We are where we are but did we have to be here?

[kentuck]

I like the President. I voted for the President. I will most likely vote for him again. But it is a fair question to ask if it could have or should have been different?

Most people vote from emotions, not from reasoned judgement. Would we not be in a better place today. politically speaking, if the President had not reached out his hand for "bi-partisanship" from the other side? Rather than looking for one or two Republicans to compromise with, would we not have done better to simply attack their obstruction and the mess they put us in?

Did we not pick them up off the ground and give them legitimacy? Would we not have been in a better place if we had laid this economy at the feet of the Republicans, rather than let them blame the President?

This is not about blame or even criticism. It is whether or not we are capable of accepting political reality. Yes, we will continue to support the Democrats and the President but did it have to be this way? I think that is a fair question.

[zipplewrath]

1. It's a very fair question

It's just a hard one to answer. It involves arguing that something else would have been "better" or different and one can never really "prove" such assertions.

[kentuck]

2. It is true that we cannot prove what has not been tried...

All we can do is interpret and define what has been tried.

[Tippy]

3. Time and time again the President sought bi-partisanship K&R

He had to know it was not going to work, and it didn't, that was why many bills he did pass were so waterd down, now Dems are complaiing. Even several Republicans are complaining. It was all part of their master plan. They hated Clinton too so we would have been in thie pickle either way. And the next time we have a Republican Pres. Democrats will work in a bi-partisan manner as they always have.

[el_bryanto]

6. Why did he have to know it wouldn't work? Or, to put it another way, was it a deliberate strategy

of sabatoge?

Bryant

[Tippy]

7. He knew right off he would get very little support from the Blue dogs....

[el_bryanto]

8. Probably - or at least he knew he would have to give up bits of his programs

to placate them. The question is, did he do it on purpose in order to see his programs get watered down?

Bryant

[RKP5637]

4. In short, we could have done better. n/t

[el_bryanto]

5. That is a very fair question

The question relates back to a judgement call; there are broadly three groups in this country - committed Democrats, committed Republicans, and everybody else. The question is how many are in the middle; how many voters can be swayed to vote Democratic, if we appear to be moderate or even a little conservative. The assessment of Clinton, Obama and Bush (in 2000) was that there are enough votes there that you can afford to write off some of your base to reach out to them (the base may not vote for you but certainly won't vote for the other guy).

After 9/11 Bush abandoned this strategy, and even when he was reaching out to the middle, legislatively he still worked for his goals (tax cuts, deregulation) pretty firmly.

Bryant

[bobbolink]

9. Concerning poverty, of course it DID NOT have to be this way. His supporters let him get away with

out even TALKING about poverty during his campaign, let him get away with NOT having any real programs to start with, and NOW.... he is getting away with shredding what is left of the safety net.

All because very, very few of you give one damn.

[blindpig]

10. Pretty much

As far as matters economic and foreign affairs go I think the agenda would be much the same, regardless of who won the primaries or general election.

Whoever is president, ya still work for Capital.