Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... rk-romney/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Five days before the election, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has ruled out trying to work with Mitt Romney should he win next week.

Read more: Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... z2B5epfMgy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

"Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable," Mr. Reid said in a statement on Friday, trying to puncture Mr. Romney's closing election argument that he'll be able to deliver on the bipartisanship President Obama promised in 2008 but has struggled to live up to.

IMO that makes the Dems look far worse than Romney.

Well, truth be told, after Obamacare in the first year, what exactly have Senate Democrats been passing anyway? I blame Reid (along with Pelosi) for souring Obama's first year anyway, and I haven't seen much leadership from his position anytime since. But the fact that they won't work with a potential President Romney isn't really news - they haven't been working with President Obama to pass things either.

GannonFan wrote:Well, truth be told, after Obamacare in the first year, what exactly have Senate Democrats been passing anyway? I blame Reid (along with Pelosi) for souring Obama's first year anyway, and I haven't seen much leadership from his position anytime since. But the fact that they won't work with a potential President Romney isn't really news - they haven't been working with President Obama to pass things either.

I just want this easily accessible in the event that it's needed. Mitch said is 2 years into Obamas term.

Ibanez wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... rk-romney/

Five days before the election, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has ruled out trying to work with Mitt Romney should he win next week.

Read more: Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... z2B5epfMgy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

No different than what republcans said to Obama.

And exactly what is wrong with Washington.

Congressional job approval is at 17%. Wonder why?

89Hen wrote:Congressional job approval is at 17%. Wonder why?

That 17% includes all congressional employees and their families. I refuse to believe anyone thinks they've done a half ass job let alone a good job.

Hopefully Mitt will have both houses
So it will be interesting to see if he squanders the opportunity like BHO did
Don't think he will

dbackjon wrote:

Ibanez wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... rk-romney/

No different than what republcans said to Obama.

And exactly what is wrong with Washington.

But that's the thing a President should be able to confront and deal with. Congress is always going to push back and resist, even your own party is going to do that. They're all politicians and they are all looking to get their piece of the pie and get re-elected in 2 or 6 years, depending on the specific chamber.

But when you have guys like McConnell and Reid (showing that neither party is any more obstinate than the other) both putting their feet down and saying they won't work with the other guy, then the President needs to bring that dispute out into public and keep the light on it as long as need be. Argue your position, cajole, politic, negotiate, etc, to get something done. And it needs to be out in public for both sides to see - far too often lately, as things have gotten so polarizingly partisan, everyone only speaks to their own groups. You see it on these message boards too - people only want to listen to people that they already agree with. Of course, that's easier and simpler to go through life not being challenged, but it doesn't help much when looking for solutions.

IMO, Obama should be fighting more and getting his hands dirty legislatively to get things done, even if they end up not being exactly what he wanted to get done when he proposed it. The President used to take the lead with regards to policy and introducing legislation - I think Obama's not done enough in that regard and has hurt himself by sticking to the idea that Congress needs to generate the legislation. Take the lead, champion something, and work with Congress. If McConnell doesn't want to play along, go to the media (all the media, not just MSNBC) and argue your case. Invite MConnell to do the same. If it's just obstinancy, that'll come through and a McConnell will look the weaker for it. If the stubborness has some validity, get to a compromise and work it out. But letting guys like McConnell and Reid behave like little children and then not get called to task for it is shameful. Engage them, expose them, and get things done. Just using that childness behavior be an election cycle selling point makes you just as political as they are, but not any better at getting things done.

-
Reid wasn't able to work with BHO either
two budgets proposed by Obama and zero Dems in the senate voted for it

Bronco wrote:-
Reid wasn't able to work with BHO either
two budgets proposed by Obama and zero Dems in the senate voted for it

well, 4 budgets proposed that were never passed.

This is just crazy. We all know that only Republicans are obstructionist.

Bronco wrote:Hopefully Mitt will have both houses
So it will be interesting to see if he squanders the opportunity like BHO did
Don't think he will

Opportunity to do what? Ban abortion? Declare war on Iran?

Grizalltheway wrote:

Bronco wrote:Hopefully Mitt will have both houses
So it will be interesting to see if he squanders the opportunity like BHO did
Don't think he will

Opportunity to do what? Ban abortion? Declare war on Iran?

1st two years getting Obama care passed by hook and crook instead of working on the economy

Bronco wrote:Hopefully Mitt will have both houses
So it will be interesting to see if he squanders the opportunity like BHO did
Don't think he will

Not likely. There is a good chance he can win the Presidency but the GOP won't get all 3.

Bronco wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Opportunity to do what? Ban abortion? Declare war on Iran?

1st two years getting Obama care passed by hook and crook instead of working on the economy

I mean what is Romney going to accomplish if the GOP has that much control, other than the things I mentioned? I don't see anything to indicate that it's going to turn around if he's elected.

Just to note:

The headline is misleading - Reid said he would not work with Romney to pass his conservative agenda - well, duh.

dbackjon wrote:No different than what republcans said to Obama.

And exactly what is wrong with Washington.

I disagree. It's what's awesome about Washington. The less the executive and legislative branches in the government work together, the less they'll accomplish and the less they'll interfere with our lives. It's exactly what the founding fathers would've wanted. I hope if the Dems win the presidency, the Republicans control the house and vice-versa.

Plus I trust the judicial branch will (eventually) right any wrongs pertaining to civil rights.

∞∞∞ wrote:

dbackjon wrote:No different than what republcans said to Obama.

And exactly what is wrong with Washington.

I disagree. It's what's awesome about Washington. The less the executive and legislative branches in the government work together, the less they'll accomplish and the less they'll interfere with our lives. It's exactly what the founding fathers would've wanted. I hope if the Dems win the presidency, the Republicans control the house and vice-versa.

Plus I trust the judicial branch will (eventually) right any wrongs pertaining to civil rights.

I've always prefered it when both parties share at least some of the power. If something is clearly the right thing to do it will happen; otherwise they each limit the damage that the other party can do.

dbackjon wrote:Just to note:

The headline is misleading - Reid said he would not work with Romney to pass his conservative agenda - well, duh.

That's a copout - you can read into the GOP's obstructionism that they weren't trying to not work with Obama, what they were really doing was not working with his liberal agenda. I mean, if Obama wanted to pass a very conservative-leaning piece of legislation I'm sure they'd be all for it.

BlueHen86 wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: I disagree. It's what's awesome about Washington. The less the executive and legislative branches in the government work together, the less they'll accomplish and the less they'll interfere with our lives. It's exactly what the founding fathers would've wanted. I hope if the Dems win the presidency, the Republicans control the house and vice-versa.

Plus I trust the judicial branch will (eventually) right any wrongs pertaining to civil rights.

I've always prefered it when both parties share at least some of the power. If something is clearly the right thing to do it will happen; otherwise they each limit the damage that the other party can do.

The right thing is to balance our budget and avoid the cuts that are pending January 1. I don't see them playing nice to accomplish this. Congress sets the agenda, holds us hostage and we do nothing.