[eavesdropper]

[quote=afx114]Very good point eavesdropper. But you make it sound as if getting those passed were a cakewalk due to the Democratic majority. Are you arguing that they should have been easier to pass? In hindsight, perhaps they should have been. But it’s clear that they were battles. Were they battles due to the president’s political inexperience, or were they battles because the Dems, while a single group, are a diverse coalition of interests, much more so than the Reps? Is a president’s performance based on how many of the opposite party he can bring on board or is it based on the overall ability to bring diverse interests together to get shit done? We can also refer to the Obameter for some insight: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

No doubt the true test will be when he doesn’t have a majority. And based on what we’ve seen from the Reps so far, it doesn’t look like he will get much help from them. However, there could be more pressure on them to actually get stuff done since their votes will actually matter this time.

Time will tell.[/quote]

Love the Obamameter!! Many thanks for the link.

I was really pumped when the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania came up with the FactCheck.org website. Brilliant idea! Most of our political leaders and their staffs likewise thought so, too, utilizing FactCheck regularly in campaigns, legislative battles, and press releases….until facts came up that were not necessarily in their favor. Now we have a number of similar sites from which you can choose, depending on your particular brand of bias. Oh, well. It was great while it lasted.

In regard to the legislation, mine was an attempt simply to demonstrate the extreme divide along party lines. I have no delusions that any of those battles were easy. As for a change in the balance of the Senate and House, I wish I had your faith. In my eyes, a significant number of Republicans winning the seats of incumbent Dems will confirm what I suspect: that the evidence that the Republicans are drawing large paychecks for obstructing legislative progress hasn’t registered in the brains of American voters, or it simply doesn’t bother them. I’m not sure which of those bothers me more.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=afx114]Very good point eavesdropper. But you make it sound as if getting those passed were a cakewalk due to the Democratic majority. Are you arguing that they should have been easier to pass? In hindsight, perhaps they should have been. But it’s clear that they were battles. Were they battles due to the president’s political inexperience, or were they battles because the Dems, while a single group, are a diverse coalition of interests, much more so than the Reps? Is a president’s performance based on how many of the opposite party he can bring on board or is it based on the overall ability to bring diverse interests together to get shit done? We can also refer to the Obameter for some insight: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

No doubt the true test will be when he doesn’t have a majority. And based on what we’ve seen from the Reps so far, it doesn’t look like he will get much help from them. However, there could be more pressure on them to actually get stuff done since their votes will actually matter this time.

Time will tell.[/quote]

Love the Obamameter!! Many thanks for the link.

I was really pumped when the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania came up with the FactCheck.org website. Brilliant idea! Most of our political leaders and their staffs likewise thought so, too, utilizing FactCheck regularly in campaigns, legislative battles, and press releases….until facts came up that were not necessarily in their favor. Now we have a number of similar sites from which you can choose, depending on your particular brand of bias. Oh, well. It was great while it lasted.

In regard to the legislation, mine was an attempt simply to demonstrate the extreme divide along party lines. I have no delusions that any of those battles were easy. As for a change in the balance of the Senate and House, I wish I had your faith. In my eyes, a significant number of Republicans winning the seats of incumbent Dems will confirm what I suspect: that the evidence that the Republicans are drawing large paychecks for obstructing legislative progress hasn’t registered in the brains of American voters, or it simply doesn’t bother them. I’m not sure which of those bothers me more.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=investor]…. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?[/quote]

Investor, I constantly come across claims, such as the one you make above, that the economic crisis in which we now find ourselves, was the direct result of actions by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd – as you put it, their “promotion of easy mortgage lending”. If you honestly believe this, you need to put away “the creature book” in which you place such credence, and get yourself back to school.

The causes of the economic meltdown are numerous and complex. To think that a meltdown of this magnitude could be caused by 2 members of Congress is naive and self-serving. What was the rest of the worldwide financial community doing during this time?

I could get into a lengthy discourse on the history and purpose of the Community Reinvestment Act, how both bankers and politicians took advantage of it, move into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac territory, and evaluate the damage caused by unscrupulous mortgage brokers, reckless derivatives traders, and non-existent oversight, but, based on your posts, I don’t think you’ll read them. You ask SK to put aside his political leanings, but, overall, I have found his posts on this thread to be pretty much politics- free, and directed at correcting errors in some of the other posts. You’re the one who inquired of SK, “How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s…” (sic). Incidentally, I find your use of the phrase, “promote black home ownership” when speaking of Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank noteworthy.

Please read this sentence carefully: I believe that Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank used the CRA’s mandate to advance a political agenda. However, they were not alone in that; quite a few others were jumping on that bandwagon, and I include a YouTube clip for your illumination, and viewing pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=related

While I believe that Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank should acknowledge their role, I’m not holding my breath. And I believe that there were many who played roles that were much more suspect, and I won’t wait around for them to own up to their part in this debacle, either.

You’ve commented elsewhere in this thread about your great faith in the book, “The Creature From Jekyll Island”, and its author, G. Edward Griffin, while exhibiting your frustration with Allan for his seeming inability to grasp basic concepts from it. My reading of this forum has led me to believe that Allan is well-educated, widely-read, and has a strong professional background in the financial arena. Has it occurred to you that, based on these qualifications, Alan read the book, compared the author’s claims against the body of knowledge he has acquired, and then made a decision to reject them? It happens. There are those of us walking the earth who constantly question, and realize that finding the answer does not consist solely of seeking out sources that are in accord with our personal beliefs, morals, and creeds. Painful as it is, we often have to critically evaluate the writings of those to whom we are diametrically opposed in our beliefs.
This is especially important these days when woefully unqualified people are writing books that laughably one-dimensional, not to mention error-ridden, in their content.

You are playing a dangerous game with your freedom when you remain in selective ignorance by placing all your trust in authors whose writings mirror your own thoughts, philosophies, and prejudices.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=investor]…. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?[/quote]

Investor, I constantly come across claims, such as the one you make above, that the economic crisis in which we now find ourselves, was the direct result of actions by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd – as you put it, their “promotion of easy mortgage lending”. If you honestly believe this, you need to put away “the creature book” in which you place such credence, and get yourself back to school.

The causes of the economic meltdown are numerous and complex. To think that a meltdown of this magnitude could be caused by 2 members of Congress is naive and self-serving. What was the rest of the worldwide financial community doing during this time?

I could get into a lengthy discourse on the history and purpose of the Community Reinvestment Act, how both bankers and politicians took advantage of it, move into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac territory, and evaluate the damage caused by unscrupulous mortgage brokers, reckless derivatives traders, and non-existent oversight, but, based on your posts, I don’t think you’ll read them. You ask SK to put aside his political leanings, but, overall, I have found his posts on this thread to be pretty much politics- free, and directed at correcting errors in some of the other posts. You’re the one who inquired of SK, “How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s…” (sic). Incidentally, I find your use of the phrase, “promote black home ownership” when speaking of Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank noteworthy.

Please read this sentence carefully: I believe that Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank used the CRA’s mandate to advance a political agenda. However, they were not alone in that; quite a few others were jumping on that bandwagon, and I include a YouTube clip for your illumination, and viewing pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=related

While I believe that Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank should acknowledge their role, I’m not holding my breath. And I believe that there were many who played roles that were much more suspect, and I won’t wait around for them to own up to their part in this debacle, either.

You’ve commented elsewhere in this thread about your great faith in the book, “The Creature From Jekyll Island”, and its author, G. Edward Griffin, while exhibiting your frustration with Allan for his seeming inability to grasp basic concepts from it. My reading of this forum has led me to believe that Allan is well-educated, widely-read, and has a strong professional background in the financial arena. Has it occurred to you that, based on these qualifications, Alan read the book, compared the author’s claims against the body of knowledge he has acquired, and then made a decision to reject them? It happens. There are those of us walking the earth who constantly question, and realize that finding the answer does not consist solely of seeking out sources that are in accord with our personal beliefs, morals, and creeds. Painful as it is, we often have to critically evaluate the writings of those to whom we are diametrically opposed in our beliefs.
This is especially important these days when woefully unqualified people are writing books that laughably one-dimensional, not to mention error-ridden, in their content.

You are playing a dangerous game with your freedom when you remain in selective ignorance by placing all your trust in authors whose writings mirror your own thoughts, philosophies, and prejudices.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=investor]…. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?[/quote]

Investor, I constantly come across claims, such as the one you make above, that the economic crisis in which we now find ourselves, was the direct result of actions by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd – as you put it, their “promotion of easy mortgage lending”. If you honestly believe this, you need to put away “the creature book” in which you place such credence, and get yourself back to school.

The causes of the economic meltdown are numerous and complex. To think that a meltdown of this magnitude could be caused by 2 members of Congress is naive and self-serving. What was the rest of the worldwide financial community doing during this time?

I could get into a lengthy discourse on the history and purpose of the Community Reinvestment Act, how both bankers and politicians took advantage of it, move into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac territory, and evaluate the damage caused by unscrupulous mortgage brokers, reckless derivatives traders, and non-existent oversight, but, based on your posts, I don’t think you’ll read them. You ask SK to put aside his political leanings, but, overall, I have found his posts on this thread to be pretty much politics- free, and directed at correcting errors in some of the other posts. You’re the one who inquired of SK, “How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s…” (sic). Incidentally, I find your use of the phrase, “promote black home ownership” when speaking of Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank noteworthy.

Please read this sentence carefully: I believe that Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank used the CRA’s mandate to advance a political agenda. However, they were not alone in that; quite a few others were jumping on that bandwagon, and I include a YouTube clip for your illumination, and viewing pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=related

While I believe that Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank should acknowledge their role, I’m not holding my breath. And I believe that there were many who played roles that were much more suspect, and I won’t wait around for them to own up to their part in this debacle, either.

You’ve commented elsewhere in this thread about your great faith in the book, “The Creature From Jekyll Island”, and its author, G. Edward Griffin, while exhibiting your frustration with Allan for his seeming inability to grasp basic concepts from it. My reading of this forum has led me to believe that Allan is well-educated, widely-read, and has a strong professional background in the financial arena. Has it occurred to you that, based on these qualifications, Alan read the book, compared the author’s claims against the body of knowledge he has acquired, and then made a decision to reject them? It happens. There are those of us walking the earth who constantly question, and realize that finding the answer does not consist solely of seeking out sources that are in accord with our personal beliefs, morals, and creeds. Painful as it is, we often have to critically evaluate the writings of those to whom we are diametrically opposed in our beliefs.
This is especially important these days when woefully unqualified people are writing books that laughably one-dimensional, not to mention error-ridden, in their content.

You are playing a dangerous game with your freedom when you remain in selective ignorance by placing all your trust in authors whose writings mirror your own thoughts, philosophies, and prejudices.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=investor]…. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?[/quote]

Investor, I constantly come across claims, such as the one you make above, that the economic crisis in which we now find ourselves, was the direct result of actions by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd – as you put it, their “promotion of easy mortgage lending”. If you honestly believe this, you need to put away “the creature book” in which you place such credence, and get yourself back to school.

The causes of the economic meltdown are numerous and complex. To think that a meltdown of this magnitude could be caused by 2 members of Congress is naive and self-serving. What was the rest of the worldwide financial community doing during this time?

I could get into a lengthy discourse on the history and purpose of the Community Reinvestment Act, how both bankers and politicians took advantage of it, move into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac territory, and evaluate the damage caused by unscrupulous mortgage brokers, reckless derivatives traders, and non-existent oversight, but, based on your posts, I don’t think you’ll read them. You ask SK to put aside his political leanings, but, overall, I have found his posts on this thread to be pretty much politics- free, and directed at correcting errors in some of the other posts. You’re the one who inquired of SK, “How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s…” (sic). Incidentally, I find your use of the phrase, “promote black home ownership” when speaking of Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank noteworthy.

Please read this sentence carefully: I believe that Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank used the CRA’s mandate to advance a political agenda. However, they were not alone in that; quite a few others were jumping on that bandwagon, and I include a YouTube clip for your illumination, and viewing pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=related

While I believe that Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank should acknowledge their role, I’m not holding my breath. And I believe that there were many who played roles that were much more suspect, and I won’t wait around for them to own up to their part in this debacle, either.

You’ve commented elsewhere in this thread about your great faith in the book, “The Creature From Jekyll Island”, and its author, G. Edward Griffin, while exhibiting your frustration with Allan for his seeming inability to grasp basic concepts from it. My reading of this forum has led me to believe that Allan is well-educated, widely-read, and has a strong professional background in the financial arena. Has it occurred to you that, based on these qualifications, Alan read the book, compared the author’s claims against the body of knowledge he has acquired, and then made a decision to reject them? It happens. There are those of us walking the earth who constantly question, and realize that finding the answer does not consist solely of seeking out sources that are in accord with our personal beliefs, morals, and creeds. Painful as it is, we often have to critically evaluate the writings of those to whom we are diametrically opposed in our beliefs.
This is especially important these days when woefully unqualified people are writing books that laughably one-dimensional, not to mention error-ridden, in their content.

You are playing a dangerous game with your freedom when you remain in selective ignorance by placing all your trust in authors whose writings mirror your own thoughts, philosophies, and prejudices.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=investor]…. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?[/quote]

Investor, I constantly come across claims, such as the one you make above, that the economic crisis in which we now find ourselves, was the direct result of actions by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd – as you put it, their “promotion of easy mortgage lending”. If you honestly believe this, you need to put away “the creature book” in which you place such credence, and get yourself back to school.

The causes of the economic meltdown are numerous and complex. To think that a meltdown of this magnitude could be caused by 2 members of Congress is naive and self-serving. What was the rest of the worldwide financial community doing during this time?

I could get into a lengthy discourse on the history and purpose of the Community Reinvestment Act, how both bankers and politicians took advantage of it, move into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac territory, and evaluate the damage caused by unscrupulous mortgage brokers, reckless derivatives traders, and non-existent oversight, but, based on your posts, I don’t think you’ll read them. You ask SK to put aside his political leanings, but, overall, I have found his posts on this thread to be pretty much politics- free, and directed at correcting errors in some of the other posts. You’re the one who inquired of SK, “How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s…” (sic). Incidentally, I find your use of the phrase, “promote black home ownership” when speaking of Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank noteworthy.

Please read this sentence carefully: I believe that Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank used the CRA’s mandate to advance a political agenda. However, they were not alone in that; quite a few others were jumping on that bandwagon, and I include a YouTube clip for your illumination, and viewing pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=related

While I believe that Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank should acknowledge their role, I’m not holding my breath. And I believe that there were many who played roles that were much more suspect, and I won’t wait around for them to own up to their part in this debacle, either.

You’ve commented elsewhere in this thread about your great faith in the book, “The Creature From Jekyll Island”, and its author, G. Edward Griffin, while exhibiting your frustration with Allan for his seeming inability to grasp basic concepts from it. My reading of this forum has led me to believe that Allan is well-educated, widely-read, and has a strong professional background in the financial arena. Has it occurred to you that, based on these qualifications, Alan read the book, compared the author’s claims against the body of knowledge he has acquired, and then made a decision to reject them? It happens. There are those of us walking the earth who constantly question, and realize that finding the answer does not consist solely of seeking out sources that are in accord with our personal beliefs, morals, and creeds. Painful as it is, we often have to critically evaluate the writings of those to whom we are diametrically opposed in our beliefs.
This is especially important these days when woefully unqualified people are writing books that laughably one-dimensional, not to mention error-ridden, in their content.

You are playing a dangerous game with your freedom when you remain in selective ignorance by placing all your trust in authors whose writings mirror your own thoughts, philosophies, and prejudices.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=afx114]For a guy without a lot of political experience, he sure has had quite a bit of success in getting his agenda passed: stimulus plan, healthcare, and now DADT. That’s three fairly large agenda items pased in only 1.3 years of a four year term.

The jury is still out on many other elements of his stated agenda, but I don’t see how anyone can argue that Obama hasn’t been successful (in the strictly political sense) so far.

