Dream GOP Candidate for Obama in 2012?
- Thread starter Bar Sinister
- Start date
Um, I was referring to leadership of the country. I believe that would involve the President, would it not?
Oh, oh...and if one party does not have the majority? Is it still a perfect system? I mean, I'm OK with it as is, but I assume you are not.
Or, it could be that the system is OK and the leadership is "broken", to use your terminology. I am still having some trouble figuring out how you can "break" a system simply by changing the players around.
you can break the system by disregarding the tradition. In Canada, if a PM starts using NW Clause every time courts overrule him, or if Senate starts exercising all the powers it has, Canadian system will break down.
It is the same with filibuster. When both parties use filibuster as a matter of routine, when one party blocks whatever other aprty proposes out of politics (ad nothing else), the system breaks down.
Oh, of course you were. You wouldn't dream of criticizing Republicans now, would you?
But the fault lies with both parties, both have abused filibuster in recent years. Democrats abused it during Bush era and Republicans are returning the favor now. Democrats will again return the favour when Republicans control the Senate.
I think it is time to get rid of the filibuster. Democrats seem to have some regard for the tradition, Republicans are more ready to disregard tradition when ti suits the politically. It is quite possible that next time they control the senate, they will get rid of the filibuster.
Oh gooooosh. <typed in exasperation> blahblahblahblah...same ol Joey. Droning on and on.
I was merely pointing out Barney Franks opinion to which you stated his are irrelevant whereas yours are not.
BTW...Frank's is from a different district which is highly liberal, wealthy and arrogant and will elect Barney Franks, former operator of a DC Brothel till he decides to retire. You clearly lack knowledge of US politics.
My Congressman is Steve Lynch and if the Democrat Party here in Massachusetts had any sense they wouldn't have pulled the rug out from his Senatorial Campaign. Instead they put ultra arrogant liberal Martha up and both she and the whole Democrat Party and Obama Administration was embarrassed.
So, Barney Franks from Massachusetts will continue to he the thorn in the flesh, will continue to be the object of 'two minute hate' by the Republicans? Oh, the shame, the ignominy of it.
So let's see, if I take a factually-correct approach to your hypothesis that the US system is broken (or could be) and Canada's is not broken (and is more difficult to break)...um, it doesn't add up. You're saying it would take 2 entire parties in the U.S. to break their system, but ours could be broken by one person - the PM.
Looks to me like ours is more fragile, based on what you've presented here.
But aren't his opinions irrelevant?
Go on Joey...Move them goal posts! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Here's what I said:
And you replied:
I was referring to the system of running the country. That includes the President, right? He's recognized by some as being "the leader of the free world" so I think I'm safe in assuming that he is also the leader of the U.S. I've even heard that cool tune "Hail to the Chief" played when he makes his entrance to a big event.
So now, if he's the leader of the country, and there is a problem with leadership of the entire governing process, would it not follow that it would be up to him to at least play a role in fixing it? Kind of like what he did when he addressed the House the other day. Like ol' Harry used to say, "The Buck Stops Here." I think that implies taking some responsibility for the big picture.
So, where's the leadership? Why is the fighting taking place? Simple questions, really.
And you replied:
I was referring to the system of running the country. That includes the President, right? He's recognized by some as being "the leader of the free world" so I think I'm safe in assuming that he is also the leader of the U.S. I've even heard that cool tune "Hail to the Chief" played when he makes his entrance to a big event.
So now, if he's the leader of the country, and there is a problem with leadership of the entire governing process, would it not follow that it would be up to him to at least play a role in fixing it? Kind of like what he did when he addressed the House the other day. Like ol' Harry used to say, "The Buck Stops Here." I think that implies taking some responsibility for the big picture.
So, where's the leadership? Why is the fighting taking place? Simple questions, really.
Our system is not fragile, counrtyboy, far from it. In Canada, we respect tradition; politicians here usually do not disregard tradition for political gain. Harper had to promise not to use the NW clause willy nilly before Ontario would give him a minority government. Indeed, it was Randy White’s interview, where he claimed that Conservatives will use the NW Clause whenever they were overruled by the courts, which contributed to Harper’s defeat and giving Martin the minority government.
Every democracy has some traditions which are held sacrosanct by the politicians. In Britain, House of Lords has about 1000 lords, yet only about 100 of them regularly attend the House of Lords sessions. If all the lords started attending, that will lead to chaos. PM appoints Lords from all the three parties, not just his own party. All these things are done by tradition.
We revere traditions in Canada and in Britain. In USA, they used to be that way. In the past filibuster was used sparingly. That regard for tradition has broken down in recent years. That is why the system is broken.
Oh, no doubt that is how it will work out, people will blame Obama. During Bush presidency, Democrats opposed him at every turn and then blamed him for not doing anything. Now Republicans are doing the same.
In 2012, people will judge Obama on his performance. The only problem for Republicans is that they probably won’t be able to put forth a vision for the country that people will like. That is why Obama will be very difficult to beat in 2012, unless economy is totally in the tank.
But in 2010, it will be very much as you say, Republicans will blame Obama for not doing anything and voters probably will agree with Republicans. Republicans may get away with it in 2010, but probably not in 2012.
Vision? That won't be a problem for the Republicans if they "see" (pun intended) the light and get Sarah to lead the charge. She has already proven her vision is above average. I believe she can "see" what's wrong with the Washington establishment (the old boys' club) and is enough of a newcomer to be able to make the difference in leadership required to straighten up the (unbroken) system.
Eight plus years ago some idiots were hoping that GW Bush would get the Republican nomination for President, being absolutely certain that the erudite Al Gore would make mionce meat of county bumpkin GW Bush.
We all know what happened.
Today, the same idiots are hell bent on repeating their idiocy. Obviously they are too stupid to learn from the lessons of history.
I would put my money on someone who can deliver a speech of her own words with only five words written on her palm to someone who needs to read someone else's words from a teleprompter.
We all know what happened.
Today, the same idiots are hell bent on repeating their idiocy. Obviously they are too stupid to learn from the lessons of history.
I would put my money on someone who can deliver a speech of her own words with only five words written on her palm to someone who needs to read someone else's words from a teleprompter.
And I would drive all the way to N.B. to see that...:lol::lol:
On another note...It seems that our local authority on "everything" doesn't realize yet that the Republic system of government in the US is working the way it's supposed to...filibuster and all...These checks an balance were put in by their founders to make sure that the government is run by the people...yet now some are trying to change it on the European model of democracy where after the election is over the people have no more say.
It's nice to see that a single mid term election of a senator can change the course of history.....That...is giving power to the people!
Last edited:
Now here I agree with you, I do hope Republicans nominate Joan of Arc. 71% of Americans think that she is not qualified to be the president (you probably don’t believe in the poll). She has even higher negatives among the women. She would mean an easy victory for Obama.
And again you are right; she won’t have to articulate any vision for USA. Her acolytes (26%) will vote for her without any vision, the rest of the electorate won’t vote for her with any vision.
Last edited: