After his State of the Union Address 2 nights ago, Obama has already been fiercely pushing for what he thinks is best for the nation. He clearly has a elaborate plan that he has most likely had up his sleeve for a long while but waited for the major speech in order to address his issues.
The face-to-face meeting started out peacefully, favorably, and willing to cooperate until both sides realized that neither one of them was willing to give into the either sides' demands or request. In short, the face-to-face "negotiation" attempt turned out to be a session where "neither side could resist the chance to challenge and even scold the other." The Republicans claim that the Democratic plan is too extreme, that it will only increase the national debt. The Democrats (Obama) said "that he had read the Republican proposals and that they promise solutions that can't be realized."
For as long as neither side is ready to open up to opinions, openly discuss the pros and cons, share ideas, and come to consensus on what is the best path toward a better economic plan, all attempts at negotiations between the two parties will be in vain.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Patrick, the sources I read are reporting that this event was a big hit in Washington on both sides of the aisle. I actually did a tab dump of the entire blog roll here on Hitchhiker's Guide and even the National Review has been positive and not cynical towards the President. Both David Brooks and Mark Shields were gushing yesterday on the PBS News Hour. Yes, some liberal blogs crowed that Obama took the Republicans to school (at times he did, IMO, but not nearly as much as reported in certain quarters) and I think that Obama exaggerated when he described the Republican response to his proposals as like he was a "bolshevik" (the House Republican Conference is pretty right-wing overall, but that doesn't mean they are all Glenn Beck numbskulls.) Overall, it actually might have been a slight change to the tone in Washington, and it was a far superior hour and a half of political theater to the State of the Union itself.
I can see why it might look messy at first. The President continued to call out the disingenuous policy shifts, the fact that the FY 09 Budget ended just 4 months ago and was put together by the Bush administration and so blaming the new debt on him is bogus, and other complaints, and the GOP got some points in as well. It wasn't peace and harmony and compromise. But it might have been a step in the right direction.
I stand corrected. Thank you Mr. Silton. I just read through some of the blogs and reread the article again twice. I admit that I had rushed through this article and oversaw how the news had portrayed the conference (or it may have just been my outright mistake and wrong analysis).
The conference started out messy at first but it turns out that both sides did ultimately agree on some points and efforts such as foreign affairs. Though the Republicans showed some opposition to Obama's economic plan.
The thing I don't understand is that if they were there for a conference and negotiation with the Republican party, why would he start out by criticizing what has been (pretty. if not outright) obvious. I do realize that people may have realized this but may have not wanted to change how Washington politics was run... but is pointing out the obvious and criticizing the nature of politics the best thing to open up a negotiation process with?
Post a Comment