Experience McSchmearience.[/quote]

Yes, these agenda items have been passed. However, I would have a difficult time attributing their passage to the President’s political experience and skill. To wit:

Stimulus Bill (Feb 2009) was passed less than a month after the inauguration (i.e., still the “honeymoon” period). House vote: 246 (all Dems) to 183 (176 Repubs, and 7 Dems). Senate vote: 60 (58 Dems & 3 Repubs) to 38 (all Repubs).

Health Care Reform Bill (March 2009): House vote: 220 (all Dems) to 207 (Repub 174, Dems 33); Senate vote: 56 (54 Dems, 2 Ind) to 43 (40 Repubs, 3 Dems).

DADT (May 2010): House vote: 234 (229 Dems, 5 Repubs) to 194 (168 Repubs, 26 Dems).

These are largely straight-down-the-line party votes. While I find the Republican inactivity to be reprehensible (I’m really steamed over my tax dollars going to pay politicians to simply sit around and block votes, especially at such a critical time), I think that Obama and the Democrats could have used many situations to their advantage. There have been so many squandered and misspent opportunities.

I’m sorry. While I don’t agree with the Republican Party’s strategy and actions much of the time, and believe that much of what they’ve engaged in over the past several years has spread and intensified the polarization of our nation, I can’t remember them ever missing an opportunity to accrue political capital. And distasteful as that may seem to some purists, it’s absolutely essential to the achievement of a political party’s goals.

Based on the numbers I’ve included above, what’s going to happen to the President’s agenda when the Dems no longer have a majority?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=afx114]For a guy without a lot of political experience, he sure has had quite a bit of success in getting his agenda passed: stimulus plan, healthcare, and now DADT. That’s three fairly large agenda items pased in only 1.3 years of a four year term.

The jury is still out on many other elements of his stated agenda, but I don’t see how anyone can argue that Obama hasn’t been successful (in the strictly political sense) so far.

Experience McSchmearience.[/quote]

Yes, these agenda items have been passed. However, I would have a difficult time attributing their passage to the President’s political experience and skill. To wit:

Stimulus Bill (Feb 2009) was passed less than a month after the inauguration (i.e., still the “honeymoon” period). House vote: 246 (all Dems) to 183 (176 Repubs, and 7 Dems). Senate vote: 60 (58 Dems & 3 Repubs) to 38 (all Repubs).

Health Care Reform Bill (March 2009): House vote: 220 (all Dems) to 207 (Repub 174, Dems 33); Senate vote: 56 (54 Dems, 2 Ind) to 43 (40 Repubs, 3 Dems).

DADT (May 2010): House vote: 234 (229 Dems, 5 Repubs) to 194 (168 Repubs, 26 Dems).

These are largely straight-down-the-line party votes. While I find the Republican inactivity to be reprehensible (I’m really steamed over my tax dollars going to pay politicians to simply sit around and block votes, especially at such a critical time), I think that Obama and the Democrats could have used many situations to their advantage. There have been so many squandered and misspent opportunities.

I’m sorry. While I don’t agree with the Republican Party’s strategy and actions much of the time, and believe that much of what they’ve engaged in over the past several years has spread and intensified the polarization of our nation, I can’t remember them ever missing an opportunity to accrue political capital. And distasteful as that may seem to some purists, it’s absolutely essential to the achievement of a political party’s goals.

Based on the numbers I’ve included above, what’s going to happen to the President’s agenda when the Dems no longer have a majority?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=afx114]For a guy without a lot of political experience, he sure has had quite a bit of success in getting his agenda passed: stimulus plan, healthcare, and now DADT. That’s three fairly large agenda items pased in only 1.3 years of a four year term.

The jury is still out on many other elements of his stated agenda, but I don’t see how anyone can argue that Obama hasn’t been successful (in the strictly political sense) so far.

Experience McSchmearience.[/quote]

Yes, these agenda items have been passed. However, I would have a difficult time attributing their passage to the President’s political experience and skill. To wit:

Stimulus Bill (Feb 2009) was passed less than a month after the inauguration (i.e., still the “honeymoon” period). House vote: 246 (all Dems) to 183 (176 Repubs, and 7 Dems). Senate vote: 60 (58 Dems & 3 Repubs) to 38 (all Repubs).

