?

Log in

No account? Create an account
DT: come reap

preach it, mr. president.

Posted on 2010.27.01 at 22:08
where am I: the green fields of amerikay
How I feel about it all: determineddetermined
Soundtrack: State of the Union address
Tags: ,
"Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership."


THIS. ♥♥♥♥

Comments:


tx_cronopio
tx_cronopio at 2010-01-28 03:16 (UTC) ()
Alas, those who truly need to HEAR those words won't.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2010-01-28 03:22 (UTC) ()
Yeah, I know. Doesn't make it any less TRUE.
newleaf31
newleaf31 at 2010-01-28 03:35 (UTC) ()
I thought it was a really good SOTU address. But I LOVED that he called the Repubs out on that one.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2010-01-28 03:46 (UTC) ()
He's saying what I've been SCREAMING for months. Of course, he's right in the middle of it, so it's more immediate for him. I don't know how he's not completely bald right now from tearing his hair out.

Edited at 2010-01-28 03:46 (UTC)
peacey at 2010-01-28 14:00 (UTC) ()
I'll agree that knee-jerk decisions based on party-loyalty, political ambition, et.al is not leadership (something both parties have certainly been guilty of). However, here's the thing: it is leadership if damn near everything coming down the pike steers the nation (be it in big steps or corrosive small ones) in a direction you don't fundamentally agree with. If those sponsoring legislation cannot present an argument for their cause that is compelling enough to sway the constituency of those who initially oppose it, that opposition has a duty stand in the way. And yes, I know that too often politicians of whatever stripe are driven by political ambitions, lobbyist money, and all other manner of impetus beyond their sole duty to represent the will of their constituency. I'm not a Pollyanna in that regard. But as was proven last week in Massachusetts, the people have a way of flexing their muscles so that their representatives in Washington don't forget why they're there.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2010-01-28 14:24 (UTC) ()
However, here's the thing: it is leadership if damn near everything coming down the pike steers the nation (be it in big steps or corrosive small ones) in a direction you don't fundamentally agree with.

Sure. And yeah, I think lobbyists have a way of getting to either party (*waves DOWN WITH LOBBYISTS* banner*). I just don't think for a second that there are fundamental differences in everydamnthing that comes down the pike.

I also think that while the Massachusetts thing let the Dems know that they had an issue with how they communicated their message (read: not very well), for the most part the problem was that they ran a really sucky candidate who ran a really sucky, overconfident campaign. If I had been eligible to vote, I would have voted for her because she wasn't Scott Brown (who I believe to be a dishonest politician, party notwithstanding), and that's a horrible way to vote.
peacey at 2010-01-28 14:46 (UTC) ()
I just don't think for a second that there are fundamental differences in everydamnthing that comes down the pike.

Notwithstanding that there is a difference between my "Damn near everything" and your "everydamnthing," I put forward that in this administration, there has been. The President runs very liberal in his worldview, and that's reflected in the spending and expansive legislation that he wants and supports. True fiscal conservatives will oppose damn near anything that bloats government and doesn't adhere to fiscal conservatism. As they should. And vice versa.

I also think that while the Massachusetts thing let the Dems know that they had an issue with how they communicated their message (read: not very well), for the most part the problem was that they ran a really sucky candidate who ran a really sucky, overconfident campaign.

While the sucky candidate and campaign may be true, the polls don't support this as being the pivot point. When polled, the Massachusetts electorate said the thing that most swayed their vote was opposition to the current health care reform bill.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2010-01-28 15:23 (UTC) ()
I'm not entirely on board with the healthcare reform bill, either, but that wouldn't make me vote for a sucky candidate. I tend not to vote for someone because of an agenda--when I voted in the last Senate race in RI, who won was essential to the Dems gaining a majority in the Senate. I still voted for the candidate I thought would be the best in the Senate, and ended up not voting for the Democrat. Although I'm happy with the job Whitehouse is doing, I didn't vote for him. I'm waiting for Scott Brown to lie his way through his term--not because he's a Republican, but because he's a lying liar who lies.

And I still think the Republicans would vote down a bill declaring National Hugs and Puppies day if it were an Obama initiative. And yes, I'm probably oversimplifying things. We shall see. :)
peacey at 2010-01-28 15:55 (UTC) ()
<...but that wouldn't make me vote for a sucky candidate.</i>

Well, degree of suckiness is subjective, of course, but it seems the majority of the Mass. electorate so opposed the direction the President and Congress are steering the nation that they rated "the candidate's leadership and personal qualities" only fifth on a list of what voters considered "extremely important" in who they chose to vote for. The list goes thus:

Health care reform efforts in Washington
The economy and jobs
The way Washington is working
The federal budget deficit
The candidates’ leadership and personal qualities
The Obama administration’s policies on terrorism suspects2
The government’s handling of banks and financial institutions
Taxes
Local and Massachusetts state issues

Based on the poll results, when asked which of those was the single most important factor in determining their vote, the list went thus:

Health care reform efforts in Washington
The economy and jobs
The way Washington is working
The Obama administration’s policies on terrorism suspects
The candidates’ leadership and personal qualities
The federal budget deficit
Local and Massachusetts state issues
The government’s handling of banks and financial institutions
Taxes

Entire poll can be found here. Very interesting stuff.
peacey at 2010-01-28 15:57 (UTC) ()
Ugh. Brassinfrackinwrackin' formatting.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2010-01-28 17:41 (UTC) ()
I think both candidates were pretty sucky. IMO, Coakley was the least sucky, which was one of the Dem's biggest problems with the campaign.

Of course, you realize that this is Massachusetts, which already has a state-run healthcare system, so the citizens really don't have to worry so much about changing the federal system.

The way Washington is working sucks, no matter how you look at it. Of course, it's always been like that. Or most of always. ;) And, sometimes doing the right thing www.megaupload.com/?d=403KQLRP
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2010-01-28 17:44 (UTC) ()
I think both candidates were pretty sucky. IMO, Coakley was the least sucky, which was one of the Dem's biggest problems with the campaign.

Of course, you realize that this is Massachusetts, which already has a state-run healthcare system, so the citizens really don't have to worry so much about changing the federal system.

The way Washington is working sucks, no matter how you look at it. Of course, it's always been like that. Or most of always. ;) And, sometimes doing the right thing ≠ doing the popular thing.

Interesting poll. I've read a little of it and will read more after I've had more coffee and checked the weather forecast (it's snowing again, wtf?).
Previous Entry  Next Entry