Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info
TOPIC: "The Barack-Bill Parallel" (By Eleanor Clift, Newsweek 2/19/10)


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
"The Barack-Bill Parallel" (By Eleanor Clift, Newsweek 2/19/10)
Permalink  
 


newsweek_logo.jpg

"


The Barack-Bill Parallels

The 2010 midterms are looking a lot like the 1994 election. Why that might not be bad for Obama.


Florida Senate candidate and tea-party darling Marco Rubio is riding the wave of what he calls "the single greatest pushback in American history." While his view of history and the impact of other populist movements can be debated, there's no doubt that Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts has thrust Senate Democrats into a deep panic. They complain they have no message and no leadership, and they're angry at their leader, Harry Reid, and at President Obama, when their own failure to act is a big part of the public's dissatisfaction with Washington.

A mistake that Senate Democrats made, and that many wish they could take back, was their support for the Iraq War. They doubted the evidence for war but feared Republicans on national security, and they were mousetrapped. Now they've fallen into the same dynamic on health care. They're afraid of the Republicans and the tea-party cries of government takeover and socialism. Their failure to act cohesively to pass legislation is turning their worst fears into a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Emphasis added)

[SNIP]

Obama's tenure so far is strikingly similar to '93 and '94 when another young Democratic president entered office with high expectations and soon found himself down in the polls and battling a wave of conservative sentiment. The advisers around Obama would never admit it, but losing one or even both houses of Congress might be better for Obama than the gridlock paralyzing his agenda. History in our partisan age suggests that for a president to be truly successful and get big legislative achievements, a divided Congress may be necessary. Only then does each party have some stake in governing, and maneuvering room to compromise. (Emphasis added)

Clinton never would have been able to sign welfare reform if the Democrats controlled Congress, and the same is true of the balanced budget that Clinton achieved in '97. These were Republican initiatives that many Democrats would have resisted. It seems absurd that with 59 votes in the Senate, Obama can't get health-care reform done. That's because embedded in that 59 are a number of Democrats who will not vote for health care again. There's a different mindset among Democrats in February than December—they're looking out for themselves, not for him, and they're thinking parochially when it comes to legislation. If Obama wants a jobs bill, he will have to go up to Capitol Hill and be engaged and tell the Democrats what he must have for his political survival—and for theirs, come November. (Emphasis added)

"

Full article.
====================

Good read.  It's true. Loosing one or both the houses gives Pres.Obama the excuse he needs with his base to move to the center and go bipartisan.  That will do a lot of good to his Presidency... if he does indeed move to the center.

-- Edited by Sanders on Saturday 20th of February 2010 01:38:14 PM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!


Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 2818
Date:
Permalink  
 

It worked for Bill because Bill was willing to listen to the American people Obama thinks he is going to make everything alright because after all the Dems have him. What a bozo the clown

__________________

4459303562_3f593359a2_m.jpg



Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 798
Date:
Permalink  
 

It's all about leadership, something Obama lacks.

__________________


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 1191
Date:
Permalink  
 

I never understood why someone like Bill Clinton took money away from moms that could have stayed home with their preschool children.  Now I know the Republicans had a strong hand in that.  (Could be wrong about the children's age - don't know everything about legislation.)

__________________

Barack/Barry:  If you're NOT LEGIT, then you MUST QUIT!!



Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 2818
Date:
Permalink  
 

Alex wrote:

I never understood why someone like Bill Clinton took money away from moms that could have stayed home with their preschool children.  Now I know the Republicans had a strong hand in that.  (Could be wrong about the children's age - don't know everything about legislation.)



If your talking about welfare reform its simple the Liberals in congress want you to believe that Bill Clinton and the Republicans took money away from women who only wanted to stay home with their kids.  That is a lie
Welfare before reform was slavery pure and simple.  People couldn't get jobs or get married or even own a car.  All this for about $400 a month, food stamps, and medical assistence. It kept women locked in poverty with no way out.  People like me who wanted to get a job had to sacrifiace food stamps and medicade for myself and my children in order to survive and have money for other things and actually make a living.
I want you to picture someone coming into your home and telling you your husband has to move out today and that he can never move back in or you will lose all your income and your Medical.  I don't think that you or anyone else would like that.  That is how we were forced to live for decades.  The Republicans and Bill Clinton were right on this issue. 
Bill Clinton wanted welfare reform more then likely because his mother was on "the dole" when he was a baby.  That was before food and medical.

 



__________________

4459303562_3f593359a2_m.jpg



Platinum

Status: Offline
Posts: 201
Date:
Permalink  
 





Hillarysmygirl16 wrote:


Alex wrote:

I never understood why someone like Bill Clinton took money away from moms that could have stayed home with their preschool children.  Now I know the Republicans had a strong hand in that.  (Could be wrong about the children's age - don't know everything about legislation.)



If your talking about welfare reform its simple the Liberals in congress want you to believe that Bill Clinton and the Republicans took money away from women who only wanted to stay home with their kids.  That is a lie
Welfare before reform was slavery pure and simple.  People couldn't get jobs or get married or even own a car.  All this for about $400 a month, food stamps, and medical assistence. It kept women locked in poverty with no way out.  People like me who wanted to get a job had to sacrifiace food stamps and medicade for myself and my children in order to survive and have money for other things and actually make a living.
I want you to picture someone coming into your home and telling you your husband has to move out today and that he can never move back in or you will lose all your income and your Medical.  I don't think that you or anyone else would like that.  That is how we were forced to live for decades.  The Republicans and Bill Clinton were right on this issue. 
Bill Clinton wanted welfare reform more then likely because his mother was on "the dole" when he was a baby.  That was before food and medical.

 



Right on I think we wrote about this early.  Plain and simple welfare broke up families and kept them home.  I work in the financial aid office and even now people (mothers)who recieve foodshare and state medical benifits for there children aren't allowed to go to school fulltime because of  the number of hours they are required to look for work and other programs they have to participate it.  I always tell them if it was me I would try and find a part time job and screw the state why be a slave to them and have them tell you how long you have to work.  It's a catch 22 you can't even better yourself.  Besides a quiet as it's kept welfare was started back during WWII when food rations were given out to women who were left at home while the men who use to bring in the money were at war.  It was never something that was suppose to be  permit way of living.

 



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard