If anyone lost ground, it was Obama. He got 14% fewer votes compared to 2008.
People have seen his inability to do anything except threaten, and they stayed
away. 9,000,000 "voted" no confidence.
@mike richards I think spring street is being a little to nice considering
the GOP actually lost 10 seats in the house as well. Mike the GOP lost across
the board, its time for them to accept the fact that the people want a comprise
that must include budget cuts AND a raise in revenue.
@mike richards uniquely represented? Did you not bother voting in the
senate and presidential race? if you did not bother to make your voice heard in
those races it does not mean they do not represent those of us that did. you
seem to want to ignore the fact that republicans lost seats in the senate and
the presidential race.
Eric,What changed?Is Obama conciliatory? Is Reid? Is
Boehner?Exactly what has changed?Obama's first act
was to demand that the House do exactly what he tells them to do..Have we learned nothing?
Mike,So nothing will change? So what is it, is Obama a dangerous
socialist who is going to destroy America, or a do-nothing who won't get
This election changed nothing, so nothing will change. The Presidency is held
by a Democrat, just like before. The Senate is controlled by Democrats, just
like before. The House is controlled by Republicans, just like before.There is no mandate. It's going to be the same mess that we've had
for four years. Obama will continue to blame everyone but himself as he
continues to bully Congress and the Court. What he seems to not understand is
that there are three equal branches of government. He does not give marching
orders to Congress or to the Court. He does not tell the House what to do. The
PEOPLE, who are uniquely represented by the House, tell the House what to do.
The Senate does not tell the House what to do. The Senate is told by the
States, that they represent, what to do.Obama will do nothing but
spend money and blame others. That's what he has proven capable of doing
and that is all that he has proven capable of doing.
I have an idea: let Obama govern. Election night, President Obama called Mitch
McConnell and John Boehner, to begin talking about a plan to solve our fiscal
problems. Neither would so much as agree to come to the phone. And Boehner, in
his recent comments, seems to be under the misapprehension that Romney won. The election is over, and the President won. For the good of the nation, let
him govern. I agree some compromise should be sought on some of the details, but
the broadest shape of the budget should be the one proposed by the side that won
the election. That would include a modest tax increase for the wealthy, and
budget cuts largely from the military.
"The committee could be made up of respected former Senators such as Olympia
Snow, Richard Lugar, and Gordon Smith, on the Republican side."
Respected by whom? How generous! With representation like that Republicans may
as well not even attend the bargaining sessions. In fact I tend to agree with
some conservatives who say throw in the towel. Republicans get blamed for
everything anyway so let the Democrats have at it. Create your little Utopia.
Just agree beforehand that you are going to take responsibility for your actions
and stop blaming Bush or Congressional Republicans for being obstructionists.
Obama cannot compromise if Republicans refuse to work with him - after all, the
very definition of compromise is both sides giving a little and neither side
being fully happy with the outcome.
Generally, what I am hearing from both sides is that the election gave them a
"mandate". And they seem to take the concept of
"mandate" to mean that they don't need to compromise, or that
compromise means that the "other side" moves their way.That
mentality will get us nowhere (but off the cliff).Don't expect
your elected officials to hold out for everything you want. Give them some
latitude to compromise.
In today's Washington Post, opposite proposals to the Republican problem
emanating from the 2012 defeat were discussed in separate columns by two
conservative columnists. Charles Krauthammer argued that
Republicans should just put their heads down and forge ahead, continuing the
rightward shift, and ignore what others are saying. He basically urged that
Republicans follow the path of the Tea Party and pursue ideological purity. Michael Gerson argued for change and adopting an attitude of adjustment
and adaptation while maintaining core conservative principles. He spoke of
achieving accomodation and work to solve America's problems instead of
continuing on a path of obstructionism and alienation of the emerging
electorate.With these opposing views in mind, the observer can only
surmise: Let the bloodletting begin.