Democrats & Liberals Archives

Obama: A Partisanship of Civility

We have been led to believe that practical politics is a never-ending battle between Rich and Non-rich, Weak and Powerful, Religious and Non-religious, Left and Right, Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. Choose your party and attack - never mind about what, just attack - those of the other party. This procedure is called “partisanship.” The more aggressive and skillful you are at “partisanship” the more likely you are to win.

Along comes Barack Obama and says he does not agree with this type of politics. So, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, criticized Obama for not being partisan enough. He is quoted in this Mydd article:

In his NY Times column today, Paul Krugman writes the following: Barack Obama recently lamented the fact that "politics has become so bitter and partisan" - which it certainly has.

But he then went on to say that partisanship is why "we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first." Um, no. If history is any guide, what we need are political leaders willing to tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition. If all goes well, we'll eventually have a new era of bipartisanship - but that will be the end of the story, not the beginning.

Though I consider Krugman to be one of the greatest columnists of this era, I disagree with him on this.

Excessive partisanship is the hallmark of the Republican Party. They believe in the primacy of competition. They speak endlessly of letting the market do its magic. They enjoy helping successful entrepreneurs and disparaging unskilled workers. (Have you followed the minimum wage debate?) They love the "ownership society" that puts owners (people with money) in charge. They spend decades demonizing liberals and making "liberal" a dirty word. They even go so far as to call the media the "liberal media." During the last few years, Republicans have labled liberals as "atheists" and "traitors." And they follow the same aggressive approach in foreign affairs: For example, instead of trying to bring peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, the Republicans instigated a war with Iraq.

Obama's forte, his philosophy that makes him different from Republicans and his skills at getting people to work together are what the Democratic Party needs today to distinguish it from Republicans. Not competition, but cooperation. Not aggression, but harmony. Not fault finding, but productive discussions. Not boorishness, but civility.

In a sense, Obama would make civility the trademark of Democrats. Democrats already believe that we should take care of all citizens, not merely the most fortunate. That's whey we want to help employees get better jobs with greater financial security. We believe in community, which is why we are interested in keeping Social Security as a safety net and achieving a universal healthcare system. Abroad we prefer negotiations and treaties.

You might say that by being civil, Democrats would be partisan, that is, demonstrating to everyone how Democrats are different from Republicans.

Krugman talks about first solving big problems in a partisan way and then becoming bipartisan. A huge problem before us is fixing healthcare. And there is no way we can successfully solve this problem without both parties working together. Only with civility between the parties will we be able to do this.

Barack Obama believes in the partisanship of civility, something that will unify our country and enable us to solve many outstanding problems.

Posted by Paul Siegel at January 29, 2007 5:52 PM
Comments
Comment #205685

Paul,

As usual you wrote a really great article, unfortunatley I think Krugman is right. David R. Remer wrote an article in the “green” column just days ago espousing the belief that we need a Republican President to balance a Democratic Congress. I was physically incapable of responding but I disagree vehemently.

One need look no further than the current Senate actions surrounding the minimum wage increase to realize how far apart Democrats are from most Republicans. Obama want’s to “play nice”. Well, duh! You can’t play nice with a bully, he (or she) will just walk over you and laugh while they’re doing it.

Obama seems to think that his charm will win over those much further right than he is. Well, it ain’t gonna’ happen. The right wing media has already tried to tie his childhood schooling to Islamic extremism. It’s become common practice for the right wing media to refer to Obama as Barrack Hussein Obama and they’re always sure to stress “Hussein” vocally.

Basically Obama is espousing the “why can’t we all just get along” strategy and the reason is the Republicans want the power to privatize Social Security, stall Universal Healthcare, and continue shifting the tax burden to the middle class.

Obama’s too knew to the game. He still thinks he can get everyone to like him and compromise to meet his goals. He may even be too honest to be President.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 29, 2007 6:52 PM
Comment #205687

“The right wing media” didn’t try to tie Obama’s childhood schooling to Islamic extremism. Hillary Clinton did, and it’s the tip of the iceberg of what’s coming down on Obama’s head if the Clinton political and media machine starts to percieve him as real threat to her candidacy.

To say that “excessive partisanship” is the hallmark of the Republican party alone is ridiculous. If you don’t want the Republicans to be partisan, just give them everything they want. Why don’t you? Because you—and other Democrats—have a pretty partisan agenda yourself.

And that’s fine. But let’s not sit and around pretend that partisanship is just a feature of the Republicans whenever they resist the partisan will of the Democrats.

You know who Obama reminds me of with all his feel-good talk about overcoming partisanship and ushering in a new era of cooperation and accord? George W. Bush, who came into office saying the exact same thing.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 29, 2007 7:14 PM
Comment #205688


Paul: Obama is a politician that talks well. Clinton worked in a bipartisan fashion with a Republican controlled congress. How did that benefit the working class?

Posted by: jlw at January 29, 2007 7:21 PM
Comment #205691


Paul: You see, you talk bipartisanship and L.O. comes back with the lies of the right. You can’t work with people who will stab you in the back. The people are about fed up with their crap. When we have a Democratic Congress and Executive, perhaps we can solve some of the problems in ways that are beneficial to workers. Until then even bipartisan results will be trickle down.

Posted by: jlw at January 29, 2007 7:34 PM
Comment #205694

This kumbaya-ism is horseshit.

We have witnessed, over the last 25 years, the greatest degradation of the Constitution and the rule of law and the efficacy of government and economic justice since…ever. We are in a war that was conceived, executed and maintained in illegality and mendacity. We have witnessed a systematic dismantling of oversight by government through cronyism and corruption and a cynical trivializing of true and honest government. We are in the throes of a ruling clan that has no respect for the rule of law, for the Constitution and the people who pay their salaries.

I’ll vote for Obama as soon as he can prove that he’s a fighter for the basic tenets of the Democratic Party. So far, all I see is platitudes and an Iraqi stance that’s a dime’s worth of difference from Hillary and George.

If I don’t see his foot half way up the GOP’s ass most of this year, he can take his feel-good agenda and peddle it among the DLC sell-outs and the evangelicals. I’ve had enough of wimps and sell-outs.

The Cheneys, the Limbaughs, the Kristols and their ilk play for keeps—and I won’t put up with candidates who don’t return their horseshit in kind.

Paul, I have nothing but respect for your contributions to Watchblog. But I respectfully disagree. It is now time for the Democratic Party to kick ass and take names. Or the party should be put back on the shelf and go to sleep for another 25 years.

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 29, 2007 7:44 PM
Comment #205702

““The right wing media” didn’t try to tie Obama’s childhood schooling to Islamic extremism. Hillary Clinton did”

LO,

Show me. I watch and read a large mix of media sources. I can do little else. The only place I’ve seen these references to Obama originate have been FOX news and the CNS news service.

The other MSM outlets have repeated it as “news”. If I’m wrong please straighten me out with FACTS. I want to know the truth, hell, I dig for the truth!

I’m loving the shit out of the ‘scooter’ Libby trial and learning just how manipulative the Bush administration was of the media.

Please just show me where Hillary started the false rumors about Obama’s elementary schooling.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 29, 2007 8:23 PM
Comment #205703

“I’ll vote for Obama as soon as he can prove that he’s a fighter for the basic tenets of the Democratic Party.”

I’ll second that Mr. Crow.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 29, 2007 8:25 PM
Comment #205707

Nice resume for President of the most powerful nation on earth…plays well with others. If he’s elected I wonder how much this nice guy will give away in order to achieve peace in our time. Bush may have screwed up by taking out Saddam but what is the lefts plan for dealing with the Arab world….ask them nicely to behave? Offer to stand back and let them annialate Israel? Convert the US to Islam? Don’t give me any negotiate crap unless you tell me what we can give them in negotiations that will truely pacify them for the long term.

Posted by: Carnak at January 29, 2007 8:55 PM
Comment #205718

“Don’t give me any negotiate crap unless you tell me what we can give them [the Arab world] in negotiations that will truely pacify them for the long term.”

They’re probably wondering, at this point, what it will take to pacify the US and the Israelis. For the long term.

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 29, 2007 9:24 PM
Comment #205721

KansasDem, you didn’t seem to be digging too hard for the truth when you simply stated as a fact that the origin of the story was “the right wing.”
You brought this up, but I’m the one responsible for providing sources?

I’m surprised that a left winger watches FOX so much—I heard about it on CNN, and they stated that these rumors about Obama’s background emerged out of research on him done by the Clinton camp. The Clinton camp denies it, of course, but this is business as usual with anonymously sourced stories in the media.

The right wing, if you haven’t noticed, has their knives out for Hillary, not Obama. That would change if Obama got the nomination, but at this point the only one to gain from bringing down Obama is Hillary.

I have no doubt that this how the script will run, though. All kinds of mud is going to be flung at Obama by anonymous figures and Hillary is gonna sit back and shake her head with disapproval at the “right wing media” while she gathers in the dividends.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 29, 2007 9:26 PM
Comment #205739

LO,

You can check out CNN’s reporting on this here:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/index.html

I’ll quote just a couple of things from their report:
“Insight Magazine, which is owned by the same company as The Washington Times, reported on its Web site last week that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam.”

” A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim………He called the story “an obvious right-wing hit job.”

“The Insight article was cited several times Friday on Fox News and was also referenced by the New York Post, The Glenn Beck program on CNN Headline News and a number of political blogs.”

So this story began with The Washington Times and just who the hell is the “times”:

“The Times was founded in 1982 by Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church and the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, to be a conservative alternative to the larger Washington Post.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times

If you limit yourself to only the news you like to hear you never hear the truth.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 29, 2007 10:58 PM
Comment #205760

It is now time for the Democratic Party to kick ass and take names. Or the party should be put back on the shelf and go to sleep for another 25 years.
Posted by: Tim Crow at January 29, 2007 07:44 PM

Tim, I absolutely agree with you. If the Dems truly stand for anything, then let them stand upright and say so without apology. It’s long past time that spin and manipulation were cast out of politics in your country, and mine too for that matter. If people are not in politics to pursue passionately held beliefs in an open and forthright way, then they have no business in politics. If the Dems are truly against the “Surge” escalation, then they should cut off the funds for it. It they truly believe that the Bush admin has acted illegally, then they should commence impeachment proceedings. I instinctively liked Obama from the first time I saw him on TV. However, as I learnt a little more about his lack of substance, I have very serious doubts. See the link below;

http://www.counterpunch.org/ford01192007.html

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at January 30, 2007 6:42 AM
Comment #205775

KD,

If you limit yourself to only the news you like to hear you never hear the truth.

I like your statement very much…

But, we have to continually ask the question, “IS IT TRUE?” regardless of the source…

So what is the question about Obama?
(regardless of the source?)

IS IT TRUE about his real father and his educational background?

Posted by: Cliff at January 30, 2007 10:15 AM
Comment #205792

Paul-in-Euroland:

Thanks for the link on Obama. I missed that one; a little harsh, but succinct. One thing I do like about him—he at least voted against that ‘Bankruptcy Protection’ abomination back in ‘05. That, more and more, seems to be my starting point on whether to further investigate a candidate. That bill was such an egregious piece of credit card industry concocted dreck, it’s hard to consider anyone who voted for it. So much for being a one-issue voter:-).

I’m really starting to have a hard time with the Democratic Party. Impeachment is ‘off the table’, non-binding resolutions on troop ‘surges’ after a thunderous repudiation of Bush in November (through no real effort on the party’s part), a lap-dog opposition to AUMF, the Patriot Act, the Military Comissions Act (you know, the one where habeas corpus went bye-bye). One third of the party makes encouraging Leftist noises, while the other two thirds quietly votes for GOP-sponsered corporate largesse and Iraq hand-wringing.

It’s getting real old.

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 30, 2007 12:08 PM
Comment #205807

I understand peoples’ hope that the 110th Congress will fix things.
I admit to being hopeful back in the mid 1990’s with the “Contract With America”.
But, after 30+ years of the two-party duopoly merely taking turns being irresponsible, I can’t help but wonder how we’ll solve any problems without first solving the one root standing in the way. Politicians ignore the voters.

Most voters polled agree.

That’s why no one can name 10, 20, 50, or even 268 (half of the 535) in Congress that are:

  • Responsible?

  • That don’t look the other way?

  • That don’t fuel the partisan warfare?

  • That don’t vote on pork-barrel, graft, and corporate welfare (while our troops risk life and limb)?

  • That don’t vote themselves cu$hy perk$ and rai$e$? (Congress has voted itself a raise 8 times between 1997 and 2006).

  • That don’t ignore our pressing problems ?

  • That don’t troll for big-money-donors to feed their campaign war chests?

  • That don’t refuse to pass any sort of campaign finance reform?

  • That don’t refuse a number of common-sense, no-brainier reforms (e.g. What good is a minimum wage increase when illegal aliens (cheap labor) are allowed to flood in by the millions, and the government refuses stop those that illegally employ illegal aliens) ?

  • That don’t give pardons to convicted felons (some who even pled guilty; like the 546 criminals pardoned by Bill Clinton; 140 on his last day in office, including Dan Rostenkowski, who pleaded GUILTY)?

  • That don’t pander and make promises that are fiscally irresponsible; bribe the voters with their own money (e.g. Medicare prescription drugs)?

The powerfully effective, never-ending, distracting, divisive partisan warfare stands in the way, and politicians love to fuel it, and voters fail to recognize and reject that clever control mechanism.

Problems aren’t being solved because Democrats and Republicans prefer to incessantly go at each other, too many politicians and their hacks are too fond of fueling it, and too many voters are too fond of wallowing in it.

Each party tries to portray the other as evil, when in fact, both are irresponsible, and the illusion of one party being more corrupt than the other is only a result of which has been the “IN PARTY” for a while.
That is why the “IN PARTY” becomes the “OUT PARTY”. The Republican and Democrat politicians simply take turns, while ignoring problems (and solutions) that most voters already agree upon.

Illegal immigration is one of the problems (not the worst, but serious).
Most Americans want it stopped and reject another amnesty like the one in 1986 that quadrupled the problems.

But, most politicians refuse to adequately address it. Observe some of Obama’s stand (below) on illegal immigration. Obama :

  • wants to extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants. (Jul 1998)

  • Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)

  • Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)

  • Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)

Same with Hillary Clinton and these others …
The following VOTED YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security (May 2006):
Alaska: Stevens (R-AK)
Arizona: McCain (R-AZ)
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR)
Arkansas: Pryor (D-AR)
California: Boxer (D-CA)
California: Feinstein (D-CA)
Colorado: Salazar (D-CO)
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT)
Connecticut: Lieberman (D-CT)
Delaware: Biden (D-DE)
Delaware: Carper (D-DE)
Florida: Martinez (R-FL)
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI)
Hawaii: Inouye (D-HI)
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL)
Illinois: Obama (D-IL)
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN)
Indiana: Lugar (R-IN)
Iowa: Harkin (D-IA)
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS)
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA)
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD)
Maryland: Sarbanes (D-MD)
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA)
Massachusetts: Kerry (D-MA)
Michigan: Levin (D-MI)
Michigan: Stabenow (D-MI)
Montana: Baucus (D-MT)
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE)
Nevada: Reid (D-NV)
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ)
New Jersey: Menendez (D-NJ)
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM)
New York: Clinton (D-NY)
New York: Schumer (D-NY)
North Dakota: Dorgan (D-ND)
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH)
Ohio: Voinovich (R-OH)
Oregon: Wyden (D-OR)
Pennsylvania: Specter (R-PA)
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI)
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI)
South Carolina: Graham (R-SC)
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD)
Vermont: Jeffords (I-VT)
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT)
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA)
Washington: Murray (D-WA)
West Virginia: Rockefeller (D-WV) no-vote
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI)
Wisconsin: Kohl (D-WI)

Does anyone think most Americans agree with that?

Posted by: d.a.n at January 30, 2007 12:43 PM
Comment #205824

d.a.n,
Which part of SS do you have a problem with them participation in. Receiving benefits or paying in?
What would you call it if you had to contribute same as everyone but were barred from ever receiving benefits? Robbery?

Posted by: Schwamp at January 30, 2007 2:15 PM
Comment #205837
Schwamp wrote: d.a.n , Which part of SS do you have a problem with them participation in. Receiving benefits or paying in?
  • (1) They’re illegal.
  • (2) Not all pay S.S. taxes.
  • (3) Not all pay income taxes.
  • (4) Since those paying S.S. use fake S.S. numbers, how will you ever prove who paid what? Just take their word for it? Right, and then observe another massive influx that results from it.

Illegal aliens have no right to lay claim to S.S.
For those that did pay some S.S. tax, tough. That will help to cover the net losses to cover $70 billion per year caused by illegal aliens.

Schwamp wrote: What would you call it if you had to contribute …
Had to? Who forced them to come here illegally ? There’s no “had” about it.
Schwamp wrote: What would you call it if you had to contribute same as everyone but were barred from ever receiving benefits? Robbery?
Tough luck for breaking our laws. Now please leave.

But, don’t worry Schwamp.
If you want to give illegal aliens S.S., Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc., you’re in luck, since politicians plan to do just that, as evidenced by their votes (above).

Our elected officials are ignoring the majority of Americans that want illegal immigration stopped.

Currently, 79% of Americans polled want secured borders.

In 1999, a poll in Minnesota asked:
(1) Do you feel the number of legal immigrants should be cut?
… (a) Yes = 74.7% (b) No

(2) Should illegal aliens be allowed to stay?
… (a) Yes (b) No = 81%

(3) Should English be our national language?
… (a) Yes = 93% (b) No

(4) Do you think congress should give amnesty to any group or groups of illegal immigrants now living in the U.S.?
… (a) Yes (b) No = 75.7%

A poll in 2001 reveals most reject amnesty.

A poll in 2005 reveals even more reject amnesty.

Another Polling Station poll asked:
President Bush wants amnesty for illegal aliens. Do you agree with the President?
Persons polled: 9,174
Margin of Error: +/- 1.0%
________ Yes ______ No _______ Undecided
Dem ____ 27.6% ____ 60.1% ____ 12.3%
Ind ____ 16.5% ____ 72.5% ____ 11.0%
Rep ____ 10.9% ____ 81.3% ____ 7.8%
Overall Percentages:
18.4% believe amnesty is a good idea.
71.2% do not believe amnesty is a good idea.
10.4% were undecided.

Seems pretty clear, eh?
But not to politicians.

For those Americans that are so concerned about the rights of illegal aliens:

  • Where is the compassion for U.S. citizens that go without healthcare and access to ERs because ERs and hospitals are over-flowing with illegal aliens (of which many don’t pay)? Is this fair to U.S. tax payers?

  • Where is the compassion for the truly needy U.S. citizens that can not get help because of limited resources, because 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare ?

  • Where is the compassion for the illegal aliens being lured here for sub-minimum wage jobs, creating an under-paid, under-class (practically slavery) ?

  • Where is the outrage of the greedy employers of illegal aliens ?

  • Where is the compassion for the U.S. victims and survivors of crimes perpetrated by illegal aliens (29% of all incarcerated in U.S. prisons are illegal aliens), and the crime rates are rising.

  • Where is the compassion for U.S. Americans who’s lives have been changed forever by illegal aliens that spread disease ? One illegal alien in Santa Barbara, California infected 56 other people with tuberculosis as reported on April 24, 2004, by the Santa Barbara Press-News, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”. Because illegal alien migration into the USA continues unabated for the past 20 years, we now have 16,000 new cases of incurable MDR tuberculosis in the past five years. We suffer 7,000 new cases of leprosy. We tolerate 100,000 new cases of hepatitis “A” in our society. Chagas Disease, which affects 14 million South Americans and kills 50,000 annually, streams across our borders as unchecked thousands of them enter our society. If your child goes to public school, they could be exposed, as thousands already have been.

  • Where is the compassion for the 3.6 people murdered every day by an illegal alien (Source: GAO-05-646R based on study group of 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period)

  • Where is the compassion for all of the people that do not want to see a repeat of 11-Sep-2001, which was perpetrated by several illegal aliens ?

  • In view of all that above, how could anyone use the excuse that the U.S. would crumble (economically) without cheap labor? Even if it were true (which it isn’t), does that justify a sub-minimum-wage under-class ? The economy would not crumble, as much as some want to believe it, since the majority of those done by illegal aliens are low-wage, low-skill jobs, and would not generate much in tax revenue, even if half those that don’t pay taxes started paying taxes. Even if it were true, does it justify the perpetuation of an under-paid under-class?? Are we all going to be like Senator Linsey Graham (R-SC) who said: “as a golfer, I probably benefit from their [illegal aliens] labor.” ?
    Nevermind that S.C. has the highest rate of violent crime (excluding D.C.) of any state in the U.S. and it is largely due to illegal aliens.

  • Where is the compassion for the U.S. tax payers net losses of over $70 billion per year due to all the numerous problems stemming from illegal aliens?

  • Where is your compasssion for the 2.3 million displaced American workers?