Health Care Reform Bill (March 2009): House vote: 220 (all Dems) to 207 (Repub 174, Dems 33); Senate vote: 56 (54 Dems, 2 Ind) to 43 (40 Repubs, 3 Dems).

DADT (May 2010): House vote: 234 (229 Dems, 5 Repubs) to 194 (168 Repubs, 26 Dems).

These are largely straight-down-the-line party votes. While I find the Republican inactivity to be reprehensible (I’m really steamed over my tax dollars going to pay politicians to simply sit around and block votes, especially at such a critical time), I think that Obama and the Democrats could have used many situations to their advantage. There have been so many squandered and misspent opportunities.

I’m sorry. While I don’t agree with the Republican Party’s strategy and actions much of the time, and believe that much of what they’ve engaged in over the past several years has spread and intensified the polarization of our nation, I can’t remember them ever missing an opportunity to accrue political capital. And distasteful as that may seem to some purists, it’s absolutely essential to the achievement of a political party’s goals.

Based on the numbers I’ve included above, what’s going to happen to the President’s agenda when the Dems no longer have a majority?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=afx114]For a guy without a lot of political experience, he sure has had quite a bit of success in getting his agenda passed: stimulus plan, healthcare, and now DADT. That’s three fairly large agenda items pased in only 1.3 years of a four year term.

The jury is still out on many other elements of his stated agenda, but I don’t see how anyone can argue that Obama hasn’t been successful (in the strictly political sense) so far.

Experience McSchmearience.[/quote]

Yes, these agenda items have been passed. However, I would have a difficult time attributing their passage to the President’s political experience and skill. To wit:

Stimulus Bill (Feb 2009) was passed less than a month after the inauguration (i.e., still the “honeymoon” period). House vote: 246 (all Dems) to 183 (176 Repubs, and 7 Dems). Senate vote: 60 (58 Dems & 3 Repubs) to 38 (all Repubs).

Health Care Reform Bill (March 2009): House vote: 220 (all Dems) to 207 (Repub 174, Dems 33); Senate vote: 56 (54 Dems, 2 Ind) to 43 (40 Repubs, 3 Dems).

DADT (May 2010): House vote: 234 (229 Dems, 5 Repubs) to 194 (168 Repubs, 26 Dems).

These are largely straight-down-the-line party votes. While I find the Republican inactivity to be reprehensible (I’m really steamed over my tax dollars going to pay politicians to simply sit around and block votes, especially at such a critical time), I think that Obama and the Democrats could have used many situations to their advantage. There have been so many squandered and misspent opportunities.

I’m sorry. While I don’t agree with the Republican Party’s strategy and actions much of the time, and believe that much of what they’ve engaged in over the past several years has spread and intensified the polarization of our nation, I can’t remember them ever missing an opportunity to accrue political capital. And distasteful as that may seem to some purists, it’s absolutely essential to the achievement of a political party’s goals.

Based on the numbers I’ve included above, what’s going to happen to the President’s agenda when the Dems no longer have a majority?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=afx114]For a guy without a lot of political experience, he sure has had quite a bit of success in getting his agenda passed: stimulus plan, healthcare, and now DADT. That’s three fairly large agenda items pased in only 1.3 years of a four year term.

The jury is still out on many other elements of his stated agenda, but I don’t see how anyone can argue that Obama hasn’t been successful (in the strictly political sense) so far.

Experience McSchmearience.[/quote]

Yes, these agenda items have been passed. However, I would have a difficult time attributing their passage to the President’s political experience and skill. To wit:

Stimulus Bill (Feb 2009) was passed less than a month after the inauguration (i.e., still the “honeymoon” period). House vote: 246 (all Dems) to 183 (176 Repubs, and 7 Dems). Senate vote: 60 (58 Dems & 3 Repubs) to 38 (all Repubs).

Health Care Reform Bill (March 2009): House vote: 220 (all Dems) to 207 (Repub 174, Dems 33); Senate vote: 56 (54 Dems, 2 Ind) to 43 (40 Repubs, 3 Dems).

