Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Quite simply, Democrats are not good at governing

  1. #1

    Quite simply, Democrats are not good at governing

    How can Republicans clean Democrat clocks all over the country? All it will take is a simple message: Republicans can govern. Democrats can't.
    Think of all the contrasts available between adroit Republican governors and flailing Democratic ones. For one, the surreal spectacle of Wisconsin Democrats focusing resources on their third election campaign since the 2010 election to defeat Scott Walker's collective bargaining reform, even when that reform is no longer a real issue, shows that Democrats are in election mode every moment of every year.
    This difference has shown up elsewhere in state and local government. Rudy Giuliani may not have been a conservative, but as Mayor of New York, he was a courageous and effective leader, which gained him admiration from conservatives. The contrast between Giuliani and Dinkins, the hapless Democrat cipher who preceded him, is stark.
    New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is also not conservative, but he is an honest and courageous executive in the spirit of Giuliani. The contrast between Christie and Jon Corzine, his Democrat predecessor who has managed to mislay one billion dollars of investors' money, is stunning.
    In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina blasted the states around the Gulf of Mexico, Democrat Governor Blanco of Louisiana engaged in crass political maneuvering against her rival Democrat Mayor Negin of New Orleans. Republican Governor Barbour, meanwhile, in neighboring Mississippi, acted decisively and effectively to protect his fellow Mississippians.
    Two years ago, when the BP oil spill was threatening the livelihood and safety of Americans, Obama was that nervous skinny man who spouted meaningless rhetoric, while Republican Governor Jindal was the effective executive who inspired Louisianans with his quick actions to minimize the damage.
    Governor Jerry Brown ought to know as much about California government as any person around, and yet he has been unable to turn the state around. Indianans will be picking a new governor to succeed term-limited Mitch Daniels, but the sheer administrative brilliance of Daniels has preserved a state right in the middle of the rust belt.
    Governor Nikki Haley brought jobs to South Carolina, something which the politically naīve might think organizations representing South Carolina workers would applaud, and the outgoing AFL-CIO president in the state, Donna Dewitt, smashed the governor's face on a piņata. (NOW, of course, immediately condemned this as an egregious mockery of the serious problem of battered women...just kidding!)
    This is a recurring pattern. Republican government executives take political risks, spend political capital, and challenge political bosses after they win elections. What has Obama done? His latest "budget" was recently shot down, with no one in his own party in either house of Congress voting for it. Obama has tried to gain points by silly attacks upon a serious budget, the one proposed by Congressman Ryan. Obama is utterly incapable of doing anything but politicking and campaigning; he is a pawn of Saul Alinsky's and Bill Ayers's radical political theater.
    No wonder, then, that Obama sounds as if he is running against Republicans in power, even though his party won Congress in 2006 and he won the White House in 2008, and no wonder that David Axelrod last month spoke so directly against the status quo that one cannot imagine that he or his boss sees Obama as responsible for anything.
    If Republicans handle this theme well, then the corporate executive experience of Mitt Romney can be used to highlight how his presidency would differ from the drifting wreckage of the Obama presidency. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has said on several occasions, dating back at least to February, that Mitt Romney "likes" firing people. Good executives, of course, must be willing to let poorly situated companies shrink or even go into bankruptcy and must be willing to trim unnecessary personnel costs.
    The Republican retort to this sort of attack should be that Republicans government executives like Scott Walker and Chris Christie have shown a willingness to make hard and unpopular decisions. Mitt Romney, for his part, has shown at Bain Capital and in his handling of the 2002 Winter Olympics, which had been mired in cronyism and corruption, that he can take risks and do things which cause people pain, if his office requires it.
    The options for real leadership in the White House are shrinking fast. Last August we suffered a downgrade in federal sovereign debt, which means that saving our nation cannot be accomplished with smoke and mirrors. Four years ago, Americans gave Democrats massive majorities in Congress (a filibuster-proof Senate majority) and gave Obama not just the presidency, but a huge reservoir of personal goodwill.
    Republicans like Walker, Christie, Giuliani, and Jindal have shown that they will use executive offices to solve problems even if that means being made into a Nikki Haley-headed piņata. If Romney can convince Americans that the way back is neither easy nor painless, but will grow harder and more problematic the longer we wait, then this theme of governing may give Republicans the muscle they need to get the job done.


    Read more: [url]http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/the_grand_theme_of_governing.html#ixzz1wTYwXtlp[/url]

  2. #2
    Rudy G! Bernie K says hi.
    California was in great when Conan was done!
    W! Nothing more needs to be said.

    They all sucked just like the other party. They want and need power and could less about who the citizens they are supposed to be representing.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    This is kind of like the Redksins talking trash about the Colts.

    Sucking less than the other guy isn't something to brag about.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=cr726;4481248]Rudy G! Bernie K says hi.
    California was in great when Conan was done!
    W! Nothing more needs to be said.

