Comments on: Obama’s Presidency Likely To Mean Return Of More Consensus In Politics http://themoderatevoice.com/24222/obamas-presidency-likely-to-mean-return-of-more-consensus-in-politics/ An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:28:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: joegandelman http://themoderatevoice.com/24222/obamas-presidency-likely-to-mean-return-of-more-consensus-in-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-163514 joegandelman Mon, 10 Nov 2008 05:30:58 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/democratic-party/24222/obamas-presidency-likely-to-mean-return-of-more-consensus-in-politics/#comment-163514 HappySurge: I stand correct. In fact, I am going to change that in the post right now and I even found a link that says the same thing and will place it in the post. Thanks so much for your eagle eye! HappySurge: I stand correct. In fact, I am going to change that in the post right now and I even found a link that says the same thing and will place it in the post. Thanks so much for your eagle eye!

]]> By: HappySurge http://themoderatevoice.com/24222/obamas-presidency-likely-to-mean-return-of-more-consensus-in-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-163496 HappySurge Mon, 10 Nov 2008 04:10:09 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/democratic-party/24222/obamas-presidency-likely-to-mean-return-of-more-consensus-in-politics/#comment-163496 Joe Gandelman, he didn't get the most of any candidate since LBJ. He got the most of any candidate in American history. Joe Gandelman, he didn't get the most of any candidate since LBJ. He got the most of any candidate in American history.

]]> By: StockBoySF http://themoderatevoice.com/24222/obamas-presidency-likely-to-mean-return-of-more-consensus-in-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-163454 StockBoySF Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:04:01 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/democratic-party/24222/obamas-presidency-likely-to-mean-return-of-more-consensus-in-politics/#comment-163454 The only way the Republicans can survive as a party is if they become less partisan and start supporting Democratic legislation. If the Republicans continue with a partisan approach and hold up popular legislation in Congress then the Dems can rightfully point their fingers at the Republicans as being the problem. Many Republicans (starting with Bush) are only too happy to thwart any Democratic idea simply because it was Democratic. If Republicans were smart they would understand that their more moderate constituents are tired of the political pandering made to the religious right. The Republicans should understand that other ideas, including Democratic ones, need a fair shake. That's not to say the religious right shouldn't have input- they should because they are an important group, but let's remember that there is a separation of church and state so any input and final decisions made should be done in that spirit. For instance fighting poverty in Africa might be an important issue for evangelicals, and they can support such an effort without bringing pure religion into it. The only way the Republicans can survive as a party is if they become less partisan and start supporting Democratic legislation. If the Republicans continue with a partisan approach and hold up popular legislation in Congress then the Dems can rightfully point their fingers at the Republicans as being the problem. Many Republicans (starting with Bush) are only too happy to thwart any Democratic idea simply because it was Democratic. If Republicans were smart they would understand that their more moderate constituents are tired of the political pandering made to the religious right. The Republicans should understand that other ideas, including Democratic ones, need a fair shake. That's not to say the religious right shouldn't have input- they should because they are an important group, but let's remember that there is a separation of church and state so any input and final decisions made should be done in that spirit. For instance fighting poverty in Africa might be an important issue for evangelicals, and they can support such an effort without bringing pure religion into it.

]]> By: StockBoySF http://themoderatevoice.com/24222/obamas-presidency-likely-to-mean-return-of-more-consensus-in-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-163453 StockBoySF Sun, 09 Nov 2008 20:44:55 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/democratic-party/24222/obamas-presidency-likely-to-mean-return-of-more-consensus-in-politics/#comment-163453 I think Obama will reach out to create more of a consensus than Bush/Rove. But I think it's important to separate the issues into two broad categories. The first are new issues, the issues which haven't had much national debate. The second group would be the issues that have had broader debate and have been put to bed.... <br><br>For the first set of issues Obama will have the national debate and reach out for a consensus before making decisions.<br><br>On the second group, those issues which have been "settled" I think it's necessary to ask whether they were settled for purely political purposes or did they truly lack the necessary support to become enacted into law. <br><br>I believe that if a particular issue had its airing and had bipartisan support, but Bush was against for purely political purposes and vetoed any legislation (or whatever the final form the issue took) then I think Obama would be right to undo Bush's decision (as much as that is possible). As long as an issue had bipartisan support I don't see why Obama should reinvent the wheel.<br><br>But if the issue had its airing but did not have support, then I think Obama should go through the process to ensure that everyone has had their say and get proper support.<br><br>I bring up these distinctions because Obama will undo some of Bush's work which will cause some people to cry foul. There might be further distinctions to be made, but for me the rule of thumb is that if an issue had bipartisan support but was vetoed (or whatever form) by Bush for political purposes then Obama gets more leeway. If it's a new issue (or one that has not had strong support in the past) then Obama needs to ensure the right steps and process are done. I think Obama will reach out to create more of a consensus than Bush/Rove. But I think it's important to separate the issues into two broad categories. The first are new issues, the issues which haven't had much national debate. The second group would be the issues that have had broader debate and have been put to bed….

For the first set of issues Obama will have the national debate and reach out for a consensus before making decisions.

On the second group, those issues which have been “settled” I think it's necessary to ask whether they were settled for purely political purposes or did they truly lack the necessary support to become enacted into law.

I believe that if a particular issue had its airing and had bipartisan support, but Bush was against for purely political purposes and vetoed any legislation (or whatever the final form the issue took) then I think Obama would be right to undo Bush's decision (as much as that is possible). As long as an issue had bipartisan support I don't see why Obama should reinvent the wheel.

But if the issue had its airing but did not have support, then I think Obama should go through the process to ensure that everyone has had their say and get proper support.

I bring up these distinctions because Obama will undo some of Bush's work which will cause some people to cry foul. There might be further distinctions to be made, but for me the rule of thumb is that if an issue had bipartisan support but was vetoed (or whatever form) by Bush for political purposes then Obama gets more leeway. If it's a new issue (or one that has not had strong support in the past) then Obama needs to ensure the right steps and process are done.

]]>