Bipartisanship PAYS OFF

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2011 3:35 AM GMT
    The poll numbers for the politicians in BOTH parties have gone UP.

    Clearly - when the Dems and the Repubs work together, as they did during the lame duck session late last year, the American people approve.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110112/ap_on_re_us/us_ap_poll_obama_and_congress_3

    President Obama's approval rate jumped up to 53%.
    The Democratic party's approval rate jumped up to 53%.
    And, the Republican party's approval rate jumped up to 36%.

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 16, 2011 3:43 AM GMT
    Not so fast...Depends on what poll you look at:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/obamas-approval-rating-surges-in-recent-polls.php


    http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2011/01/obama-approval-ratings-rise-as-economy-improves.html

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B35020110112


    Regardless, the only polls that matter are the ones taken by the American people on Election Day
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2011 3:48 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidNot so fast...Depends on what poll you look at:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/obamas-approval-rating-surges-in-recent-polls.php


    http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2011/01/obama-approval-ratings-rise-as-economy-improves.html

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B35020110112


    Regardless, the only polls that matter are the ones taken by the American people on Election Day



    lol
    Well, we can throw out the Rasmussen one for starters.
    Their numbers are always out of synch with the legitimate pollsters.

    So, you're saying that bipartisanship doesn't pay off?
    Does that mean you want more partisanship?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2011 3:55 AM GMT
    I think it would be really nice for the Republicans and Democrats to sit amongst each other during the State of the Union speech...there's a letter signed by politicians from both parties to that effect from Mark Udall (D,Colorado).
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen.-mark-udall/letter-to-congressional-l_b_809430.html
    I would be surprised if Boehner or Pelosi wouldn't say no, if one of them says yes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2011 3:58 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidI think it would be really nice for the Republicans and Democrats to sit amongst each other during the State of the Union speech...there's a letter signed by politicians from both parties to that effect from Mark Udall (D,Colorado).
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen.-mark-udall/letter-to-congressional-l_b_809430.html
    I would be surprised if Boehner or Pelosi wouldn't say no, if one of them says yes.



    I'd like to see it too, but the idea seems to be meeting resistance.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 16, 2011 3:59 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    Well, we can throw out the Rasmussen one for starters.
    Their numbers are always out of synch with the legitimate pollsters.

    So, you're saying that bipartisanship doesn't pay off?
    Does that mean you want more partisanship?



    I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "legitimate pollster", so I pretty much throw them all out. As for bipartisanship paying off...I certainly would like to think it does and I hope we see a great deal more of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2011 4:12 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    rickrick91 said
    Well, we can throw out the Rasmussen one for starters.
    Their numbers are always out of synch with the legitimate pollsters.

    So, you're saying that bipartisanship doesn't pay off?
    Does that mean you want more partisanship?



    I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "legitimate pollster", so I pretty much throw them all out. As for bipartisanship paying off...I certainly would like to think it does and I hope we see a great deal more of it.

    Whenever the Democrats win an election, it's "We won; elections have consequences." Whenever Republicans win an elections, it's "Let's have bipartisanship; let's compromise." Typical.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2011 4:22 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    rickrick91 said
    Well, we can throw out the Rasmussen one for starters.
    Their numbers are always out of synch with the legitimate pollsters.

    So, you're saying that bipartisanship doesn't pay off?
    Does that mean you want more partisanship?



    I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "legitimate pollster", so I pretty much throw them all out. As for bipartisanship paying off...I certainly would like to think it does and I hope we see a great deal more of it.

    Whenever the Democrats win an election, it's "We won; elections have consequences." Whenever Republicans win an elections, it's "Let's have bipartisanship; let's compromise." Typical.




    What a load of "Typical" right-wing BS.
    You Repubs are just shameless when it comes to trying to rewrite history.
    Maybe you "forgot" this lovely moment of "bipartisanship" from Bush after he won reelection in 2004.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/05/uselections2004.usa5

    Fortunately, Bush wasn't able to ram through his right-wing agenda.
    Privatizing Social Security - which he never mentioned was what he wanted to do during the 2004 campaign - didn't go over to well with the American people.

    When Americans realize what the Repubs really want to do, Americans always go running back to the Democrats.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 2:13 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    q1w2e3 saidI think it would be really nice for the Republicans and Democrats to sit amongst each other during the State of the Union speech...there's a letter signed by politicians from both parties to that effect from Mark Udall (D,Colorado).
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen.-mark-udall/letter-to-congressional-l_b_809430.html
    I would be surprised if Boehner or Pelosi wouldn't say no, if one of them says yes.



    I'd like to see it too, but the idea seems to be meeting resistance.


    Tom Coburn and Chuck Schumer are sitting together. (Has anybody noticed that more senators signed that Udall letter than representatives?)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 3:10 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    rickrick91 said
    Well, we can throw out the Rasmussen one for starters.
    Their numbers are always out of synch with the legitimate pollsters.

    So, you're saying that bipartisanship doesn't pay off?
    Does that mean you want more partisanship?



    I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "legitimate pollster", so I pretty much throw them all out. As for bipartisanship paying off...I certainly would like to think it does and I hope we see a great deal more of it.

    Whenever the Democrats win an election, it's "We won; elections have consequences." Whenever Republicans win an elections, it's "Let's have bipartisanship; let's compromise." Typical.


    Actually, it was George Bush and Karl Rove who said "elections have consequences", and the Democrats have not spent the last two years doing their best to obstruct every piece of legislation, even those they supported before Obama became president. Let's not rewrite history, okay?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 3:13 AM GMT
    Rasmussen? Were the servers at fox.com busy? icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 4:03 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    rickrick91 said
    Well, we can throw out the Rasmussen one for starters.
    Their numbers are always out of synch with the legitimate pollsters.

    So, you're saying that bipartisanship doesn't pay off?
    Does that mean you want more partisanship?



    I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "legitimate pollster", so I pretty much throw them all out. As for bipartisanship paying off...I certainly would like to think it does and I hope we see a great deal more of it.

    Whenever the Democrats win an election, it's "We won; elections have consequences." Whenever Republicans win an elections, it's "Let's have bipartisanship; let's compromise." Typical.


    Actually, it was George Bush and Karl Rove who said "elections have consequences", and the Democrats have not spent the last two years doing their best to obstruct every piece of legislation, even those they supported before Obama became president. Let's not rewrite history, okay?

    I don't think it's fair to suggest the Republicans obstructed health care when they were effectively shut out of the process. When it was initially in committees, both parties participated as you would expect based on how committees work. There was some, though limited Republican support. Everything after the initial committee work, blending the pieces together and negotiating with the White House, was done without any Republican involvement. They were not involved until the meeting at Blair House when all their suggestions were discarded.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 4:21 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    rickrick91 said
    Well, we can throw out the Rasmussen one for starters.
    Their numbers are always out of synch with the legitimate pollsters.

    So, you're saying that bipartisanship doesn't pay off?
    Does that mean you want more partisanship?



    I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "legitimate pollster", so I pretty much throw them all out. As for bipartisanship paying off...I certainly would like to think it does and I hope we see a great deal more of it.

    Whenever the Democrats win an election, it's "We won; elections have consequences." Whenever Republicans win an elections, it's "Let's have bipartisanship; let's compromise." Typical.


    Actually, it was George Bush and Karl Rove who said "elections have consequences", and the Democrats have not spent the last two years doing their best to obstruct every piece of legislation, even those they supported before Obama became president. Let's not rewrite history, okay?

    I don't think it's fair to suggest the Republicans obstructed health care when they were effectively shut out of the process. When it was initially in committees, both parties participated as you would expect based on how committees work. There was some, though limited Republican support. Everything after the initial committee work, blending the pieces together and negotiating with the White House, was done without any Republican involvement. They were not involved until the meeting at Blair House when all their suggestions were discarded.


    The entire plan was a Republican one. And they were invited to participate in many, many ways and refused. Despite that, many of their suggestions, including the mandate and scuttling the public option, were included. Again, let's not rewrite history.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 4:51 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidThe entire plan was a Republican one. And they were invited to participate in many, many ways and refused. Despite that, many of their suggestions, including the mandate and scuttling the public option, were included. Again, let's not rewrite history.

    The Republicans were in favor of scuttling the public option, obviously, but there were enough Democrats and Independents who agreed, leading to the numbers situation. I have never heard of the individual mandate being a Republican idea. Any sources to back that up, because it seems incredible to me? As far as whether the Republicans were invited to participate and refused or were shut out - that is probably difficult to prove either way. I recall many times when Republicans being interviewed stated they were not invited to participate in meetings. I assume you are going by Democrats who say otherwise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 5:27 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidThe entire plan was a Republican one. And they were invited to participate in many, many ways and refused. Despite that, many of their suggestions, including the mandate and scuttling the public option, were included. Again, let's not rewrite history.

    The Republicans were in favor of scuttling the public option, obviously, but there were enough Democrats and Independents who agreed, leading to the numbers situation. I have never heard of the individual mandate being a Republican idea. Any sources to back that up, because it seems incredible to me? As far as whether the Republicans were invited to participate and refused or were shut out - that is probably difficult to prove either way. I recall many times when Republicans being interviewed stated they were not invited to participate in meetings. I assume you are going by Democrats who say otherwise.


    The individual mandate started as an alternative to "HillaryCare" proffered by Bob Dole. It was also part of "RomneyCare" in MA.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/27/republicans-hatched-idea-obamas-health-insurance-mandate/

    On the other stuff, yes, it's hard to know what went on behind closed doors.