Obama Nominates New FCC Commissioner → Re: Fixed the statement.

I support Obama but this pick baffles me. She was up against many, MANY, more qualified candidates and SC isn't exactly a "progressive" state, in regards to anything. Her brief stint at the SC PUC and career as a journalist before that even further confuses me. I do not think she is in any way whatsoever qualified to hold this position.

If anyone had the idea Obama would radically change how government works, it is all but clear they were duped.

Hope and Change not found.

Your going to see alot more picks like this. This is purely political, and not in the best interest of the nation. Just what did you expect when you voted for change???

I guess that depends on how you define "radically" ... so far I think the lobbyists and the members of Congress might disagree. Hope and Change is absolutely happening, it's just not the change that folks who didn't support Obama wanted.

If anyone (not just you) really thinks that everything a president does is going to be agreed with by every supporter of said president, they are naive and acting simple minded. Which is why I chuckle at the same lame, tired, "Hope and Change" jokes or the "socialist" comparisons.

That is what most Obama opponents simply don't understand ... bipartisanship is working together. It's coming to a mutual understanding and compromise. It's not whining and crying because every single thing doesn't go your way.

Name 3 things in this broad agenda that have "Bi-partisan" co-operation.

The farther the pendulum swings, the more Congress gets away with due to the polarization of the electorate!

Of course she is. She has the most important qualification of all in Washington, DC. She is the daughter of Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House Majority Whip. Obama just bought some goodwill in getting his agenda thru congress. Or it was a payoff for past services by Rep Clyburn in trying to help Obama get votes in South Carolina in the election(even though McCain won big).
»clyburn.house.gov/index2.cfm

It's politics. Although I have no proof, I personally believe it was her father who got her the job and not her qualifications.

That is what I was thinking (and worried about). I didn't know he was the whip though. But that makes perfect sense.

Change is happening but not in the way Obama campaigned on. The only thing that has changed is the party in power.I knew for a fact Obama himself was all smoke and mirrors and he has proven several times he will changes his mind if the polls go against him. Many of the people that voted for Obama, voted for his "change" and many are still looking for it. I laugh just as much as you do at the sheeple who voted for him and are now finding out what "change" really means.And I will say I see very little bipartisanship happening when you have Reid, Pelosi and MSNBC yelling, "We won. Get over it." So much for bridging the gap. What do you think will happen if the Republicans take the House next election?

Nothing, because the Republicans are too busy coining ridiculous terms and labeling everything socialism while bashing their own party members who agree with the President.

Knowing the GOP, it will cave, as it always does, in the "spirit of working together" or that kind of crap. My optimistic assumption is that the GOP will just lower the speed at which we go to socialism to just 99mph if the Democrat party currently is taking us there at 100mph.

Wonderful. More cronyism.

"Yer doin' a heckovajob, Miggy!"

Nope.

Bipartisanship occurs only when supposed conservatives go flaccid and cast their support for leftist policies. The reason why it is true is because that is the only time it happens.

When have you ever seen the most leftist of liberals in government "lean right" in order to be "bipartisan?" It has never happened.

Maybe the reality is that "socialism" is in the eye of the beholder (who's ox is being gored), and you're among a very tiny minority who use the term as an absolute standard (denying that you enjoy a little ox goring too)?

It's been my observation that those who use the word "socialism" as a slur are perfectly content with zoning laws, building codes, SEC regulation of markets, FDIC regulation of banks, etc.

All of those things have the same effect: 1) producing market outcomes that a free market wouldn't 2) at the expense of some individuals who might benefit as willing buyers and sellers with less (or no) regulation.

Only a handful of extreme libertarians would say we should get rid of those socialized markets. The vast majority who rail against socialization of markets don't really mean what they say. When asked, they say "of course we need socialized markets, I'm not a libertarian!"

What that means is that they enjoy calling everyone else a "socialist." Situational ox goring. Using society to impact others for *my* benefit is ok. "I'm a Conservative, not a Libertarian!" But, all those other people doing it are *socialists*.

Mark

You forgot the most important qualification. Her skin tone.

You've become what you accuse others of being. Now your whining about the lack of co-operation in throwing us into a depression. If there was ever a time for legitimate disent in congress, its now!

How did that Chrysler bailout workout?
What banks are technically insolvent after billions throw at them?
Russia massing troops on the border of Georgia, An American citizen falsly accused of treason in Iran, and China manipulating the value of the Yuan undercutting the value of the dollar which is killing our manufacturing base.

These are current events that need attention now....and what do I get? I get told to wash my hands....*sigh*

Because a president changing his mind and executing the will of the people is such a bad thing, while the Decider torturing, starting wars to benefit oil companies and turning the whole world against us without giving a damn what the people thought of that is really the leadership we really should be looking up to.

Maybe it's simply a problem of perception?

Back in the '20s and '30s Conservatives opposed child-labor laws and a 5-day work week. Undoubtedly there were a handful of "true" conservatives who called others "flaccid" for eventually going along with it. Yet, today, 99.999% of Conservatives take those formerly progressive social changes for granted.

Maybe "supposed conservatives" aren't who you think they are? It's just a matter of time for Republicans to throw dirt and twigs in the air, bluster, and then move on with more progressive and Democratic positions?

Mark

You are very very confused. If Obama is laughable to you and you don't like what he is doing, what would you have said with a John McCain and his merry corrupt men being appointed to all the top spots? We would have the exact same Bush policies but with even more incompetence.

Ahh, I see you have resumed your debate with the resident anarchist. I never see his or her replies though. As I do not have anyone on ignore here, I must need new glasses, as I never see this person's postings.

The fact remains though that the GOP has a proven track record of compromising its supposedly conservative principles to advance ideas which are clearly not conservative. If the GOP ever regains power, this will happen again.

Although not addressed to me, I have to say: Obama is a honest man that I can respect as a person AND as President. I have no doubt that he will try to fix the many problems we have, many inherited from Bush, many that may be already unfixable. The weight of the world is on his shoulders.
With McCain we would have had a disaster on our hands, a disaster that probably would have been the end of this country. McCain probably would have died in office and then we would have had Palin in charge. There are poor decisions and there are decisions that are criminally negligent. Choosing Palin as VP is clearly in one category.
We should give President Obama all our support. He is a good choice and I have no doubt he will work tirelessly for the good of the country while also listening to people, strong and weak, pro or against him, the way a President should always do.

/end Obama rant

It is a perception grounded in reality.

There has rarely, if ever, been a time when a leftist Democrat has ever leaned right to support anything a conservative might be interested in.

That right, of course. Cronyism is good only when we have incompetent white people engaged in it (anyone remember FEMA and Mr. Brown ?).
No, I am not black, there are no black East Germans that I can remember.

Perhaps it's just indicative of holding incorrect and untenable positions. As I said in my prior post, there are plenty of examples of the GOP moving to popular, progressive and democratic positions that they wouldn't dream of opposing today.

But, in every instance, the core of "true conservatives" opposed those moves. And, each generation's "true conservatives" wouldn't dream of opposing whatever it was the previous generation opposed (child labor laws, 5-day work week, etc.).

Maybe it's just a perception problem. Those who fancy themselves as carrying the flag are really just a little slow and narrow-minded?

Mark

But I'll bet there are plenty who still long for the days of the Communist party running everything.

And again, how does any of what you say disprove my definition of bipartisanship as it stands today?

What you describe already happens, because many conservatives routinely go left. The opposite rarely, if ever, occurs.

Obama is trying to be bipartisan. That is why Bush & Co. have not been indicted for war crimes yet, because he is trying to keep the government together and protect the Republicans. I do not believe he will be successful, the evidence is too high and he risks impeachment by refusing to prosecute war crimes as required by the Geneva Convention in his desire to maintain the stability of the government.

You can find some hard-core liberals who would whine like you do, except about Democrats compromising to the right.

Gun control comes to mind.

I consider myself a moderate who has little respect for zealots on either side. I think they both live in an artificial world. So, you're not going to get me to make the "true liberal's" case to you, the "true conservative."

Mark

Could be, I am not one of those. I can see some advantages of very limited socialist initiatives (health care, schools, some stability of central planning) but mostly socialism is good in reining in capitalism run amok.

Socialism/Communism cannot work in the long run, it is against the human nature.

The problem is that once capitalism runs over a specific treshold, it generates such unrest from the working/middle class that the only recourse is a socialist revolution and that screws up everything for a long, long time.

Most Democrats who are against gun control are not the flaming liberals of the party. Most of them come from right-leaning states or districts and it would be tantamount to committing political suicide for any of them to support gun control. The hardcore liberals though, continue to support gun control.

Acceptable answers would included the current Iraq War and Operation Desert Storm. However in both situations most of the ultra-liberal wing of the Democrat party opposed both of these policies.