19 Sep 12
I would really like to hear from guys like kunsoo and moon1969 on this one. Is this line effective for you? I consider myself an independent and in this election I will probably vote for the president, but this line is really getting on my nerves. Do you think that your boss at work would be satisfied with a crappy performance if you said a coworker had caused your problem? I'm just wondering if liberals think that this demonstrates effective leadership.
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by dryhumpI don't know about kunsoo and moon1969, but this liberal doesn't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
I would really like to hear from guys like kunsoo and moon1969 on this one. Is this line effective for you? I consider myself an independent and in this election I will probably vote for the president, but this line is really getting on my nerves. Do you think that your boss at work would be satisfied with a crappy performance if you said a coworker had ca ...[text shortened]... your problem? I'm just wondering if liberals think that this demonstrates effective leadership.
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by rwingettWhen the president or Ms. Pelosi talk about the party of no and how they have been obstructionist, is that effective rhetoric? Do you think that such language showcases the president's leadership abilities?
I don't know about kunsoo and moon1969, but this liberal doesn't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by dryhumpThe fact that the Republican Party is an obstructionist party has nothing to do with the president's leadership abilities. It is effective rhetoric, however, precisely because it's true.
When the president or Ms. Pelosi talk about the party of no and how they have been obstructionist, is that effective rhetoric? Do you think that such language showcases the president's leadership abilities?
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by dryhumpI'm not a liberal on economic terms and tend to vote based on economics. Although I might be considered a liberal on social issues like gay marriage.
I would really like to hear from guys like kunsoo and moon1969 on this one. Is this line effective for you? I consider myself an independent and in this election I will probably vote for the president, but this line is really getting on my nerves. Do you think that your boss at work would be satisfied with a crappy performance if you said a coworker had ca ...[text shortened]... your problem? I'm just wondering if liberals think that this demonstrates effective leadership.
I believe the Republicans should have defended their actions by saying that others proposed what we believed was econmic suicide and we said no because no is the right answer. Instead, the Republicans have allowed themselves to be branded as obstructionist instead of protectors of the country from what they believed were foolished ideas. Whether the Republicans are right or not is certainly up for debate but I think they were foolish and damaged by allowing themselves to be considered obstructionist and antiquated instead of defenders of implementing ideas this country simply cannot afford.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by dryhumpIf I could present evidence my coworker's efforts have made me fail, I would have no doubt that the bosses I have had would be satisfied. I have a trivial example I will not go into.
I would really like to hear from guys like kunsoo and moon1969 on this one. Is this line effective for you? I consider myself an independent and in this election I will probably vote for the president, but this line is really getting on my nerves. Do you think that your boss at work would be satisfied with a crappy performance if you said a coworker had ca ...[text shortened]... your problem? I'm just wondering if liberals think that this demonstrates effective leadership.
In what constitutional sense is the president the leader of the congress? even the house and senate leaders are party leaders only.
It is only in a practical sense, with much horsetrading, and then only by revokable consent, that the president is the leader of congress. Your expectations may need review.
Presidential candidates oversell the power of the position they aspire to, WRT legislation; unless like LBJ they know where the skeletons are hidden in congress..
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by JS357What if your coworkers could also present evidence that showed your proposal or intended path was not good for the company?
If I could present evidence my coworker's efforts have made me fail, I would have no doubt that the bosses I have had would be satisfied. I have a trivial example I will not go into.
In what constitutional sense is the president the leader of the congress? even the house and senate leaders are party leaders only.
It is only in a practical sense, with muc ...[text shortened]... ire to, WRT legislation; unless like LBJ they know where the skeletons are hidden in congress..
The president is not leader of congress, of course. The president does wield power, however, with the veto and the ability to present a totally unified idea to the American people and congress. Congress is a fractured organization which presents many views to the American people, but the president is able to express his vision as a cohesive unit. Using this to gain the support of the people, if indeed they support his vision. This is, in my opinion, the essence of presidential leadership.
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by rwingettI feel like this president in particular won the previous election by tying his opponent to GWB and then criticizing the pair of them. Now he wants to win reelection by demonizing the opposite party. Does he stand for anything? What does he plan for his second term?
The fact that the Republican Party is an obstructionist party has nothing to do with the president's leadership abilities. It is effective rhetoric, however, precisely because it's true.
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by dryhumpHe stands FOR winning
I feel like this president in particular won the previous election by tying his opponent to GWB and then criticizing the pair of them. Now he wants to win reelection by demonizing the opposite party. Does he stand for anything? What does he plan for his second term?
and is AGAINST losing
Duh
20 Sep 12
Originally posted by dryhumpPaul Ryan had a great line in a recent appearance. "The Obama economic agenda failed not because it was stopped, but because it was passed."
I would really like to hear from guys like kunsoo and moon1969 on this one. Is this line effective for you? I consider myself an independent and in this election I will probably vote for the president, but this line is really getting on my nerves. Do you think that your boss at work would be satisfied with a crappy performance if you said a coworker had ca ...[text shortened]... your problem? I'm just wondering if liberals think that this demonstrates effective leadership.
I guess I'm an independent, but the party of no rubs me raw too. When has the opposition party ever voted for the major wishes of a President? Never.
In recent memory, only when the President proposes something the other side wants, do they cooperate. Clinton proposing to end welfare as we know it. Bush proposing to spend billions more on education, and Bush proposing a Medicare drug subsidy. Presidents with opposition Congresses have typically been subtle and clever enough to horse trade their way to success.
Obama got one agenda item in the first term, one that is arguably one of the biggest obstacles to the economic growth that would have guaranteed his reelection.
20 Sep 12
Originally posted by normbenignThere's nothing Obama can offer the GOP which will change their obstructionist stance. The GOP is full of fanatics now.
Paul Ryan had a great line in a recent appearance. "The Obama economic agenda failed not because it was stopped, but because it was passed."
I guess I'm an independent, but the party of no rubs me raw too. When has the opposition party ever voted for the major wishes of a President? Never.
In recent memory, only when the President proposes somet ...[text shortened]... ne of the biggest obstacles to the economic growth that would have guaranteed his reelection.
20 Sep 12
Originally posted by normbenignGW didn't have an opposition Congress when he proposed his Medicare drug subsidy and few Democrats voted for it; only 9 of 204 in the House.http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll332.xml
Paul Ryan had a great line in a recent appearance. "The Obama economic agenda failed not because it was stopped, but because it was passed."
I guess I'm an independent, but the party of no rubs me raw too. When has the opposition party ever voted for the major wishes of a President? Never.
In recent memory, only when the President proposes somet ...[text shortened]... ne of the biggest obstacles to the economic growth that would have guaranteed his reelection.
21 Sep 12
4 edits
Originally posted by dryhumpWe are two-party system. Need some cooperation and compromise for our representative democracy to function. Traditionally, deals were cut, bills were co-sponsored, backs scratched, back-room deals negotiated, wheels greased, doing what was best for the country even if some political damage to self or party. While partisan, the government functioned.
I would really like to hear from guys like kunsoo and moon1969 on this one. Is this line effective for you? I consider myself an independent and in this election I will probably vote for the president, but this line is really getting on my nerves. Do you think that your boss at work would be satisfied with a crappy performance if you said a coworker had ca ...[text shortened]... your problem? I'm just wondering if liberals think that this demonstrates effective leadership.
However, no matter who is president, if one party says they are going to oppose all legislation (even if they agree with the legislation) because they do not want the President to be perceived as having a success, then very difficult for the president and government to function, at least with regard to domestic and economic legislation. In this context of not passing new legislation, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell explained that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." The Republicans also now use the once rare filibuster as a matter of course, requiring a super majority of 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation or to confirm appointments to the federal judiciary, etc. Further, the Tea Party wing in the House provide a nice voting block to obstruct any legislation that increases revenue, for example.
Moreover, both houses of Congress, especially the Senate in modern times has tended to be more moderate and hover around the center. The House could spike left or right, but the Senate offered maturity and moderation. Now we see the infusion of rigid uncompromising right-wing ideologues into both houses, and who worship their ideology at the expense of the country. That doesn't help either. Doesn't help any president, Republican or Democrat.
And what about Grover the God.