Comments about ‘What others say: Political cooperation’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, May 31 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

It is great to see that some politicians see that they can do more for those they are elected to serve by on occasion reaching across the isle and partnering with the other side to get things done...good for Christie. Lets see of the Governor of Oklahoma has the same courage.. and put the people of her state ahead of petty partisanship. I would hope so.

Then again, the dear senator from Oklahoma questioned if the government could afford to render aid when it was being sent to the Northeast.... I wonder if his opinion has change now that the needs hits home.

riverofsun
St.George, Utah

Such a breath of fresh air!
Feeling like the time machine has taken me back. Such concepts being presented here!
Working together, foregoing egos, forgetting the power grabbing concept, helping mankind, considering their constituents.......
Can't go on, feeling like I'm going to cry.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Kinda nice, this cooperation thing.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

Christie is burning bridges with conservatives. Basically being seen slapping hands with the devil is no way to win the confidence of the masses. I am thinking that most people have no idea where Christie stands politically anymore. You have to be hot or cold - being luke warm you get thrown out with the dirty dish water.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@patriot – “Christie is burning bridges with conservatives. Basically being seen slapping hands with the devil is no way to win the confidence of the masses.”

Imagine focusing on the job at hand and taking help wherever you can get it regardless who knows what secret party handshake… what a novel concept.

And this is EXACTLY how you win the confidence of the masses… who you might lose confidence with is the fanatic purity police. And I say three cheers for that!!

Good job governor… now please put down Big Mac and hop back on that treadmill.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The first rule of politics is to get somebody else to pay for everything. Obama's mantra has been to "give" health-care and cell-phones and birth-control to everyone except the "rich guy" and then to have the "rich guy" pay for it. New Jersey's governor knew that if he told the citizens of his State to roll up their sleeves, to get to work and to clean-up and fix-up, that he would be out of a job. He knew that getting someone in Mississippi or Nevada or Utah to foot his State's clean-up/fix-up cost would make him a hero. His love of office was greater than his desire to inspire his people to grow up and face hardship. Obama was all too happy to oblige.

Do you think that either of them care that they took an opportunity away from the people of New Jersey to do something great even as they patted those poor people on the head, uttering, "There, there, don't worry. Uncle Sam will take care of you - in exchange for your dignity and for your freedom."

Republicantthinkstraigh
Anywhere but, Utah, Utah

Just give it up Patriot you are digging a bigger hole.

David
Centerville, UT

My recollection during the presidential campaign was that Romney's national and select state poll numbers were trending favorably for him until Hurricane Sandy devastated New Jersey and New York. As a Romney supporter I was perplexed by Gov. Christie's warmly extended hand and words towards Obama at this critical time in the campaign.

In hindsight, after the emotions of the campaign have subsided, I am grateful to see a display of bipartisanship to solve problems. We need more of this.

I understand that "necessity is the mother of invention". Obama needed Christie, and Christie needed Obama for their respective campaigns. They both did what was necessary to solidify their political careers. But I also believe that both did the right thing for the people of New Jersey. It isn't New Jersey's fault that the hurricane devastated them. Nor is it only their fault that our government is broke such that the $billions of aid adds to our tragic debt. It was right to help them.

We need more bipartisanship. We need resolution of serious problems facing our nation: social security & medicare solvency, overhaul of the tax code, balancing the budget, immigration...to name a few.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

Nicely said David... I was wondering when the adults would return to the conversation, and your comments are a welcome voice of reason.

At some point, partisan ship needs to stop when people are hurting. To have made the people of a state suffer needlessly to solely make political points would have been most unthinkable, and near immoral.

Thankfully the DN denied my emotional response to some very ..... well lets just say some comments that didn't show the same level of maturity that as David's did. I almost showed off my less than mature side... but the moderators saved me from myself.

There are times when the people of this country should come before political gamesmanship. That is why some of the comments only a few months ago by elected national representatives from the very states that find themselves in dire need seem to ring so morally bankrupt. Never - ever - should partisanship be placed before helping out those in need. Save the grandstanding for after the red cross has gone home.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"There are times when the people of this country should come before political gamesmanship. "

Yup. And that time is today, yesterday and tomorrow.

I cannot believe that Christie is in hot water with the GOP for doing his job.
The problem is that some people who call themselves "patriots" would rather our politicians be partisan in any and every issue than to just do whats best for America.

Both parties do good and bad things. Both R and D legislators do good and bad things.

The hyper partisanship in this country is doing great damage.

Are you one of those partisans that are destroying the country?

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Note to Mike Richards. Most Americans believe that the phrase "one nation under God" means I've got your back friend. We're in this together. If we pool our assets and efforts I can help you when you need it and you can help me when I need it. And just a guess but I'll bet those thousands of people who spent hundreds of hours cleaning up and physically rebuilding don't think they have missed an opportunity to do something great, they just needed a little help. Yea, and I know, I know, show me where in the constitution it says we can send tax dollars collected in Utah to a starving and freezing child in New Jersey?

KJB1
Eugene, OR

Mike Richards:

New Jersey receives 61 cents back for every dollar in taxes paid (The lowest return in the nation.) Utah, on the other hand, receives $1.07 back for every dollar it pays.

Who's bailing out who again?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

@KJB1,

The Federal Government pays $3.6 BILLION annually to Hill Air Force Base, or about $1,000 for every man, woman and child living in Utah. That money is authorized by the Constitution for DEFENSE. It is not welfare. Take that figure out of the equation and then tell us how much Utah receives. In case you don't know it, Utah is noted for having a willing and able workforce. Our symbol is the Beehive. We don't lounge around and wait for others to come clean up our homes and businesses. We actively export humanitarian aid all over the world.

After Katrina, one newspaper reported that two churches bused in thousands of volunteers to assist with the cleanup and that those two churches air-lifted and delivered by truck, food, clothing and humanitarian supplies. Those two churches were the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Mormons.

When the Teton Dam burst in Idaho, the LDS people were counciled to NOT accept government aid. We exported volunteers for months to assist the flood victims.

Don't lecture the people of Utah about work ethic and about living charitable lives.

the old switcharoo
mesa, AZ

Utah, like most states is taking federal money for schools, roads, public parks, military bases, EPA cleanup funds and the big HUGE welfare going to Utah farmers. You may have been counseled, but you're not doing it.

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

My impression from these posts is that many of you are probably Democrat and Obama supporters. That being said, just remember that it was the Democrats and Obama that did not want to work with the Republicans at all when passing Obamacare. Political compromise is a two way street, not just the Republicans giving in to Democrats, which is what it always seems to be. And Mitt Romney was well known for working with the Democrats when he was governor of MA. That didn't get him much sway with the Democrats when he ran for President. So, Christie is not likely going to get much Democrat support should he run for President. So, politically, what is the upside for Christie?

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Happy?

I have voted R and I have voted D in presidential elections.

Christie would get a very serious look from me because of his fiscal conservative, social moderated stance as well as his willingness to put partisanship aside for the good of his constituents.

Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would not get my vote.

That is Christie's upside.

WHAT NOW?
Saint George, UT

@happy

My impression from your comments is that you are probably a Republican still smarting from Romney's second failure as a Presidential Candidate/Nominee.

The original idea for the ACA came from the Heritage Foundation and was promoted by Republicans.

Republicans have been trying to impeach President Obama since 1/20/09.

Republicans met before the inauguration, hatching a plan to make President Obama a one term President.

Your Senate has filibustered any legislation over 300 times.

Senate Minority Leader McConnell filibustered his own legislation.

Your House has wasted valuable time and resources, for example, voting over 35 times to repeal the ACA.

Upside for Christie?

Americans will vote for a person who is at least willing to work with the opposition.

As others have pointed out, Christie fits that description.

Bob Dole has said that Ronald Reagan would never make it as a modern day Republican.

If that becomes Christie's fate, he is clearly in good company.

Mickey Kovars
Tampa, FL

Christie's actions are what lead me to think that -- despite his obvious liabilities of weight and possibly temperament -- he has a good chance for president in 2016. He is serious on the fiscal issues -- witness his head-to-heads with Democrats and unions on the budget -- and moderate on social issues. That combination satisfies a lot of people. The Republican party is fading, it seems, and the Democrats are sinking in a swamp of corruption and identity politics. It is hard to say which is worse. If Christie could somehow get nominated -- in an environment which certainly tries to take out people like him -- he could win. It's time we had someone serious in the White House, for a change.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

"The Federal Government pays $3.6 BILLION annually to Hill Air Force Base, or about $1,000 for every man, woman and child living in Utah. That money is authorized by the Constitution for DEFENSE. It is not welfare. "

Real easy Mike Richards... (what, you think Utah is the only state with a large military base on it.... ) North Carolina has a far larger military presence than does Utah... and yet... it is a net contributor... not a taker like Utah. And do you really believe there is only two kinds of federal spend - defense (constitutional in your eyes), and everything else is welfare (unconstitutional in your eyes... if I read you correctly).

For 2009 - the last year total numbers are in Utah received 20.7 Billion in federal dollars, of which 3.8 of that was defense related. That means a little over 81% of federal dollars were spent on what you call welfare. Now this might shock you... but this is just a percentage points different than New Jersey. 91% of federal money spent in Idaho is none defense - and it is one of the per capita highest takers states out there.

No red blue bias here.

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

What Now??

Impeach Obama?? What are you talking about?? There has been no such action taken? Are you still smarting from when they did impeach Clinton?

Fillabustered legislation 300 times?? Really. Has Congress even been in session that many days to do that? Some of your stats seem right out of Move on or Huffington Post. In reality, you likely would not vote for Christie. Nor would you have voted for Reagan.

So Republicans don't need to try for your vote. They need their own base to come out, which they did not for Romney, as he got less votes than Mccain, and they need enough of the center, which determines all Presidential elections.

P.S. One reason the Republicans would never impeach Obama. BIDEN.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments