Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
.
Some Republicans prefaced their questions with lengthy recitations of conservative talking points. The president sometimes listened impassively but sometimes broke in.
Might that reflect the pressure from consumers over $4/gallon gasoline prices after a long stretch of stable low prices? I believe prior to that Bush was sensitive to the claim that he was a tool of Big Oil. As for Bush criticizing Kerry, that was pure politics taking advantage of his brother being governor of Florida and yea, asinine considering how the decade played out.Examples:
Despite claims from Sarah Palin about a massive grassroots outcry for offshore oil drilling, I never got a chain e mail from my Republican friends on the matter until after Bush started pushing it in a blatant attempt at election year pandering. Bush and Republicans were attacking Kerry as recently as 2004 for supposedly supporting drilling off Florida, now the same Republicans, followed in lockstep by Democrats, were in a frenzy to look tough on gas prices in 2008. Now, I have no particular problem with offshore drilling(or onshore, or NPR-Alaska, we should leave ANWR alone though), but the bipartisan flip flop is a perfect example of how Washington exploits fears and ignorance for short term political gain.
Not accurate, new technology is mapping before unknown reserves all the time and we are now able to tap old reserves with better equipment to draw out oil unobtainable a generation ago. 82% of the the world's known reserves of oil and gas have yet to be used. Someone born today will not live to see a world without oil or gas reserves. Not to mention shale and coal.There is no way we will get any oil out of the opened areas before 2030, and estimates of the reserves there are relatively small and 30 years outdated. Since the most optimistic estimates are of 2 years worth of US oil consumption offshore, and oil is a global market so no guarantee the oil drilled here is sold here, the effect on gas prices will be negligible and is 20 years out.
Another Example:
I never heard a peep, either in person or in those famous chain e mails, from my conservative friends about deficits or debt until Obama took office. More like a quote "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
From the Boston Globe Today Re: Republican Congressional Retreat, Baltimore:
Obama, GOP exchange barbs, ideas in rare encounter - Boston.com
Sunday Take: The theater in the meeting between Obama and House Republicans
By Dan Balz
Sunday, January 31, 2010; A02
Friday's encounter between President Obama and House Republicans proved to be riveting political theater. The question is whether it will be remembered as a moment that began to ease the tensions between the two parties -- or an asterisk in this era of polarized politics.
Obama and House Republicans delivered 90 minutes of sharp but civil give-and-take, a spirited debate on both the substantive differences that divide Republicans and Democrats and a frank discussion about the breakdown of government in the age of the permanent campaign.
Rarely has there been such an encounter between a president and the opposition party and certainly never on national television. It was the antithesis of the kind of snarling exchanges that often pass for political dialogue, whether between strategists in the two parties, candidates in the heat of a campaign or on the worst of cable television.
Nothing is likely to change overnight. "The main benefit is that greater interaction builds a measure of trust between the president and congressional Republicans," John Fortier of the American Enterprise Institute said. "Trust opens up possibilities for collaboration on some future issue with a more bipartisan character. It also builds trust, which might come in handy if there is a different future political dynamic, like narrower Democratic majorities after the midterm election, or even possibly GOP control of one house."
In the short run, there was plenty of scorekeeping by partisans -- and reason for both sides to feel good about what happened at the House GOP retreat in Baltimore.
For Obama, who is trying to reestablish his standing with the American people after a difficult first year in office, it was the opportunity to rebut his opponents' criticisms while prodding them to abandon their rigid opposition to his major initiatives and begin to cooperate. White House officials were ecstatic with his performance.
For House Republicans, it meant having the president acknowledge on national television that they have ideas of their own. The office of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) issued a release Saturday morning that said, in part, "The president himself helped put to rest once and for all baseless claims by members of his own administration that Republicans are the 'party of no.' "
Ultimately, the event may have been most beneficial for Obama, who badly needs a boost. He has emerged as the most polarizing first-year president in history. In that year, unemployment hit 10 percent, his health-care initiative failed to pass the Congress, his poll numbers eroded, independents deserted the Democrats in major statewide elections and some members of his party hit the panic button after Republican Scott Brown won the special Senate election in Massachusetts.
