous bill down their throats calling it his own, so I am not surprised that they didn't go for it.

I think what the republican's are doing now is trying to be as anti-democrat as possible (sans a few bad eggs) so that if this all fails they can tout to the press that they were always so vehemently against it. it's really the only thing they have left since they lost all of their power.

I agree that the Dems should just steam roll them. let America be run by an all democratic government for a while and see where it goes. there's all these if's and maybes people talk about. like IF we left the Democrats rule, America will become socialist. well if so, let it happen, then the people can rise up and take it back... or do whatever it is the people do when that would happen.

I think we went socialist when Bush did the first bail out, and when republican senators last week called for the nationalization of the banks it kind of confirmed that it ain't just a democrat thing here.
 
I don't see that happening. we swing back and forth on this partisan noose between extremes like clinton, bush, then obama... half of america is happy for 4 years, half is not. then they switch. I think things will have to get REALLY bad before the people begin to change. we haven't even seen bad yet. let alone really bad.
 
The US has been more divided in the past (remember the Civil War?)... it's a fact of life, we're bigger than that and we will survive, even with our differences.

And quite often the loudest people on the fringes make the most noise, whereas the average person in the middle is just fine. (Sort of like the Alliance -- the people who complain the loudest about this rule or that rule do not necessarily represent the views of the average player).

Right now, Obama is still very popular (68% or so by last survey) and the stimulus package is approved by something like 59% of the populace as well. The Republicans have fired up their base by voting against this in unison but I don't see how this helps them win over the center that they need.
 
I wouldn't call Clinton and Bush two "extremes." Both were interventionists, both continued to support the expansion of our overseas empire (700ish bases around the world), both chose to give billions in aide to Israel while giving billings in aide to enemies of Israel, both believed in nation building (Kosovo/Iraq), both caused a great amount of death in Iraq (Clintion w/ sanctions/bombing, Bush w/ the war). The list goes on.

We will never really hear both sides until the media and politicians can have an open and honest debate of interventionism vs non interventionism overseas. Right now it's more like a two-headed coin being flipped every two to four years. It is unfortunate that only a very tiny minority of politicians believe in the foreign policy of our Founding Fathers, which was not isolationism, regardless of what your high school teachers may have "taught" you.
 
Back
Top