Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

GOP: Obama must change if he wants bipartisanship

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 08:32 PM
Original message
GOP: Obama must change if he wants bipartisanship
Source: McClatchy



* Posted on Thursday, January 28, 2010

By William Douglas and David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

BALTIMORE — President Barack Obama will speak Friday to Republicans from the House of Representatives, who voiced skepticism Thursday about his call for bipartisanship in his State of the Union address and vowed to continue opposing his agenda unless he _ not they _ changes course.

On the opening day Thursday of a two-day House GOP retreat in Baltimore, Republican leaders said that Obama must do more than invite them to the White House, offer to cut capital gains taxes for small businesses and sing the praises of offshore drilling and nuclear energy to get their cooperation on contentious issues such as health care.

“We’re going to continue to go down the same path this year,” House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said before the retreat opened. “We’re going to look for common ground, but we’re not going to roll over on our principles.”

Obama is expected to repeat his bipartisanship plea Friday.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/83270.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
muntrv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Barack, fuck bi-partisanship! They don't want you to succeed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
41. Agreed. Those fuckers are doing everything they can to stop you..
DON"T LET THEM!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NRaleighLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. Read: Change into a white republican. Forget it. Party of Permanent No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laureloak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Can't you just say "Republican" and leave "white" out of it.
<<sigh>>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. I thought the point was that Republicans want him to do something that is impossible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. Boner's been in the tanning booth so long
he might not qualify to be Republican ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
37. And "Bingo" was his name-o
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faygo Kid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. Boehner still ticked about that tanning booth tax.
Why don't you change, Boehner. Try changing into a human being. If you can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. LOL. Colbert says Boehner looks like a yam.
I don't think that's true though. I like yams. Boehner does not look like anything I like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stargleamer Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. Can't go forward with them when they want to go backwards
Can't go up with them when they want to go down, Can't go North when them when they want to go South.

You have to confront them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FailureToCommunicate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Right! Obama needs to stay on the question 'You're for America or ...'? We know they are
the party of NO, He knows they are the party of NO, BUT JOE LUNCHPAIL NEEDS TO KNOW THEY ARE THE PARTY OF NO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
7. oh come on, dems roll over on their principles, repubs should join the fun nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TripleKatPad Donating Member (241 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. I think this bipartisanship thing is easy-peasy
All you have to do is capitulate to every Republican wish.
THAT is bipartisanship Pub-style. Just ask 'em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uberblonde Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
9. Huh?
You mean Republicans have principles? I wonder if we'll ever see them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. Democrats have principle. Republicans have principal. And interest. But not in a good way.
Edited on Thu Jan-28-10 09:37 PM by No Elephants
On edit: Arrrgh. Edited to correct spelling error that totally blew the post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
10. Someone post a credible link to a poll that indicates most Americans
want bipartisanship as a priority vs having Obama lead as he promised. I say that is just another MSM talking point with no substance.

I am so fucking sick of that freaking word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. That is the meaning of polls that say Americans are tired of gridlock.
Edited on Thu Jan-28-10 09:43 PM by No Elephants
Of nothing getting done in Washington. Etc. Americans may not put the word "partisanship" together with "nothing getting done," but that is a nice word for why nothing gets done.

Republicans, on the other hand, love it when nothing gets done. Well, nothing but tax cuts and corporate welfare and unchecked military spending. (You can tell that by watching where they applauded and did not applaud during their highly partisan reactions to the SOTU.) That's why Republicans just love thwarting attempts by Democrats to be bipartisan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beartracks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
11. "Agree with us on everything, THEN we can be bipartisan!" Huh? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlingBlade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. What, Ya Mean get even Further to the Right than he
already is ???

WTF. Why not just start passing out the Swastikas right now you bunch of fucking slack jawed imbeciles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
13. all his "changes" for THEM have brought him failure and failure for the people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AKing Donating Member (125 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
14. Translation: Their way or the highway
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MUAD_DIB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
15. There's only one response for this type of behavior.

