I think Margaret and Helen get it

This pretty much sums up the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

For instance, I have learned that when Democrats over-reach, we end up providing health insurance coverage for children who have pre-existing conditions. When Republicans over-reach, we go to war.

via Higher Ground « Margaret and Helen.

Margaret and Helen are always a good read. The job of an elected official is to get work done, and that usually means compromise.

Since President Obama started, the GOP have intentionally mis-categorized every effort and labeled his policies both fascist and socialist. Which is ironic because many GOP members do know the difference. They have essentially voted NO for everything and have not cooperated at all.

So now they will control the House of Representatives. Will anything get done? President Clinton was in similar straits and he managed to hand President Bush a vibrant economy and surplus.

Let’s see how President Obama does in the face of such ignorance and shameful pandering.

2 thoughts on “I think Margaret and Helen get it

  1. Having conservatives in control of the House certainly contributed to Clinton’s surplus (and maybe his overall success). My dad likes to joke that Clinton was “the only Republican I ever voted for.” This is a reference to Clinton’s willingness to work with conservatives in the House (which resulted in things like welfare reform). One way to create a surplus is to cut spending, which is a tenant of the conservative ideology.

    It’s time to see how willing Obama is to reach across the aisle. If Clinton can find a way to work with the very same people that impeached him, then Obama should be able to figure out a way to get something done. Clinton wasn’t just a good president, he was a great president, due in part to his willingness to compromise. He didn’t view the 1994 mid-term elections as an obstacle, but rather an opportunity. Can Obama do the same?

    The Democrats labeled Bush’ policies as both “Fascist” and “War Mongering” many times over. Unfortunately, this name-calling and generalizing is part of the game (on both sides).

    For reference, I’m a liberal, but I’m also wary of writing Obama a blank check. Our population has doubled since 1955, but our Federal outlays double every 15 years or so. These spending habits represent an unsustainable psychology.

    1. Evan,

      Thanks for taking the time to comment, I do enjoy the feedback. I think your example using President Clinton is a good one and I hope President Obama can pull off the same productivity.

      I think part of the problem is that President Obama has reduced the deficit, approached the GOP several times, and been rebuked every time.

      All politicians want to get re-elected and retain their office. While the left has demonized President Bush, the GOP has done the same thing with one goal: get elected at any cost even if that means coddling “birthers”, “tenthers”, and “truthers”.

      I don’t believe the spending is a problem now because the alternative is to let the economy and our country suffer the consequences. No one likes the government bailing out any industries; they like lost jobs even less. And the government is turning a profit on it’s investments.

      Additionally, I find it hard to take when the last party in charge was spending more but pointlessly. I don’t buy the small government talk when they’ve done the reverse in the past.

      I suspect that at some point the GOP will cooperate and get work done. Just like the Democrats, they do love this country as well and will get things done. I just hope that the pandering and wasteful name calling can be kept to a minimum.

Comments are closed.