2012-11-07, 10:23 AM
No. Republicans still feel spurned about how they were out voted on the Affordable Care Act.
Whether Obama or Romney became president, neither president would be able to change the bipartisan hostilities between the two parties in the legislature.
"The law was the largest single legislative achievement of Mr. Obamas first two years in office, and the most controversial. Not a single Republican voted for the final version, and Republicans across the country campaigned on a promise to repeal the bill. In January 2011, shortly after they took control of the House, Republicans voted 245 to 189 in favor of repeal, in what both sides agreed was largely a symbolic act, given Democratic control of the Senate and White House."
Obama wanted to end bipartisanship, however he ended up fortifying it in order to push legislation that he wanted to pass. He himself wasn't the type of person to schmooze the opposing party and try to wine & dine them in good graces. And he didn't. He had advisers and a team that had the ability to pull strings and get things done outside of Congress in order to get things passed inside Congress. However he himself wasn't the type of man for the job to bridge the gap despite him making many claims that he would end hostilities between the two parties and his actions increased an already existing divide (Frontline).
Let me rephrase. Progress can be done. Yes. But it will be by bypassing Congress through presidential powers, not by working with a Congress that remains fractured at the hip.
I voted for Obama, despite voting for McCain in the prior election since I believe in keeping the incumbent in office to keep the pace. The latest jobs report figures show growth and I want to see that remain there. I don't think that a volatile move such as switching Presidents would help in any shape or form. Although whether it would definitely hurt the markets is only speculative since a large portion of financial doing has to do with the The Federal Reserve, largely independent from the arms of the President and from government in general. 40 billion a month in mortgage backed securities has seen some increase in the house market it tanked due to the subprime mortgage crisis and investors are changing capital to capitalize on this change. I'm starting to believe that things are starting to click and now is not the time to kill the man behind any of the wheels. As economically talented as Mitt Romney is, I couldn't in good conscience elect him when he has flopped on so many issues. And as much as I wanted to abstract the economy as being the most important variable for voting, I felt that his aggressive mind (he's willing to flip to win) to push these reforms may have the possibility of tanking the growth we are seeing currently. I like the way things are now. I don't care for gay marriage or any of the other civil liberty pandering that goes on even though it may increase my taxes. I just want to keep a positive pace going. And I think a disillusioned Obama whose had his face mauled in by the ugliness that is Congress is a veteran of knowing how to play his cards in these times. An optimistic Mitt Romney who even though he has had his fair share of dreams being shattered, doesn't seem seem to effect tangible plans of execution with a divided Congress. There was a scene in which Mitt Romney took his wife for a talk that proceeded as follows:
"Ann obviously felt I was insulting her husband and indicated that I was by asking that question. And the rest of the people in the room were sort of taken aback and shocked. I know my friend Rich Schwarm left the room because he doesn't handle conflict very well, and he didn't want to be around to even see what would happen. Mitt just simply refused to talk about it, and Ann left the room and didn't join us for the rest of the evening meal."
This. And the 47% comment analyzed not for their content alone, but on the principal that Mitt simply lacks some pivotal social skills needed to win over big investors, senators, or any other number of people to bring big some plans into actions does not give me a good projection that this man will quickly come in and take effective reigns when it comes to bringing us up to pace after kicking out the democrats. How things actually pan out is of course speculative and the basis behind my conjectures can of course be counter-pointed to some point where Mitt showed poise in the Presidential Debates or in some gala meeting. Mitt seems to be a somewhat fractured man as do most Republicans coming out from their own primaries, this one ended up being a literal cesspool. One might make the joke that if I think Mitt is fractured, he'd be the man to understand a fractured Congress or even a fractured economy, however sadly Mitt hasn't shown that he can perform as a US President, so again I'll trust this incumbent to see where he goes and if he fails, then we can blame him for not properly taking the reigns of an economic upswing when he already had many cards already in place for his disposal. No excuses, only progress.
Whether Obama or Romney became president, neither president would be able to change the bipartisan hostilities between the two parties in the legislature.
"The law was the largest single legislative achievement of Mr. Obamas first two years in office, and the most controversial. Not a single Republican voted for the final version, and Republicans across the country campaigned on a promise to repeal the bill. In January 2011, shortly after they took control of the House, Republicans voted 245 to 189 in favor of repeal, in what both sides agreed was largely a symbolic act, given Democratic control of the Senate and White House."
Obama wanted to end bipartisanship, however he ended up fortifying it in order to push legislation that he wanted to pass. He himself wasn't the type of person to schmooze the opposing party and try to wine & dine them in good graces. And he didn't. He had advisers and a team that had the ability to pull strings and get things done outside of Congress in order to get things passed inside Congress. However he himself wasn't the type of man for the job to bridge the gap despite him making many claims that he would end hostilities between the two parties and his actions increased an already existing divide (Frontline).
Let me rephrase. Progress can be done. Yes. But it will be by bypassing Congress through presidential powers, not by working with a Congress that remains fractured at the hip.
I voted for Obama, despite voting for McCain in the prior election since I believe in keeping the incumbent in office to keep the pace. The latest jobs report figures show growth and I want to see that remain there. I don't think that a volatile move such as switching Presidents would help in any shape or form. Although whether it would definitely hurt the markets is only speculative since a large portion of financial doing has to do with the The Federal Reserve, largely independent from the arms of the President and from government in general. 40 billion a month in mortgage backed securities has seen some increase in the house market it tanked due to the subprime mortgage crisis and investors are changing capital to capitalize on this change. I'm starting to believe that things are starting to click and now is not the time to kill the man behind any of the wheels. As economically talented as Mitt Romney is, I couldn't in good conscience elect him when he has flopped on so many issues. And as much as I wanted to abstract the economy as being the most important variable for voting, I felt that his aggressive mind (he's willing to flip to win) to push these reforms may have the possibility of tanking the growth we are seeing currently. I like the way things are now. I don't care for gay marriage or any of the other civil liberty pandering that goes on even though it may increase my taxes. I just want to keep a positive pace going. And I think a disillusioned Obama whose had his face mauled in by the ugliness that is Congress is a veteran of knowing how to play his cards in these times. An optimistic Mitt Romney who even though he has had his fair share of dreams being shattered, doesn't seem seem to effect tangible plans of execution with a divided Congress. There was a scene in which Mitt Romney took his wife for a talk that proceeded as follows:
"Ann obviously felt I was insulting her husband and indicated that I was by asking that question. And the rest of the people in the room were sort of taken aback and shocked. I know my friend Rich Schwarm left the room because he doesn't handle conflict very well, and he didn't want to be around to even see what would happen. Mitt just simply refused to talk about it, and Ann left the room and didn't join us for the rest of the evening meal."
This. And the 47% comment analyzed not for their content alone, but on the principal that Mitt simply lacks some pivotal social skills needed to win over big investors, senators, or any other number of people to bring big some plans into actions does not give me a good projection that this man will quickly come in and take effective reigns when it comes to bringing us up to pace after kicking out the democrats. How things actually pan out is of course speculative and the basis behind my conjectures can of course be counter-pointed to some point where Mitt showed poise in the Presidential Debates or in some gala meeting. Mitt seems to be a somewhat fractured man as do most Republicans coming out from their own primaries, this one ended up being a literal cesspool. One might make the joke that if I think Mitt is fractured, he'd be the man to understand a fractured Congress or even a fractured economy, however sadly Mitt hasn't shown that he can perform as a US President, so again I'll trust this incumbent to see where he goes and if he fails, then we can blame him for not properly taking the reigns of an economic upswing when he already had many cards already in place for his disposal. No excuses, only progress.