Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up (229 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I diagree.. he was out there.. (4+ / 0-)

    Michelle was out there..  She was here in Chicago multiple times with very emotional pleas.

    No.. it was not for lack of talking to the American people that this bill did not get done.  It was for lack of political skills.  This should have been a no-brainer.  He had prominent Republican Senators on his side and still could not make the deal - nay - refused to make a deal.

    •  I cannot believe this whole line of thinking. (26+ / 0-)

      NO President has ever had this total intransigence to deal with from the opposition party.  Yes, President Obama could spend more time glad handing the bastards, but you think it would help?  They would tell him "yes" and then vote "no."

      Any time he proposes an idea that originated with the Republican party, that same party opposes it.

      That's why he went with appeals to the public ... and now we know that Senators of both stripes do not listen to their constituents.

      Maureen Dowd is totally wrong.  I guess she and certain DKos posters would prefer the Lyndon Johnson/J Edgar Hoover approach.  I prefer to see the Republicans as they really are...it may hurt us in the short run but I still trust the Americans to throw the bastards out.  They saw through Mitt Romney, didn't they?

      If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. John F. Kennedy ( inaugural address, January 20, 1961)

      by Outraged Mom on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 05:53:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The problem is that short-term actions can result (0+ / 0-)

        in long-term consequences and short-term actions repeated over time become long-term.

        The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

        by accumbens on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 05:57:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Glad handing? No.. dealing? Yes. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        accumbens, joeff

        Everyone in Congress has their own priorities besides party ideology.

        First, and foremost, is getting re-elected.  Secondly is getting bills passed and making contributors (and even the electorate!) back at home happy.

        So, a savvy president would look at each Senator individually and determine what the deal would be.  Was Keystone XL not up for dealing in exchange for a vote on background checks?  EPA regs?  Greasing the skids for a pet project?

        For cripes sakes..  This isn't rocket science, but it seems beyond the grasp of this President.

        •  So you would cave on Keystone XL? I would not. (4+ / 0-)

          I understand wheeling and dealing.  I am just saying there is NOTHING these guys WANT more than saying "no" to President Obama.

          As for your contention that

          Everyone in Congress has their own priorities besides party ideology
          I am not sure that is true, anymore, except for lining their pockets with Koch money.

          If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. John F. Kennedy ( inaugural address, January 20, 1961)

          by Outraged Mom on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 06:08:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes.. I would deal Keystone XL! (0+ / 0-)

            By not dealing it, President Obama indicates gun registration is not as high a priority.

            And, btw, there are 2.5 million miles of pipeline in the US currently... with thousands of miles of it sitting right on top of the Ogallala aquifer.  The issue of this pipeline has been expanded way beyond its meaningfulness.  I would deal away this issue in a minute for legislation I felt so compassionately about as President Obama seems to be about gun control.

      •  Absulutely right on. (4+ / 0-)

        No president in the history of this country has had to face the No No about everything he says from the minority party.

        Blaming the 5 democrats who voted against the background check ammendment and not focusing on the 45 republicans is insane.

           The disconnect between 91% of Americans who want sensible gun laws and the Republican party who don't is where we should stay focused. Americans need to be reminded over and over that Republicans are putting guns in the hands of terrorists.

        You don't get to keep democracy unless you fight for it.

        by artebella on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 07:06:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And how much coverage did she get? (0+ / 0-)

      It's not that they didn't do anything, they just didn't do enough.  Childhood obesity is not - or is barely - controversial.  Gun control is and that means that Michelle or her husband hold back.

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

      by accumbens on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 05:54:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But Chicago already has the gun laws. If they (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bon Temps, andalusi

      want to speak to the public shouldn't they be in Texas, Florida, Georgia, West Virginia, Montana, Kansas, Virginia etc....these are the places in which the people need to hear what has to be said and get on board.  I personally would have liked to hear way more than I knew already. Limiting speeches and such to places that already have the strictest gun laws in the nation and have a high, high majority of the public completely on board is a waste of time IMO

      I am only for background checks and nothing more...I think the bill should have been a background check bill, yes or no, kind of thing.  All the others could have waited or been tried later. I can't support a bill that has way more going on than the 90% polled question of "background checks".  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site