    They all sucked just like the other party. They want and need power and could less about who the citizens they are supposed to be representing.[/QUOTE]

    Bernie Kerik? That all you got? I think the article made alot of very strong points, CR.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Tucker134;4481269]Bernie Kerik? That all you got? I think the article made alot of very strong points, CR.[/QUOTE]

    You would.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=cr726;4481248]Rudy G! Bernie K says hi.
    California was in great when Conan was done!
    W! Nothing more needs to be said.

    They all sucked just like the other party. They want and need power and could less about who the citizens they are supposed to be representing.[/QUOTE]

    Guiliani was a great mayor. He had competence. California was problematic because the liberals in the legislature there block any attempts at solutions.

    The reality is that there are some good Democratic Politicians. Bill Clinton was great. Cuomo in NY is doing a good job. Corey Booker in Newark is doing a good job. Most are terrible though and virtually every State run by Democrats is in horrible shape. California, Illinois, New York, Jersey, Connecticut, all disasters in terms of taxes and budget deficits.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,506
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4481358] The reality is that there are some good Democratic Politicians. [B]Bill Clinton was great.[/B] [/QUOTE]

    [IMG]http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/memes-untitled24.jpg[/IMG]

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4481430][IMG]http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/memes-untitled24.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    To clarify, compared to Obama and the new progressive socialist democrats, Clinton was great.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,506
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4481437]To clarify, compared to Obama and the new progressive socialist democrats, Clinton was great.[/QUOTE]

    Maybe, but that's not saying a lot.

    Clinton squeaked in as President thanks to Perot splitting the vote, and some disingenuous campaigning re GHWB and taxes amidst a mild recession.

    Once in Clinton + (D) proceeded to prolong the recession by raising taxes and openly wasted time with the unelected BinC promoting HillaryCare, which pissed the electorate off enough to hand Congress to the GOP.

    With the GOP keeping Clinton to the right, some reforms were made and the country did reasonably well in terms of teh economy. The dot-com bubble was a very heady 2 years or so, (not 8) but did not end well.

    That's not counting ignoring the War Powers Act in Bosnia, his "deal" w/the Norks, leting Pakistan go nuclear, not doing much if anything after terror attacks in OKC, Iraq/WTC1, Embassy bombings, USS Cole, not killing OBL when he had a shot; pushing the CRA, allowing the creation the Gorelick wall (who between Intelligence and GSE mismanagement has to be one of the most destructive Americans ever) other idiocies like Waco Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez, gutting US defense to approximate a "surplus", not to mention potentially compromising US security with floozies like Lewinsky. He did find time however to invent no-bid contracting allow teh Chicoms to steal technology/secrets and pardon a whole bunch of truly execrable people, like FALN bomber and Marc Rich and exit with a recession.

    And i'm not really going into the pros and cons of Telecommunications Act of 1996, Project Echelon, NAFTA, Glass-Steagall repeal etc.

    So... not great at all. Sure B. Hussein is worse and that's no consolation, the common denominators are a lot of teh Clinton crew f'ing things up once again-Holder, Hillary, Panetta etc
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 05-31-2012 at 07:57 PM.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,345
    Of course they're not good at governing - they're petulant children who put showboating ahead of everything else.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4481452]Maybe, but that's not saying a lot.

    Clinton squeaked in as President thanks to Perot splitting the vote, and some disingenuous campaigning re GHWB and taxes amidst a mild recession.

    Once in Clinton + (D) proceeded to prolong the recession by raising taxes and openly wasted time with the unelected BinC promoting HillaryCare, which pissed the electorate off enough to hand Congress to the GOP.

    With the GOP keeping Clinton to the right, some reforms were made and the country did reasonably well in terms of teh economy. The dot-com bubble was a very heady 2 years or so, (not 8) but did not end well.

    That's not counting ignoring the War Powers Act in Bosnia, his "deal" w/the Norks, leting Pakistan go nuclear, not doing much if anything after terror attacks in OKC, Iraq/WTC1, Embassy bombings, USS Cole, not killing OBL when he had a shot; pushing the CRA, allowing the creation the Gorelick wall (who between Intelligence and GSE mismanagement has to be one of the most destructive Americans ever) other idiocies like Waco Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez, gutting US defense to approximate a "surplus", not to mention potentially compromising US security with floozies like Lewinsky. He did find time however to invent no-bid contracting allow teh Chicoms to steal technology/secrets and pardon a whole bunch of truly execrable people, like FALN bomber and Marc Rich and exit with a recession.

    And i'm not really going into the pros and cons of Telecommunications Act of 1996, Project Echelon, NAFTA, Glass-Steagall repeal etc.

    So... not great at all. Sure B. Hussein is worse and that's no consolation, the common denominators are a lot of teh Clinton crew f'ing things up once again-Holder, Hillary, Panetta etc[/QUOTE]

    You won't get an argument from me here. Everything you say is true. No President has been worse then Obama. Only Carter approached Obama's ineptitude. By comparison folks like Billy C look good. It is all relative. The OP articles premise holds true.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us