R E C O N C I L I A T I O N
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. I believe that only works for budget-related law. It won't work for establishing
new law for the insurance industries, stopping them from refusing to provide services.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. Are you sure?
TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 17A > SUBCHAPTER I > § 644Prev | Next § 644. Extraneous matter in reconciliation legislation
How Current is This? (a) In general
When the Senate is considering a reconciliation bill or a reconciliation resolution pursuant to section 641 of this title (whether that bill or resolution originated in the Senate or the House) or section 907d of this title, upon a point of order being made by any Senator against material extraneous to the instructions to a committee which is contained in any title or provision of the bill or resolution or offered as an amendment to the bill or resolution, and the point of order is sustained by the Chair, any part of said title or provision that contains material extraneous to the instructions to said Committee as defined in subsection (b) of this section shall be deemed stricken from the bill and may not be offered as an amendment from the floor.
(b) Extraneous provisions
(1)
(A) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a provision of a reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution considered pursuant to section 641 of this title shall be considered extraneous if such provision does not produce a change in outlays or revenues, including changes in outlays and revenues brought about by changes in the terms and conditions under which outlays are made or revenues are required to be collected (but a provision in which outlay decreases or revenue increases exactly offset outlay increases or revenue decreases shall not be considered extraneous by virtue of this subparagraph);
(B) any provision producing an increase in outlays or decrease in revenues shall be considered extraneous if the net effect of provisions reported by the committee reporting the title containing the provision is that the committee fails to achieve its reconciliation instructions;
(C) a provision that is not in the jurisdiction of the committee with jurisdiction over said title or provision shall be considered extraneous;
(D) a provision shall be considered extraneous if it produces changes in outlays or revenues which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
(E) a provision shall be considered to be extraneous if it increases, or would increase, net outlays, or if it decreases, or would decrease, revenues during a fiscal year after the fiscal years covered by such reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution, and such increases or decreases are greater than outlay reductions or revenue increases resulting from other provisions in such title in such year; and
(F) a provision shall be considered extraneous if it violates section 641 (g) of this title.
(2) A Senate-originated provision shall not be considered extraneous under paragraph (1)(A) if the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on the Budget and the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee which reported the provision certify that:
(A) the provision mitigates direct effects clearly attributable to a provision changing outlays or revenues and both provisions together produce a net reduction in the deficit;
(B) the provision will result in a substantial reduction in outlays or a substantial increase in revenues during fiscal years after the fiscal years covered by the reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution;
(C) a reduction of outlays or an increase in revenues is likely to occur as a result of the provision, in the event of new regulations authorized by the provision or likely to be proposed, court rulings on pending litigation, or relationships between economic indices and stipulated statutory triggers pertaining to the provision, other than the regulations, court rulings or relationships currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office for scorekeeping purposes; or
(D) such provision will be likely to produce a significant reduction in outlays or increase in revenues but, due to insufficient data, such reduction or increase cannot be reliably estimated.
(3) A provision reported by a committee shall not be considered extraneous under paragraph (1)(C) if
(A) the provision is an integral part of a provision or title, which if introduced as a bill or resolution would be referred to such committee, and the provision sets forth the procedure to carry out or implement the substantive provisions that were reported and which fall within the jurisdiction of such committee; or
(B) the provision states an exception to, or a special application of, the general provision or title of which it is a part and such general provision or title if introduced as a bill or resolution would be referred to such committee.
(c) Extraneous materials
Upon the reporting or discharge of a reconciliation bill or resolution pursuant to section 641 of this title in the Senate, and again upon the submission of a conference report on such a reconciliation bill or resolution, the Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall submit for the record a list of material considered to be extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) of this section to the instructions of a committee as provided in this section. The inclusion or exclusion of a provision shall not constitute a determination of extraneousness by the Presiding Officer of the Senate.
(d) Conference reports
When the Senate is considering a conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in relation to, a reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution pursuant to section 641 of this title, upon—
(1) a point of order being made by any Senator against extraneous material meeting the definition of subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), or (b)(1)(F) of this section, and
(2) such point of order being sustained,
such material contained in such conference report or amendment shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed, without intervening action or motion, to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of only that portion of the conference report or House amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such motion in the Senate shall be debatable for two hours. In any case in which such point of order is sustained against a conference report (or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be in order.
(e) General point of order
Notwithstanding any other law or rule of the Senate, it shall be in order for a Senator to raise a single point of order that several provisions of a bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report violate this section. The Presiding Officer may sustain the point of order as to some or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order. If the Presiding Officer so sustains the point of order as to some of the provisions (including provisions of an amendment, motion, or conference report) against which the Senator raised the point of order, then only those provisions (including provisions of an amendment, motion, or conference report) against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order shall be deemed stricken pursuant to this section. Before the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may move to waive such a point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions against which the point of order was raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in accordance with the rules and precedents of the Senate. After the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions on which the Presiding Officer ruled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
20. Offer them more? How about if Obama offers Boehner more sun in Ohio?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onisac Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
23. PLEASE no more
This bi-partisan BS has GOT to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abq e streeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
25. abq e streeter: republican party must cease to exist if they want to end partisanship
Edited on Thu Jan-28-10 09:55 PM by abq e streeter
yeah, I know, not even remotely clever, but I tried. ( and apparently not very hard)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
D23MIURG23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
26. Translation: "Fully embrace the republican agenda, and we'll think about working with you"
I hope his speech calls for them to go cheney themselves. I don't know why he would even be dignifying republican calls for him to "change course" with a response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
27. "[W]e're not going to roll over on our principles."
Republicans refuse to become like Democrats. I wish the reverse were equally true.