DADT (May 2010): House vote: 234 (229 Dems, 5 Repubs) to 194 (168 Repubs, 26 Dems).

These are largely straight-down-the-line party votes. While I find the Republican inactivity to be reprehensible (I’m really steamed over my tax dollars going to pay politicians to simply sit around and block votes, especially at such a critical time), I think that Obama and the Democrats could have used many situations to their advantage. There have been so many squandered and misspent opportunities.

I’m sorry. While I don’t agree with the Republican Party’s strategy and actions much of the time, and believe that much of what they’ve engaged in over the past several years has spread and intensified the polarization of our nation, I can’t remember them ever missing an opportunity to accrue political capital. And distasteful as that may seem to some purists, it’s absolutely essential to the achievement of a political party’s goals.

Based on the numbers I’ve included above, what’s going to happen to the President’s agenda when the Dems no longer have a majority?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]

I believe that John McCain may well have won the election if he had picked a more suitable VP candidate. People chose the “least objectionable” team (or simply declined to cast a vote), and hoped for the best.

[/quote]

Here are the facts:

2004 Elections:
62,040,610 Bush
59,028,444 Kerry

121,069,054 Total

2008 Elections:
69,456,897 Obama
59,934,814 McCain

129,391,711 Total

Growth in voters:
8,322,657 6.874%

Populations estimates:
July 2004 293,655,404
July 2008 303,947,734

Growth in pop 10,292,330 3.505%

Seems to me like Obama was a big factor in voter turnout.

Source:
Population:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
There was no total for 2004 so my spreadsheet total numbers differ from the source totals… but you get the idea. Had I used the source totals, population growth would be slightly lower.

Voters:
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Elections%5B/quote%5D

Brian, I wasn’t trying to say that the 2008 race was in any way close. And looking over my post, I realize that I worded it awkwardly.

What I was trying to say is that the period prior to the election was tumultuous. There were many voters who remained undecided until late in the election period.

While Obama had a comfortable (8+ points in Gallup polls) margin over McCain for the month prior to the election, it was much closer in mid-August. McCain was within 1 or 2 points of Obama until just prior to the Palin nomination, and then pulled ahead until mid-September, when the initial shine started to wear off Ms. Palin. His poll numbers never recovered after that.

I can’t speak for California, but there were certainly doubts about Obama’s lack of experience being voiced by voters who were firmly liberal in their views. At this point in time, it is extremely difficult to speculate on “what could have happened”, but I believe that the race would have been much closer in the campaign’s last two months if McCain had chosen more prudently.

I liked the image that Obama presented, but I was concerned about his lack of experience at the national political level. I didn’t make a final decision until just prior to the election, even though I was certain that I could not vote for a McCain-Palin ticket. Given McCain’s age and health history, I believed that Palin’s chances of ascending to the Presidency were significant. I may have had concerns about Obama’s lack of experience, but I had none about his intelligence: he had it in obviously abundant supply. Palin had neither, and the prospect of hearing her say “I betcha” in response to the Chief Justice’s recitation of the Oath of Office was too much to me to handle.

My concerns about Obama remain: while he is a highly educated and intelligent man, I believe that his responses to some situations, and lack thereof in others, are the result of a lack of political maturity. It’s not improving over time, and it may be worsening. But he’s my President, and I support him as such.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]

I believe that John McCain may well have won the election if he had picked a more suitable VP candidate. People chose the “least objectionable” team (or simply declined to cast a vote), and hoped for the best.

[/quote]

Here are the facts:

2004 Elections:
62,040,610 Bush
59,028,444 Kerry

121,069,054 Total

2008 Elections:
69,456,897 Obama
59,934,814 McCain

129,391,711 Total

Growth in voters:
8,322,657 6.874%

Populations estimates:
July 2004 293,655,404
July 2008 303,947,734

Growth in pop 10,292,330 3.505%

Seems to me like Obama was a big factor in voter turnout.

Source:
Population:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
There was no total for 2004 so my spreadsheet total numbers differ from the source totals… but you get the idea. Had I used the source totals, population growth would be slightly lower.