  • Where is the compassion for all of the U.S. policemen murdered by illegal aliens? On 13-Nov-2005, Brian Jackson, a Dallas policeman was shot and killed by an illegal alien, Juan Lizcano. Lizcano had become drunk and went to the home of his ex-girfriend to threaten her. As the police pursued Lizcano after he fled the woman’s home, he shot Officer Jackson, who died later in the hospital. Officer Jackson was remembered by his fellow police as someone who loved his job and always went the extra mile. In Denver, Colorado, an illegal deliberately ran over a Denver polceman in a school cross walk “breaking his legs along with severe internal injuries. This is not anectdotal. This tragedy has occurred over and over in many cities across the U.S. Those are crimes that should have never happened.

What is truly despicable is that our elected officials are pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.
But, the voters keep rewarding irresponsible politicians for it by repeatedly re-electing them.
So, why should irresponsible politicians become responsible when they are rewarded for being irresponsible?

Illegal immigration is just another devisive detractor used to distract and divide the voters, along with the powerfully effective partisan warfare.

Since most Americans want illegal immigration stopped, and most also reject amnesty, it will be interesting to see if the voters hold Congress accountable for ignoring them.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 30, 2007 3:00 PM
Comment #205844

Regardless of what rhetoric you use to try to stir people up, social security is a business. It is not possible to receive a dime if you haven’t contributed.

The truth you can’t face is you are for robbing from the poor and giving to the not so poor.

Posted by: Schwamp at January 30, 2007 3:58 PM
Comment #205848

d.a.n,
I love you!!!

Posted by: Linda H. at January 30, 2007 4:16 PM
Comment #205850

Linda H.
Thank you!
Whew!
It’s seems very seldom that anyone else agrees with about these things.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 30, 2007 4:22 PM
Comment #205852
Schwamp wrote: Regardless of what rhetoric you use to try to stir people up, social security is a business. It is not possible to receive a dime if you haven’t contributed.
Rhetoric? And what else do you expect to find at a blog? Did you expect everyone to write only what you like? I’m just giving you the facts about the politicians positions and other issues. Please feel free anytime to disprove it.

Schwamp,
And if the BILL/law is passed, how will you know which illegal aliens paid, and how much, since illegal aliens use fake S.S. numbers?
Or, will it not be retroactive?
Those are obvious problem and questions, among others, which you dismiss as rhetoric?

Schwamp wrote: The truth you can’t face is you are for robbing from the poor and giving to the not so poor.
Well, you fail to see the truth, since I am not robbing from anyone, yet you tell me “you are from robbing from the poor” ? Did it ever occur to you that illegal aliens are robbing from the U.S. ? Do you want to explain over 32% of illegal aliens collect welfare ? Do you want to explain the burden on prison systems and how 29% of all federal prisoners are illegal aliens? Do you want to explain the burden on hospital systems and 84 hospitals closed/closing in California? Do you want to explain the burdens on the education, healthcare, law enforcment, welfare, and Medicaid systems? Do you want to explain 2.3 million displaced American workers? Do you want to explain the untold cost of the crime that should have never happened? Do you want to explain the lack compassion for the truly needy U.S. citizens that can not get help because of limited resources, because 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare ? Do you want to explain $70 billion in net losses annually?

So, whose robbing who, eh?

Republicans want cheap labor.
Democrats want votes.
Most voters want it stopped.
But voters keep re-electing them.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 30, 2007 4:26 PM
Comment #205862

d.a.n

I don’t understand why you continue doing this !!!

This is a blog on Obama, but everytime you contribute on any blog, you go into a diatribe cut & paste frenzy…

Enough…just right d.a.n
any time you want to go off like that. It will save us all from scrolling down…

I’ll show you how it’s done…

Posted by: Cliff at January 30, 2007 5:31 PM
Comment #205863


well…read this…

d.a.n

Posted by: Cliff for d.a.n at January 30, 2007 5:33 PM
Comment #205867

Tim Crow & Kansas Dem,

I believe you’ll find that Obama has and will fight for the basic tenets of the Democratic Party. The idea that the only way to combat childishness is to act childishly is just poppycock. Yeah, politics can be a nasty business, and sometimes decent people get caught up in the nastiness, but real leaders can rise above it, and still not compromise away their values. In fact by staying above the petty BS they may be better able to take strong stands when it counts, because they won’t be dismissed as partisan hacks.

MLK countered violence with non-violence, and it was pretty effective. Once you stoop to the tactics of those you oppose, you may be compromising the most fundamental piece of what you stand for.

Cliff,
What truth matters to you? Something about Obama’s father and early education, or what he’s made of himself today?

Good article Paul.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at January 30, 2007 5:55 PM
Comment #205869

Walker,

All truth matters…
Determining relevance however is left to the masses…

As far as Obama is concerned, there is limited info on the man except for his golden tongue.

Posted by: Cliff at January 30, 2007 6:15 PM
Comment #205871
Cliff wrote: d.a.n I don’t understand why you continue doing this !!!
Doing what ? If you don’t want to read it, then just scroll past it. Try it. It’s easy.
Cliff wrote: This is a blog on Obama.
Precisely, and I just commented (above) on Obama and displayed some of his voting record. Then I commented on a question asked by Schwamp.
Cliff wrote: This is a blog on Obama, but everytime you contribute on any blog, you go into a diatribe cut & paste frenzy.
Not all cut and paste, and it’s not all on a web page to link to in the order it appears. Almost all my posts are different. But, again, if you don’t like it, just scroll right past it. How hard is that? Or perhaps there’s a deeper issue. Perhaps you don’t like anyone criticizing or display Obama’s voting record.
Cliff wrote: Enough … just right d.a.n
Do you mean write? That’s what I’m doing. I do a lot of it. Nobody is forcing you to read it.
Cliff wrote: any time you want to go off like that. It will save us all from scrolling down.
What? Scrolling down is so difficult? No wonder so many Americans are overweight. It’s the end of the world if they have to scrolling down.
Cliff wrote: I’ll show you how it’s done … well … read this … d.a.n

Cliff,
Thank you for that advice, but it doesn’t always suffice.
What I want to write is not on a web page anywhere as you see it above, in the order it appears.
And, in debate, supporting information isn’t always organized at one handy link.
And, I certainly couldn’t have predicted the future by anticipating Schwamp’s question with a link to the answer.
Again, if you don’t like it, don’t read it.
If scrolling is your issue, then perhaps you are unaware of simple ways to do it faster.
Simply try this simple technique:

  • (1) Press Ctrl-F

  • (2) Type: Comment #

  • (3) Left-Click once on button: Next

  • See how easy that is?

As for Obama, It doesn’t matter how partisanly-civil, or golden-tongued he is.
One of the federal government’s most basic duties is to defend the nation and its borders. I can not vote for anyone who doesn’t take Homeland Security serious enough to protect the borders and ports, and refuses to stop illegal immigration.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 30, 2007 6:48 PM
Comment #205872

Walker:

“Yeah, politics can be a nasty business, and sometimes decent people get caught up in the nastiness, but real leaders can rise above it, and still not compromise away their values.”

Well, I guess all we need now is some real leaders.

It wasn’t leadership by anyone in the Democratic Party that led them to victory this passed November. All they did was keep their mouths shut, not promise anything, and stand by while the GOP and the Bush administration shot themselves in the foot over Iraq.

As for the childishness label, that was your perception, not mine. Anytime the Dems want to fake civility in the name of leadership, they’re welcome to it—but I suspect the American people are looking for results, not posturing. That takes guts, vision and tenacity. I haven’t seen much of that from the Dems in quite a while.

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 30, 2007 6:50 PM
Comment #205878

By the way: a late-breaking Iraq policy by Obama.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jan/30/obama_calls_for_withdrawal_of_all_troops_from_iraq_by_march_2008

This, in my opinion, is heading in the right direction, and in keeping with the November elections. I’m watching Obama now with great interest.

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 30, 2007 7:08 PM
Comment #205885

I looked at all of Obamas votes.
I could overlook a few differences if it were not for those two things (week on border security, and weak on illegal immigration).
And, of course, there’s the issue of “is he serious”.
In this era of corrupt government, it’s damn hard to take any of them serious.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 30, 2007 7:52 PM
Comment #205896

d.a.n.,

Great comments. I wish my congresswoman, Jane Harman, would understand this. I’ve tried writting her on this topic. My responses from her probably match word for word the canned responses everyone else gets from their representatives on this topic. Its pretty clear to me that they have no intent or desire to fix the problem. Need to elect Rep Tom Tancredo President.

Posted by: Carnak at January 30, 2007 8:57 PM
Comment #205936

Paul
You are mistaken to say that only Republicans are partisan. Democrats are too. I have no great love for either party but when someone makes Reps out to be evil and Dems out to be angels I am not inclined to believe much of what they say. My perception is that politicians are by definition partisan, including Obama. Obama just sounds nicer than the more vicious members of our Congress.

However, I do like Obama. He seems to actually mean what he says and have some hope for improving America, while most politicians say whatever will benefit them the most at a given time and place. While he leans farther left than me, I respect his conviction and hope. If he had a Republican Congress I would love to see him as President. In general I think it is best for such a split-it keeps one party from dominating and the other from resorting to mere obstructionism. And it ensures that the President will nominate moderate judges, ensuring that our government stays in the political center. Sorry if this paragraph is getting long.

D.a.n.
Of course politicians don’t want to solve problems. Then they would have nothing to accuse their opponents of causing/aiding and thus getting themselves re-elected. If I had a dollar for everytime a politician talked about solving a problem and nothing actually happened, I wouldn’t have anything to worry about when I go to college next fall.

Posted by: Silima at January 31, 2007 12:55 AM
Comment #205952
Carnak wrote: I wish my congresswoman, Jane Harman, would understand this. I’ve tried writting her on this topic. My responses from her probably match word for word the canned responses everyone else gets from their representatives on this topic.

Carnak,
Yes, I get those worthless form letters almost every week from my Congress persons and Representative. The politicians still ignore the problems and ignore what the majority of voters want solved now (things of which most voters already agree upon the problem and solution).

Carnak wrote: It’s pretty clear to me that they have no intent or desire to fix the problem.
No doubt about it. It’s also easy to show where politicians are going against the wishes of the voters. But, they seem to be getting away with it as long as they keep enjoying 90%+ re-election rates in Congress.
Carnak wrote: Need to elect Rep Tom Tancredo President.

Yes, perhaps. Tom Tancredo certainly seems serious about addressing the problem of illegal immigration.

Does Tom Tancredo have a chance? Maybe. But, IMO, I wish he would rethink a few of his positions with regard to civil oversight of intelligence gathering, campaign finance reform, taxation, and a few other things with regard to legislating morals.

Tancredo wants a sales tax. I’d prefer this, which would be more simple, more fair, and much easier to implement, since it is a simplification rather than a vast overhaul.

Silima wrote: Then they [politicians] would have nothing to accuse their opponents of causing/aiding and thus getting themselves re-elected.

Yes.

Clever isn’t it ?
The partisan warfare is a powerfully effective control mechanism to distract from the politicians’ failure to adequately address the nation’s problems, while the politicians spend a great deal of their time gettin’ theirs, votin’ themselves rai$e$ and cu$hy perks, and makin’ their cu$hy incumbencies more secure.

Unfortunately, we (the voters) keep re-electing too many of them, giving them a 90%+ re-election rate. It’s interesting though, since 1994, neither party has had a big lead. I wonder if it is because voters are about evenly torn between the bad choices, and no longer see either party of the two-party duopoly as that much better than the other, which also makes politicians do stupid things that appear as though they are merely designed to differentiate themselves from the other party, taking extreme, rather than moderate positions.

Silima wrote: If I had a dollar for everytime a politician talked about solving a problem and nothing actually happened, I wouldn’t have anything to worry about when I go to college next fall.
Yes, and getting a college education is becoming increasingly expensive. Why is that? Why does a textbook cost the student $150.00 ? In this age of computerization, why have so many (if any at all) expensive textbooks at all? I remember a text book in college that was required for the course, and it was crap and full of errors. Guess who wrote the book required for the course? The tenured professor teaching the class. Some of these practices are nothing more than flagrant manifestations of unchecked greed.

Silima,
You’re absolutely right about the partisan warfare.
Politicains of both parties do it.
That is truly a clear case of the “pot calling the kettle black”.
There’s nothing necessarily wrong with belonging to a party, but the blind party loyalty merely serves those that fuel the partisan warfare; a clever control mechanism used for nefarious purposes. Education is needed to recognize and reject such techniques. In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount, and voters will get their education the smart way, or the hard and painful way.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 31, 2007 8:32 AM
Post a comment