Stupid Logic

By
Currently, it goes like this:

"It doesn't matter how many overtures and concessions President Obama and Congressional Democrats make...if the Republicans and Congress vote 'no' or refuse to help, then it's not bi-partisan."

Um...no.

Bi-partisan is coming together on issues that both (or multiple, depending on the government) parties can agree to. I think everyone agrees that something needs to be done about the country's failing economy. Where the split is the solution: Obama wants to do things like aid for education and jobs to repair our crumbling infrastructure; the GOP wants more tax cuts for the wealthy.

In other words: New ideas versus Old Ideas.

At least three things are getting in the way of the Republicans in Congress ability to use reason:
  1. They fear that any success of the bill will be attributed to Obama and the Democrats (read: the Dems will win more elections).
  2. They refuse to acknowledge the flaws of the Bush 43 Financial Agenda.
  3. They believe if they don't just disagree with everything coming from the Democratic side they will loose the support of their crazy base.

More to the point, they fear that Obama will do to them what they (and G.W. Bush) did to the Democrats: use the veil of bi-partisanship to get normally questionable legislation passed, then heap every negative result of said legislation (or executive initiative) on the Democrats. They believe that the Democrats are as nasty and vindictive as they are, and they're trying to hold it down until the 2010 election season officially gets underway.

When you get past their stupid logic for not supporting an increasingly necessary piece of legislation, it's not hard to understand why the modern-day GOP is in such dire straits: they don't care about governing as much as they do about campaigning.

One more thing: If Obama has to get this passed without one Republican vote, then so be it.

P.S. Remembering the Bush 43 definition of "bipartisanship" in all it's glory.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Five Actresses Who Should Be Considered For A Wonder Woman Movie

By
Image
For being DC Comic's most recognizable female character, WW has been given the cinematic shaft for a long time. We've seen two incarnations of Lois Lane and countless Bat-groupies, but not one decent pitch for the Amazon in the big screen. And we're talking about a character who made armored underwear cool waaay before anyone heard of Princess Leia. So here's one humble man's suggestion for any future casting of the Wonder Woman movie. I really have three rules for casting: she has to be at least 5'10", under 45 and attractive enough to pass for a princess. Sandrine Holt - Age: 36, Height: 5'10", Relevant Movie/TV Roles: Resident Evil: Apocalypse & Mutant X Pros : She's played both a (doomed) reporter and a person with superpowers, so if she can play both, she's a shoe-in. Plus she's probably the least-known actress on this list, so they can two movies out of her cheap. Cons : While D.C. isn't as star-crazy as Marvel when it co
Read more

5 Actresses Who Deserve a Bigger Break

By
Image
Being the avid movie watcher that I am, I've noticed that more than one talented actress has been passed over for other talent. And by "talent," I mean, "sex tapes that 'accidentally' made it to the Internet." Well, here's one man's humble attempt to rectify the situation. The following ladies are not only talented, but beautiful. Hollywood: get off your ass and give these women more roles. DANIELLE FISHEL Noticeable TV/Movie Appearances: Boy Meets World; both National Lampoon's Dorm Dazes The delightful Ms. Fishel has the distinction of having the weirdest named ever associated with a smart-yet-hot character (or maybe I'm the only one who has a problem saying "Topanga!" whilst in the throes of passion) as well as participating in the death of the National Lampoon Series (I personally thought it died with Chevy Chase's career; who knew?). If you were to use her IMBD page as a reference, the only real fault people seem to hav
Read more