USA Politics

I would say to a degree he gave up on HealthCare .. My guess is that he wanted the public option, but as the debate went on and on and the details out of Congress got more and more ugly, he essentially said "just pass anything and I'll sign it" .. then he dropped the issue like a rock and left everyone who voted for it out to dry in the 2010 elections. That, thankfully, cost the Dems dearly .. not just losing the House, but the State Legislatures and redistricting for 10 years.

I think he believes his own press and wants to be a superstar but steps back when it the sledding gets tough ... I clearly am not a fan of his policies, but from a practical point of view, he is a piss poor leader who can give a good speech.
 
No, I am happy his agenda has been watered down on domestic policy, I wish it was more .. especially with Health Care.

Foreign Policy is different though, making statements like the Red Line comment means something there .. much moreso than "we'll spend X dollars on some domestic policy" .. then give up on it.

From Democrat to Republican Presidents there has been a generally consistent Foreign Policy with these sorts of things and it affects policy going forward
 
Forostar said:
Do you want a strong President or are you honestly disappointed that some (any?) of his plans did not come through? Or a bit of both?
Click to expand...
It depends on the case. I think I hinted earlier that I'm glad Obama backed down with his "red line" statement. On the other hand, I think it's disgraceful that he failed to live up to promises like closing Guantanamo Bay and ending Bush policies that compromised people's privacy.

I think it's always important to have a strong President, even if it's one I don't usually agree with. It's their job to be a leader, and Obama hasn't come off as one.
 
Hasan got the death penalty for the Ft Hood shooting. Deserved in this case ... it will be interesting to see how long appeals play out.
 
Wanted, you mean. He wanted it. I still don't like the death penalty in any case, but I think the death penalty here was a given.
 
Wanted it, did not want it .. I do not think it matters. With this or any other penalty, it needs to be given when warranted regardless of what the defendant wants or does not want it. Plus, who knows what he really wants or if he will still want it when the date gets closer.
 
Two Colorado State Senators, including the Senate President ... were booted out of office in a first ever state recall based on their gun control votes. It is nice to see people speak their minds and boot these people who clearly voted against the interests of their citizens

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/11/pro-gun-control-democrats-ousted-in-colorado-recall/

According to results from the secretary of state, 51% of voters in his district said "yes" to the recall, while 49% said "no." He'll be replaced by Republican Bernie Herpin.

Morse's colleague, state Sen. Angela Giron of Pueblo, was also on the ballot and conceded late Tuesday night. She lost in a 56%-44% yes-no vote, and will be replaced by Republican George Rivera.

Giron's loss came as a bigger surprise, as her district is more Democratic than Morse's.
 
Yea that gun control thing was a pretty big deal out here. Regardless of opinions on gun control, it's cool to see democracy at work.
 
Mosh said:
Yea that gun control thing was a pretty big deal out here. Regardless of opinions on gun control, it's cool to see democracy at work.
Click to expand...

Exactly. These guys have to remember, their personal opinions have to be put aside and they are there to represent their constituents. Too many politicians forget that once in office.
 
My guess is that the issue never seriously came up until they pushed the law through post-movie theater and CT shootings
 
Why? They started pushing gun control laws and the people decided they didn't want that. What are they supposed to do, let politicians push whatever laws they want on the grounds that they were voted into office? That's dumb.
 
I will say this, I am not a huge fan of recalls unless there is an issue with the person serving. For example, someone convicted of a crime, accused of a crime that would make it impossible to serve, etc. Not over a vote on an issue. The union driven Wisconsin recalls were a total waste of time and money.

In this case, the issue of gun control probably never came up because it was not thought to be a possibility in Colorado, when the bill was proposed, there was a pretty big outcry against it and they passed it anyway. I think this could have waiting until the next election, but they got the signatures and the votes.
 
It just doesn't sound like a very good example of democracy working, that's all. It might have something to do with my own personal views in regard to gun control though! :p
 
there were 2 recalls, one was 49% no, the other 44% no both in areas where they won handily last time around, especially the Senate President. A big turn against them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top