Thread: The Republican "brand". More/Less appealing to Amercans than prior to 1/20/09?

I guess I'd have to say about the same. Maybe a little higher, but a statistically insignificant amount [in my opinion of them]. During Bush's presidency, I lost respect for the party members who had unaltering love for anything Bush did, no matter how obviously absurd it was. However, during Obama's presidency, the same absurdities seem to keep on - anything Obama does is bad, no matter what it is, and especially no matter if Bush did the same thing.

I think the most influential thing they did to cause a change (or not) in image was their reaction to the health care bill. Instead of offering help in making the bill fiscal and conservative-friendly, they merely said fuck it and refused to vote for it under any circumstances. As a result, it ended up being largely liberal-influenced and passed anyway. I think the conservatives are entirely to blame for any part of the bill they don't agree with it. They had many opportunities to help shape it, but decided instead that "all or nothing" was the better alternative.

Originally Posted by Charles Stover

I think the most influential thing they did to cause a change (or not) in image was their reaction to the health care bill. Instead of offering help in making the bill fiscal and conservative-friendly, they merely said fuck it and refused to vote for it under any circumstances. As a result, it ended up being largely liberal-influenced and passed anyway.

BS, the Repubs had plenty of ideas for the reform that were totally ignored, and when this HCR scheme comes to light, it will be the Dems that will have hell to pay for it. And our children and grandchildren to actually "PAY" for it.

Originally Posted by Charles Stover

I guess I'd have to say about the same. Maybe a little higher, but a statistically insignificant amount [in my opinion of them]. During Bush's presidency, I lost respect for the party members who had unaltering love for anything Bush did, no matter how obviously absurd it was. However, during Obama's presidency, the same absurdities seem to keep on - anything Obama does is bad, no matter what it is, and especially no matter if Bush did the same thing.

I think the most influential thing they did to cause a change (or not) in image was their reaction to the health care bill. Instead of offering help in making the bill fiscal and conservative-friendly, they merely said fuck it and refused to vote for it under any circumstances. As a result, it ended up being largely liberal-influenced and passed anyway. I think the conservatives are entirely to blame for any part of the bill they don't agree with it. They had many opportunities to help shape it, but decided instead that "all or nothing" was the better alternative.

You mean as opposed to the democratic party that designed it, shaped it, and locked out the republicans on the final version of it??!!??

source

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama met Wednesday with House Democratic leaders who face the likelihood of having a final health care bill look much more like the Senate's version than their measure.
The meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the chairmen of the three House committees that approved health care legislation was part of efforts by Obama and top Democrats to merge the separate House and Senate bills into a final version capable of winning approval in both chambers.
Senior Democratic sources say Democrats are prepared to short-circuit the traditional legislative process of a formal conference committee comprising House and Senate members to exclude their Republican counterparts during final congressional health care deliberations.
Obama gave his blessing Tuesday for that move, according to two congressional Democratic leadership sources.
Democrats are trying to prevent the Republicans from using Senate rules to slow the push for final passage of a comprehensive reform bill, the sources said.
"There's clearly a tactic of slowing down progress on behalf of the American people," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday of GOP maneuvers in the Senate. When asked if Obama supported avoiding a formal conference committee, Gibbs said: "The president wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible."
Republicans, in turn, are pushing to allow open media coverage of the final negotiations -- a move many observers believe would complicate House and Senate Democrats' ability to forge a consensus.
The full House of Representatives is not scheduled to return from vacation until January 12; the Senate meets January 19. But top representatives and senators, as well as their aides, have already been discussing the issue.......

And if President Obama were to have agreed with anything they were saying what then Dutch?

Which he did at times during the bebate by the way. Do you remember him saying anything about unclenching fists..and wanting to work in a bipartsian manner? Offering compromises or anything along those lines?

Originally Posted by goldendog

And if President Obama were to have agreed with anything they were saying what then Dutch?

If it's hypothetical situations you wish to discuss, I suggest the little devil guy. He seems to revel that sort of thing.

Which he did at times during the bebate by the way. Do you remember him saying anything about unclenching fists..and wanting to work in a bipartsian manner? Offering compromises or anything along those lines?

.....I remember a number of those speeches. I do not, however, remember one of them where he did not also made a gratuitous derogatory remark about the republican party or blame the previous administration for something.