Voters:
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Elections%5B/quote%5D

Brian, I wasn’t trying to say that the 2008 race was in any way close. And looking over my post, I realize that I worded it awkwardly.

What I was trying to say is that the period prior to the election was tumultuous. There were many voters who remained undecided until late in the election period.

While Obama had a comfortable (8+ points in Gallup polls) margin over McCain for the month prior to the election, it was much closer in mid-August. McCain was within 1 or 2 points of Obama until just prior to the Palin nomination, and then pulled ahead until mid-September, when the initial shine started to wear off Ms. Palin. His poll numbers never recovered after that.

I can’t speak for California, but there were certainly doubts about Obama’s lack of experience being voiced by voters who were firmly liberal in their views. At this point in time, it is extremely difficult to speculate on “what could have happened”, but I believe that the race would have been much closer in the campaign’s last two months if McCain had chosen more prudently.

I liked the image that Obama presented, but I was concerned about his lack of experience at the national political level. I didn’t make a final decision until just prior to the election, even though I was certain that I could not vote for a McCain-Palin ticket. Given McCain’s age and health history, I believed that Palin’s chances of ascending to the Presidency were significant. I may have had concerns about Obama’s lack of experience, but I had none about his intelligence: he had it in obviously abundant supply. Palin had neither, and the prospect of hearing her say “I betcha” in response to the Chief Justice’s recitation of the Oath of Office was too much to me to handle.

My concerns about Obama remain: while he is a highly educated and intelligent man, I believe that his responses to some situations, and lack thereof in others, are the result of a lack of political maturity. It’s not improving over time, and it may be worsening. But he’s my President, and I support him as such.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]

I believe that John McCain may well have won the election if he had picked a more suitable VP candidate. People chose the “least objectionable” team (or simply declined to cast a vote), and hoped for the best.

[/quote]

Here are the facts:

2004 Elections:
62,040,610 Bush
59,028,444 Kerry

121,069,054 Total

2008 Elections:
69,456,897 Obama
59,934,814 McCain

129,391,711 Total

Growth in voters:
8,322,657 6.874%

Populations estimates:
July 2004 293,655,404
July 2008 303,947,734

Growth in pop 10,292,330 3.505%

Seems to me like Obama was a big factor in voter turnout.

Source:
Population:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
There was no total for 2004 so my spreadsheet total numbers differ from the source totals… but you get the idea. Had I used the source totals, population growth would be slightly lower.

Voters:
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Elections%5B/quote%5D

Brian, I wasn’t trying to say that the 2008 race was in any way close. And looking over my post, I realize that I worded it awkwardly.

What I was trying to say is that the period prior to the election was tumultuous. There were many voters who remained undecided until late in the election period.

While Obama had a comfortable (8+ points in Gallup polls) margin over McCain for the month prior to the election, it was much closer in mid-August. McCain was within 1 or 2 points of Obama until just prior to the Palin nomination, and then pulled ahead until mid-September, when the initial shine started to wear off Ms. Palin. His poll numbers never recovered after that.

I can’t speak for California, but there were certainly doubts about Obama’s lack of experience being voiced by voters who were firmly liberal in their views. At this point in time, it is extremely difficult to speculate on “what could have happened”, but I believe that the race would have been much closer in the campaign’s last two months if McCain had chosen more prudently.

I liked the image that Obama presented, but I was concerned about his lack of experience at the national political level. I didn’t make a final decision until just prior to the election, even though I was certain that I could not vote for a McCain-Palin ticket. Given McCain’s age and health history, I believed that Palin’s chances of ascending to the Presidency were significant. I may have had concerns about Obama’s lack of experience, but I had none about his intelligence: he had it in obviously abundant supply. Palin had neither, and the prospect of hearing her say “I betcha” in response to the Chief Justice’s recitation of the Oath of Office was too much to me to handle.

My concerns about Obama remain: while he is a highly educated and intelligent man, I believe that his responses to some situations, and lack thereof in others, are the result of a lack of political maturity. It’s not improving over time, and it may be worsening. But he’s my President, and I support him as such.

[Author]

Posts