On Friday, however, Obama reminded his opponents of the singular power of the presidency, delivering a performance that easily eclipsed his State of the Union address. He was knowledgeable about GOP counterproposals. He was robust in his rebuttals without being peevish. He may not have won over his conservative critics, who snickered when he said he was not an ideologue, but he was able, repeatedly, to sound the call for bipartisanship and to challenge the opposition to help lower temperatures.
Ross Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University, said the message Obama delivered in Baltimore was consistent with one of the broad themes of his presidential campaign and therefore likely to enhance his standing with the public. "If the polls are correct -- and they are certainly consistent -- that Americans want a cease-fire if not a full-fledged truce, the event boosted his stock as a peacemaker," he said.
Obama's appearance before the House Republican policy retreat was part of a White House strategy that began with the State of the Union, designed to reconnect him with voters who have grown skeptical of his agenda and to identify himself with the anger that many Americans are expressing toward the way Washington is working.
The best indication that Republicans realized Obama had helped himself came late Friday. Initial reactions to the president by GOP House leaders had been generally civil. Then in the early evening, Boehner's office issued a release with the headline: "Rhetoric versus reality: President Obama repeats discredited talking points during dialogue with House GOP."
The president's advisers said the appearance was not a token exercise. "It was not a gesture," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said. "Our intention was not us-win-them-lose. I think he showed sincerity by going there."
Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, said of Obama, "He genuinely believes that if you get away from all the pure political posturing, there should be enough stuff in each piece of legislation that can garner bipartisan support."
Yet White House officials see little in recent GOP behavior to suggest they may be ready to negotiate seriously across a table with the president. They see a party in which any move toward bipartisan cooperation with Obama by a GOP lawmaker could bring a primary challenge from the right. As evidence, they point to last week's Senate defeat of a proposal for a bipartisan commission to deal with the debt and deficit, in which several Republicans who at one time had co-sponsored the measure voted against it.
Others believe the White House must show greater humility. "Right now the administration reminds me of [former president George W.] Bush in year five, where they can't see what reality really is and refuse to admit mistakes and course correct," said Matthew Dowd, who was a senior campaign adviser to Bush and now is an independent analyst.
"I think open dialogue between the president and Republicans is positive -- and a lesson that the speaker could take from President Obama," Republican strategist Alex Vogel said. "But I don't think it's going to suddenly lead to broad agreement on a range of policy issues. Our fundamental problem is that we think he's wrong on what policies are best for America, not that we don't see him enough."
John Feehery, another GOP strategist, said, "I doubt this will be a regular occurrence -- too much risk in that for both sides." But, he added, " it has left an indelible impression on those who pay attention of perhaps how things will work when the GOP takes over in November."
That is a bullish forecast and much can happen between now and November to affect the fortunes of the two parties. But Friday's great debate came in the context of an election year that already has the two sides in campaign mode. Obama's performance cheered Democrats primarily because they believe he bested the Republicans, not because he advanced the cause of bipartisanship.
Given that, further efforts to reach across the aisle may prove elusive. Asked what other confidence building measures might be offered, a White House official demurred. "I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head," he said. "One of the most important things is to continue the dialogue. It's hard to go beyond dialogue if you can't even have dialogue."
That will be the next test for Obama and congressional leaders in both parties.
Sunday Take: The theater in the meeting between Obama and House Republicans
it highlights the fact that the American system would greatly benefit from the intimacy of a Question Time with the President, instead of the usual thundering across the ideological chasm.
it highlights the fact that the American system would greatly benefit from the intimacy of a Question Time with the President, instead of the usual thundering across the ideological chasm.
Question Period has a reputation for being quite chaotic due to the commonplace cat-calling and jeering from non-participating MPs
He was knowledgeable about GOP counterproposals.
Now, I though they were just the party of "NO."
Mr. Obama, in his State of the Union address last week, noted that after generations of failure, Congress is closer than ever to adopting legislation that would achieve the health care goal of his predecessors.
“If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know,” Mr. Obama said.
The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, raised his left hand high in the air.
Two days later, Mr. Boehner and his caucus challenged Mr. Obama during the televised question-and-answer session. With dramatic flair, they presented him with a book of Republican “solutions,” including a chapter on health care.
But the debate has raged for so long that there was not much new for Mr. Obama to contemplate.
For instance, a core component of the House Republicans’ alternate health care measure — to create so-called association health plans — was also proposed in 2005 in response to Mr. Bush’s speech.
House Republicans, who controlled the majority at the time, approved the bill only to see it die in the Senate, where Republicans were also in charge. The proposal, disliked by Democrats, was also sharply criticized by conservatives as an intrusion by the federal government in health care.
Mr. Obama, in an exchange Friday with Representative Tom Price, Republican of Georgia, said he had considered many Republican ideas and pointed, by example, to a proposal to allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines.
“We actually include that as part of our approach,” the president said. “But the caveat is, we’ve got to do so with some minimum standards; because otherwise what happens is that you could have insurance companies circumvent a whole bunch of state regulations.”
After the session, Representative John Shadegg, Republican of Arizona, took issue with Mr. Obama’s comments, saying the president “got his facts wrong.”
“He insisted that his health care reform proposal would allow Americans to purchase insurance across state lines,” Mr. Shadegg said. “In reality, his bill nationalizes federal insurance regulation and gives the average American family no relief from expensive mandates that drive up the cost of health insurance.”
But in a report comparing the health care bills passed by House and Senate Democrats, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service wrote: “Both bills would allow states to form compacts to facilitate the sale and purchase of health plans across state lines.”
Mr. Shadegg, a supporter of state high-risk insurance pools, also denounced as insufficient a provision in the Democrats’ legislation to temporarily expand high-risk pools until new rules take effect barring insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
“The provision is nothing but a fancy window dressing to make a highly-partisan government-takeover of health care appear palatable,” Mr. Shadegg said. “Well, the curtain has been pulled back and the truth is exposed!” But while the Democrats’ proposal may differ from his own, the idea has been chewed over extensively by lawmakers in both parties.
On a number of points, Republicans and Democrats are closer to agreement than many people realize.
A Deep Divide Separated by Plenty of Common Ground - Prescriptions Blog - NYTimes.com
i'm awaiting INDY to stand up and applaud the President's nuclear power initiatives.
Didn't get to watch the session but if the president is now supporting nuclear power I'll add it to the, small, yet existent list of things I applaud the president for.
Might that reflect the pressure from consumers over $4/gallon gasoline prices after a long stretch of stable low prices? I believe prior to that Bush was sensitive to the claim that he was a tool of Big Oil. As for Bush criticizing Kerry, that was pure politics taking advantage of his brother being governor of Florida and yea, asinine considering how the decade played out.
Not accurate, new technology is mapping before unknown reserves all the time and we are now able to tap old reserves with better equipment to draw out oil unobtainable a generation ago. 82% of the the world's known reserves of oil and gas have yet to be used. Someone born today will not live to see a world without oil or gas reserves. Not to mention shale and coal.
Those "On the right track" polls in the 2nd term of Bush that were so low also included the frustration of fiscal conservatives. You can see that reflected in the Republicans losing the Congress in 06 and the White House in 08.
what's remarkable, is that the President is able to understand nuclear power not as an all-saving technology like you do -- probably just to anger the liberals who remember 3 Mile Island all too well -- but that it's one piece of a comprehensive energy independence strategy that places equal importance on green technologies and supertrains.
Obama's nuclear loan guarantees draw broad opposition - Green House - USATODAY.com
of course, this requires a whole lot more socialism.
If you were to listen to the debate, and frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevick plot. That's how you guys presented it. I'm thinking to myself, 'How is it that a plan that is pretty centrist ...'- no, look, I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say that this is actually what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.
We've got to close the gap between the rhetoric and reality. I'm not suggesting that we're going to agree on everything, whether it's on energy or health care or what have you. But if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don't have room to negotiate with me. I mean, the fact of the matter is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion, because what you've been telling your constituents is, "This guy's doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America."
Dear Christ.* 53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.
Dear Christ.
At least, you know, pick someone you could fucking make an argument for. This is just batshit insanity.