|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency |
brentspeak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 10:34 PM Original message |
The American people didn't want "bipartisanship" when they elected Obama |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
babylonsister (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 10:37 PM Response to Original message |
1. Unrec and Pssst! brentspeak!! Wrong again!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saltpoint (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 10:38 PM Response to Original message |
2. Unrec'd. Many people were introduced to him when |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hekate (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 12:55 AM Response to Reply #2 |
38. I remember that 2004 Convention speech--Wow! I got the text through DU then, in case ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saltpoint (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 08:06 AM Response to Reply #38 |
51. Hekate, hi, and thank you for posting that link. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
suzie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 07:52 AM Response to Reply #2 |
49. I have a lot of Republican friends and relatives who voted for Obama. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saltpoint (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 08:06 AM Response to Reply #49 |
52. ! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msongs (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 10:39 PM Response to Original message |
3. when d emocrats act like republicans....they lose... whatta shock eh? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nevergiveup (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 10:47 PM Response to Reply #3 |
7. Since when has bipartisanship been a trademark for Republicans |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bluerthanblue (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 11:21 AM Response to Reply #7 |
60. never- |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
johnaries (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 10:42 PM Response to Original message |
4. Yes, they did. They were hoping Obama could unite both parties. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
brentspeak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 10:59 PM Response to Reply #4 |
15. NYT poll, Feb 2009: Majority doesn't want Obama to be bipartisan |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bvar22 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 08:56 AM Response to Reply #15 |
53. You are correct, brentspeak...K&R |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
napi21 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 10:44 PM Response to Original message |
5. I think you're wrong. The Senate CAN'T WORK without at least SOME bipartisanship. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jenmito (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 10:45 PM Response to Original message |
6. Yes, they DID want bipartisanship when they (we) elected Obama... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
brentspeak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 10:48 PM Response to Reply #6 |
8. Wall Street liked Obama enough to give him more money than they did McCain |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saltpoint (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 10:50 PM Response to Reply #8 |
9. Well, brentspeak, good heavens, why didn't you |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
brentspeak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 10:53 PM Response to Reply #9 |
11. ??? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saltpoint (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 10:55 PM Response to Reply #11 |
12. Seriously. Every greedhog on Wall Street would have |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
babylonsister (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 10:52 PM Response to Reply #8 |
10. Is that why they're so enthralled with him now, or don't you know? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jenmito (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:17 PM Response to Reply #8 |
20. That was then. This is now: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jenmito (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 11:32 AM Response to Reply #20 |
63. Kick for brentspeak-you must've missed it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bornskeptic (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 06:46 AM Response to Reply #8 |
47. McCain took public financing in the general election. Obama did not. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 10:58 PM Response to Reply #6 |
14. On what do you base that? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saltpoint (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:11 PM Response to Reply #14 |
18. Obama's winning percentage represented a discerniable |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:19 PM Response to Reply #18 |
22. So what's your point? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saltpoint (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:22 PM Response to Reply #22 |
24. Manny, put the shovel down and help us clear the walk, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:25 PM Response to Reply #24 |
25. Yes, but where's the evidence that they wanted bipartisanship? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saltpoint (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:26 PM Response to Reply #25 |
27. I did not reference 'change' and the survey I cited |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:30 PM Response to Reply #27 |
29. Yes, he had broad demographic appeal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saltpoint (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:34 PM Response to Reply #29 |
30. Broad demographic appeal frames bipartisan endorsement |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:36 PM Response to Reply #30 |
31. A bipartisan endorsement is not the same as wanting bipartisanship |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saltpoint (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:37 PM Response to Reply #31 |
32. Christ, Manny. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:43 PM Response to Reply #32 |
34. Are you less stubborn then I? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dionysus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 01:40 AM Response to Reply #34 |
42. ...and that would be saltpoint manny. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JNelson6563 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 11:33 AM Response to Reply #42 |
64. I too have to give the nod to saltpoint. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jenmito (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:15 PM Response to Reply #14 |
19. "Why Wall St. Is Deserting Obama": |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:21 PM Response to Reply #19 |
23. What does that article have to do with the thesis |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jenmito (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:25 PM Response to Reply #23 |
26. Are you purposely ignoring the proof about Wall St. abandoning Obama? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:27 PM Response to Reply #26 |
28. Perhaps voters didn't give a &*$% about partisanship |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 12:58 AM Response to Reply #28 |
39. Frankly, I think it's fucking hilarious |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bvar22 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 09:03 AM Response to Reply #39 |
54. The Whirlwind Approaches. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jenmito (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 11:09 AM Response to Reply #28 |
57. Hello?!?! I was just responding to the OP. And YOU chimed in asking for evidence |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 11:23 AM Response to Reply #57 |
61. So if we have a misunderstanding, then it's a conspiracy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jenmito (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 11:28 AM Response to Reply #61 |
62. Wow. Keep digging. You're wrong and you've been proven wrong by everyone here |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
impik (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 03:18 AM Response to Reply #26 |
44. Thay always ignore the facts |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 10:57 PM Response to Original message |
13. Only 17 Repubs left in Senate after 1936 elections |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HughMoran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 05:45 PM Response to Reply #13 |
75. Reminiscing and calling names certainly doesn't help |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bbgrunt (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:02 PM Response to Original message |
16. I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition (no one does) but |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fire1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 09:31 AM Response to Reply #16 |
56. I, either. Gotta give you that. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
katandmoon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:09 PM Response to Original message |
17. K&R. Obama has blown it. Big time. If things looked good, he'd get the credit. Well, they don't. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saltpoint (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:18 PM Response to Reply #17 |
21. His approval ratings remain quite competitive, actually, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
katandmoon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 12:14 PM Response to Reply #21 |
67. Since you believe in poll numbers, how do you feel about poll numbers giving congress to the repugs |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saltpoint (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 04:02 PM Response to Reply #67 |
71. In the Congressional cycle following a presidential |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
katandmoon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 05:11 PM Response to Reply #71 |
73. I'm not enthusiastic at all -- which just goes to show how much your Obamalove blinds you to reality |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saltpoint (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 07:33 PM Response to Reply #73 |
76. I'm nothing if not blind katandmoon. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Baltoman991 (869 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 09:33 PM Response to Reply #17 |
77. Obamas blwon |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Steely_Dan (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:42 PM Response to Original message |
33. If The Dems Lose at the Midterms... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
denimgirly (929 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Sep-03-10 11:47 PM Response to Original message |
35. Bipartisanship? It's more like Right Christmas every day at the White House. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
golfguru (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 12:10 AM Response to Original message |
36. what? The country has millions of democrats and millions of repubs |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
StreetKnowledge (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 01:16 AM Response to Reply #36 |
40. Tell that to the GOP. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 12:53 AM Response to Original message |
37. Republicans had a mandate to go sit in Siberia for awhile |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boppers (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 01:31 AM Response to Original message |
41. Absolute socialism was a dismal failure, as was absolute communism, capitalism, and other absolutes. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Exilednight (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 06:42 AM Response to Reply #41 |
46. Study a little bit of history. Absolute communism did work until the white man came along ......... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fire1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 04:56 PM Response to Reply #46 |
72. Nail meet head! Well done!! n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
provis99 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Sep-05-10 02:16 AM Response to Reply #46 |
80. Jesus advocated communism, too. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
impik (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 01:49 AM Response to Original message |
43. Nonsense. Obama won because of independents who wanted exactly that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 06:52 AM Response to Reply #43 |
48. All indications are that the county disagrees |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
smalll (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 03:53 AM Response to Original message |
45. No, they didn't want "strong Democratic leadership" -- they wanted to elect |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Umbral (969 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 08:04 AM Response to Original message |
50. And apparently, voters got exactly what they wanted and Dems look to sweep this fall's elections! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warren Stupidity (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 09:27 AM Response to Original message |
55. Funny how Republicans can rule without any appeal to bipartisanship at all. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 05:33 PM Response to Reply #55 |
74. That's because R's march in lockstep. We're 'not members of an organized party.' |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sheepshank (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 11:14 AM Response to Original message |
58. OP is not on target...for me and mine anyway |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bluerthanblue (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 11:19 AM Response to Original message |
59. wow- how wrong you are- |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mix (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 11:48 AM Response to Original message |
65. "Bi-partisanship"? What a quaint idea and a dire political miscalculation. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yeshuah Ben Joseph (763 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 11:57 AM Response to Original message |
66. Depends on your definition of "bipartisanship" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HughMoran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 03:39 PM Response to Original message |
68. Yes, they wanted Bush III |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ignis (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 03:40 PM Response to Original message |
69. You're brave to post this in GDP. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
slay (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 04:01 PM Response to Reply #69 |
70. +1 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Safetykitten (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-04-10 09:57 PM Response to Original message |
78. My opinion, Obama has about thirty days to do something stunning. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KakistocracyHater (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Sep-05-10 01:15 AM Response to Original message |
79. a MAJOR reason young voters are turning away is because their classmates |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Sat May 04th 2024, 06:33 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC