5 Responses to The Obama New Years Message

1. Jules Gordon says:

   January 3, 2009 at 11:44 am

   Your Honor,

   Bipartisan implies reaching agreement on common grounds, or one side’s acquiescence to the other.

   Now we know that Obama has the leadership responsibility and will be held responsible for the success for the next 4 or 8 years. He is ideologically a liberal, and will be expected to handle his tasks in the ideological manner dictate by the left wing coalition that put him in office, or else.

   That leaves the GOPers with two choices; acquiescences or intransigence.

   Just a little history: When George Bush took office-before 9/11, Iraq, WMD, Katrina, financial melt down et al, the Democratic Party decided to give President Bush a full court press for his entire presidency with much success.

   Now you and I know we are going to have serious differences in principle, ideology and process and each feels the adherence to that ideology is necessary for the success of our country.

   So the first question is; considering the success of this strategy, why shouldn’t GOPers apply this method in the Obama presidency?

   I personally would like to cooperate for a bipartisan solution. Unfortunately I want a no hold barred approach the union check off, the “fairness doctrine” and a host of other far left issues. GOPers should be obstinate when it comes to selection of supreme court judges. I am more than uncomfortable with these issues.

   Another problem is the evil twins of Palosi and Reid who will slam the opposition out of spite and fun.

   A disturbing scene is to see Corporations, Governors (including ours) and Mayors (did you supply a list?) lining up for a super welfare hand out. There will Pork galore.

   We are heading for inflation.

   Let’s hope Obama has the pragmatism that bipartisanship requires. My hopes are low.

   What do you think?

   Jules

   Jules

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. Jules Gordon says:

   January 5, 2009 at 3:02 pm

   Your Honor,

   An interesting observation. News Reports claim that Obama is losing support in the Muslim Countries due to his silence. They are disappointed because he is suppose to be the agent of “change”.

   This is what happens when you run on undefined principles, others get to define them for you.

   Jules

   I will get the Guardian UL so you can read th story.

   Jules

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. Jules Gordon says:

   January 5, 2009 at 3:03 pm

   Your Honor,

   Here it is.

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/04/obama-gaza-israel

   Jules

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. Fred Mertz says:

   January 5, 2009 at 4:08 pm

   I’ll be curious to see if he’s able to break through directly to the “American People” (boy, do I hate that phrase), much as Mr. Reagan did, and explain the situation we are in, the causes of the situation, and exactly what his administration is doing to get us out of it, and get his buy in that way.

   I think if he lets Congress push the agenda, or tries to find the middle ground between both extreme wings, he/we lose.

   Of course, what’s he’s going to have to say is going to be a bitter pill: much of what we’ve been told economically since 1980 has been wrong, wrong, wrong. Government is not evil. Government is one leg of a three legged stool (the others being corporations and individuals), each of which have an interdependent role to play. Unless and until everyone does what they are supposed to, we will all suffer.

   (PS: jules – you’re reading the Guardian? careful, consorting with the enemy! …)

   -FM

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. Jules Gordon says:

   January 6, 2009 at 1:45 pm

   Fred,

   I googled Nancy Pelosi’s statement about the “culture of corruption”. The return was an article in the guardian. I spent two weeks doing consulting in England. I would not use the Guardian as a source myself.

   Thanks for the warning.

   Jules

   LikeLike

   Reply