Obama can learn from Madison and craft a deal

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 10, 2012 12:03 a.m.

    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.

    Nov. 9, 2012 11:10 p.m.

    @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.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 10:52 p.m.

    @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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 9, 2012 6:21 p.m.


    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?

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 3:23 p.m.

    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 anything done?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 9, 2012 1:42 p.m.

    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.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 10:48 a.m.

    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.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    "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.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 9, 2012 7:14 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Nov. 9, 2012 6:15 a.m.

    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.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Nov. 9, 2012 12:49 a.m.

    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.