Apparently, the only way Democrats think they can win elections in a handful of states is to subject all of America to Republican rule, no matter whether (R)s or (D)s are in the majority. They have sold the country on this defeatism and they have also been selling Republican ideals when they campaign and rationalize their own actions.

If Republican legislation is going to be coming out of Washington, D.C., it should come out on the RNC's dime, not ours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
28. Mr President what don't you understand Bi-Partisanship doesn't work...
become more like LBJ and break some arms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
29. No, they need to change and get off their collective asses and govern.
Scumbags.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
30. All this week GOP pundits were saying Obama had to changed course and move to the right.
I think they want to permanently want to move the "centre" to the right. Good luck with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. That was done years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #36
43. Obama today said to the gop that his HCR plan was "pretty centrist". I was just saying
the GOP would move that centre more towards no taxes for rich people and all the policy, like anti gay marriage, that flows from that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
31. YOU change to what WE want!!!
What part of "bi" partisanship are these assholes missing?!!!

and the amerikkkan sheeple will lap this up - still...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
32. They lost the election that counted. Don't they understand that?
Obama should not even be talking to these people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AsahinaKimi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
33. The Democrats are in charge...
Edited on Thu Jan-28-10 10:18 PM by AsahinaKimi
Maybe its time to start holding Republican's head "under water" till they start blowing bubbles. They are still sucking! (metaphorically speaking)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
concerned1 Donating Member (54 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-28-10 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
34. but REAL bipartisanship won't be granted until Obama apologizes to Rush for winning the election
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
35. Republican bipartisanship: [re·pub'·li·can bi·par'ti·san·ship' ]
Edited on Fri Jan-29-10 08:34 AM by tanyev
noun. When the Democrats do whatever the Republicans want. See also Republican majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
38. “We’re going to look for common ground, but we’re not going to roll over on our principles.”
Oh, the principles that brought the world economy to its knees, drove up unemployment, widened the wealth gap, etc.

Those principles?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
39. elections have consequences. fuckwads. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
montieg Donating Member (454 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
40. Reminds me
Puts me in mind of what my buddy said the other day: "When my wife and I disagree on something we always compromise. We do what she wants."
That's the Nay Party attitude: bipartisanship means you do what we want. Screw 'em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
42. that's pretty much the DEFINITION of PARTISANSHIP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
44. President Obama is who he is and I
know Obama doesnn't expect them to be anything than what they are.

We have an impasse..just run over them..they're in the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
classysassy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
45. Year one
Alright Mr President,you tried to meet those fuckers half way,they are not interested in anything you have to offer,they take their orders from Rush and fox snooze,screw them,you are wasting your time trying to get them to do what is good for the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC