We've Gone Backward?
EdsonNascimento
Posts: 5,522
Hmmmm.. Interesting.
Former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis is switching sides, abandoning his former ally President Obama to become a Republican -- lamenting that the country has "gone backward" since Obama took office.
Davis is making the announcement in the run-up to a possible congressional comeback in Virginia, though he says he has not yet made up his mind whether he'll challenge Democratic incumbent Rep. Gerry Connolly. He used to represent Alabama.
In an interview on Thursday, Davis explained the rationale behind his switch. He said he "took inventory" and decided "what we're doing is not working."
Davis said the government's policies are "counterproductive," suggested businesses were hurting and described economic growth as stagnant.
"Every time we think we're beginning to move forward, we fall backward," he said.
He also sounded a note of disenchantment with Obama.
"I supported President Obama four years ago because I wanted to see this country come together. I want us to change the way we talk to each other ... Unfortunately, we've gone backward on both fronts over the last several years."
He said Obama's "main offer" was that he could bring the country together, "and we've gone backward."
Democrats have blamed Republicans, particularly those in the House, for the persistently coarse political tone in Washington.
Davis left public office after losing in the Democratic primary in the 2010 race for Alabama governor.
Former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis is switching sides, abandoning his former ally President Obama to become a Republican -- lamenting that the country has "gone backward" since Obama took office.
Davis is making the announcement in the run-up to a possible congressional comeback in Virginia, though he says he has not yet made up his mind whether he'll challenge Democratic incumbent Rep. Gerry Connolly. He used to represent Alabama.
In an interview on Thursday, Davis explained the rationale behind his switch. He said he "took inventory" and decided "what we're doing is not working."
Davis said the government's policies are "counterproductive," suggested businesses were hurting and described economic growth as stagnant.
"Every time we think we're beginning to move forward, we fall backward," he said.
He also sounded a note of disenchantment with Obama.
"I supported President Obama four years ago because I wanted to see this country come together. I want us to change the way we talk to each other ... Unfortunately, we've gone backward on both fronts over the last several years."
He said Obama's "main offer" was that he could bring the country together, "and we've gone backward."
Democrats have blamed Republicans, particularly those in the House, for the persistently coarse political tone in Washington.
Davis left public office after losing in the Democratic primary in the 2010 race for Alabama governor.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
No doubt. I thought the same thing. Yet, it's still interesting.
Do you think businesses are NOT hurting and economic growth is NOT stagnant?
Do you think he's brought the country together or divided it more? Do you think he's helped the way we talk to each other?
Don't get caught up in the politics (as you are accusing the quoted). Think about the points he raises. I'd be interested to hear your take on these.
I'm not saying both parties are not at fault in the latter questions. But he is the LEADER. And, ultimately, the buck stops there (unless you truly are NOT a leader - in which case, you pass it. Let's face it. He can't - or shouldn't - win this argument in either circumstance).
I think its telling that the pres conceded so much to repubs and that wasnt good enough.. The art of politics is compromise. AT least it used to be.
As for the economy, it took a long time for that bubble to grow. The pop and its effects were quite sudden. It will take some time to get close to the level we were at. I think its the usual deal, companies are learning how to get more done with less. This bust made banks less likely to loan money for business ideas that had viable chances of succeding. Its a keep it while since you got mentality.
Also, IF the economy is as bad as they claim, how is it then that companies are still posting record profits?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
And, isn't that the irony? Conservatives recognizing the economy is a problem when (some) businesses are making profits?
The devisivness we have has been growing for a long long time.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
You see? I don't see what the wars have to do with this. You can disagree with them. That's fine. But, he didn't and Obama obviously didn't. So, that seems to be a moot point (not in their entirety, but how it gets used by the liberals - either they were a good idea or not. I'm not deciding not to protect my brother because it's not good for my face - or wallet - my brother gets in a fight with a gigantic guy, I'm jumping in the fray even if I think my face - or wallet - is going to take a beating. So, that argument re: economy is specious. It's mixing issues. Yes, there's an impact, but that's - mostly - besides the point).
But, I agree about the deviciveness and politicians - and, yet, a person with no experience running anything whatsoever got hired to run not only a troubled economy, but the Armed Forces that everyone sites as the issue. Now, given the opportunity, why wouldn't we give someone who's at least run a business successfully try his hand at economic policy?
So, who's creating these politicians?
FYI, registered Independent here.
As for hiring someone with business experience , we had that with Bush? It didnt seem to help.
if you refer to Romney, hes a politician too. So lets not forget that.
The wars? Well, one was necessary the other not so much, IMO. And yes, HOW do we go from a SURPLUS to deficit spending in Bush's first 2 years.
Heres the real problem in our government and this country as a whole. It rests on my shoulders. I vote, but I'm not nearly as informed as I could or should be. So MY voice is largely silent throughout the year. I could write or call or email the elected officials in my district on local, state and federal levels. I dont. Its difficult for me to sustain interest when those speaking to me are dont seem to have OUR interest at heart.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Umm.. No doubt. But, they are our only choices. And, at least he's run a successful something. In 4 years, I'll get a chance to assess his performance.
btw, i edited my earlier post.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I think its possible the wars had a lot to do with this...We already are one of, if the top spender in the world on military, and the daily cost of running two wars... and the people of the USA slowly learning that the fight in Iraq was not about WMD or al quaida...what was it for? They lost confidence in their leadership, and att he same time, people lost a lot in housing bubble and then they were afraid to spend their money because of the chance they might lose their jobs.
having said that ... people should be disgusted with the GOP ... when the country is struggling mighty - they were more concerned with derailing a presidency than helping the people ... they should all really be put in jail ... and now they are gonna nominate another guy of privilege who's never had to work a day in his life for anything to be president ... romney is an idiot just like bush was ... he hasn't accomplished jack shit on his own ...
I find your 1st and 3rd sentences (skipping the having said that) interesting when put together. :?
What exactly did Obama accomplish? Romney has actually accomplished more at this point than Obama did when he was elected. You should stop with the liberal rhetoric. Obama has not accomplished what he set out to. Leaders have only themselves to blame. Blaming others is not leadership.
Godfather.
Again, I don't disagree the process is broken. I'm all for finding change. I hate that Giuliani doesn't run simply because the Christian Right won't allow a twice divorced man with skeletons run. He is THE best person for the job. But, why should he put himself through the ringer of both his own party and then a general election when he can go to Mexico and make millions teaching them how to run their police force?
So, the process is more broken than most folks realize.
But, that being said - we are where we are at NOW. Obama has failed. Romney's our only other choice. I know what hasn't worked. Believe me, Romney is not my first, second or third choice either. But, writing in Rudy Giuliani isn't going to help our best option at the moment.
I posted this a while back in another conversation....this is not backwards.
Helping to fend off a depression while having the bailouts almost entirely paid back with interest, passing the largest and most important piece of domestic legislation in decades, ending the bigoted policy of don't ask don't tell, saving the auto industry, ended one war and is bringing the other to a close, oversaw the death of the top commanders of al qaeda, including the person who was responsible for over 3,000 civilian deaths. Not bad for 3 years.
There's obviously some truth to this. It's not totally discrete. It all feeds each other. And, there's not doubt why we choose to go into the Mid East more often than we decide to go into Africa where even more genocides are happening - oil. So, yes, it's all tied together. All I'm saying is - either the war is worth while or its not. There is actually POSITIVE economic impact from wars. Does it outweigh the negative (not to even speak of the human cost which despite the liberal's bent nobody, and I mean nobody takes lightly or desire)? But, it's myopic to pretend we are going to live in a world of fairies and rainbows because war sucks.
At least war PUTS money into the economy. Welfare does not. That's the point (not saying we need NO welfare).
OBAMA HAD BOTH HOUSES FOR 2 YEARS!!!! Sorry for the caps, but folks seem to keep forgetting this. That is more time than any President in the last 50 years. And if anything the impact of those 2 years is what should be getting felt now, not the last 18 months (especially if the argument is it takes time). And he squandered it worrying about his legacy (health care). Which is sort of ironic for a President to do in the first year of his intended 8 year stay. That's usually reserved for years 7 and 8.....
i would agree his focus on healthcare was misguided and although in principal, he thought it was a good idea, it's just not gonna work in americia ...
ultimately tho - who would you rather have? ... bush or obama?
That is funny. First, I'm not saying he hasn't done ANYTHING. But - depression? What depression? There was no DEPRESSION when he took over.
His larges piece of legislation is about to be rightfully declared unconstitional.
Don't ask, don't tell was on its way out. IT was a matter of time.
Saving the auto industry - well, if you're going to blame Bush for the "depression," let's give "credit" where it's due. I was against this, but he's the impetus.
As for the wars - Bush's time table as he was leaving office was almost exactly how it was carried out.
Osama - yes, he gets credit. But, who wouldn't have given that order? That was a tough order to give? Not trying to take it away. It's on his watch. It's part of his legacy. It's not like the decision to drag a rat responsible for 10's of 1,000s of deaths out of its hole (Saddam) at the peril of his own legacy.
Bush. Not a question. Not saying he was the greatest either. But, you made the choices easy.
Rudy...
that's some funny shit...
which clearly shows your partisanship ... dude lied to the country to get you into 2 wars ... wars that you can't afford, that has disgraced your reputation around the world and has resulted in the loss of many many innocent lives ... a prez that spent more time at his ranch and golfing that doing anything ... a prez that had everything given to him and was essentially a moron but not for his name to get by ... you could not pick a worse president ...
but i'm sure your response to that is carter ... :fp:
you seem very open to other's opinions...
anyhoo, I guess it could be argued that the actions taken by O-bama staved off a depression...
and you clearly don't have any information on the Osama raid....
Some nice retorts last night. I'll start and end with the easy ones -
Why?
Umm. No. I'll respond - Obama.
First, Bush did not lie to ME about the wars. He "lied" to the populace. I knew exactly why he was doing what he was doing. I supported it then. I support it now. The Taliban was a problem that has been causing "mischief" (to put it nicely) for us and their own people for YEARS. Saddam Hussein pillaged his own people to a point we could no longer take.
Yes, there are other places similar things are taking place, but
1) As you allude to - there's only so many wars you can fight. So, you pick and choose.
2) Yes, it's about the oil. Duh.
3) The Mid East is clearly a more volatile, world impacting location at the moment (vs. Africa). Sorry if this sounds course, but that's the reality he couldn't say, so he colors the main objectives, so folks buy in. If you feel duped, well, then you were probably one of the folks that wouldn't have understood the REAL reasons anyway. It happens. It goes on all the time both globally and in your office (or wherever you work). You're still welcome to disagree with the wars. But, the whole - he lied to get us there - ummm.. No. He did what he had to. And he was right.
He clearly was not worried about his legacy because he knew this would be unpopular in the long run. Thus, the misguided "Mission Accomplished," which even at the time I cringed at. That was clearly a mis-step. But, it didn't change the overall objective 1 iota. At least he had the balls to do something. Does that mean Bush and we who support the wars don't regret EVERY life that was lost or damaged? Of course not. That's such a stupid argument. But, doing nothing is not always the answer either. It's the easy answer.
Yes, innocent lives are lost. But, how many did the Taliban and Hussein destroy, and on balance are there less or more? I'll answer that for you - it's unfortunate that we have to be the ones involved. Wish it didn't come to that. But, if we don't step in, FAR more innocents are lost (and no, I am still not touching or needing to believe the WMD).
Reality's a bitch. Huh? Welcome to the real world.
fair enough - if you are ok with taxpayers dollars used to fund wars for profiteering at the expense of innocent lives .. then ya - bush is your guy ..
I find these types of responses funny. It's usually the folks saying someone else is not open that are, in fact, not open. I took his opinion, and gave clear, concise reasons for my opinions.
The whole staved off - kind of funny - you are actually backing off the original statement. But, again. That's all speculation. It was a recession when he took over. Where it was going is pure speculation. Where it is 4 years later is not (see Dow, worst monthly drop in 2 years).
I have no idea what information you're alluding to, but all Obama basically did was approve the use of intelligence to kill Osama. Again, as I said - He gets credit. It was on his watch. My only point was, I don't think there's a Pres in history that doesn't make that decision. So, yes, he gets credit, but it's not like I'm voting the guy because he made what amounts to a no brainer decision that my 4 year old could have made.
So, I ask you - please respond to my original counter-points and let me know where I'm misguided. Thanks.
why what...? if you're asking my why I think this is some funny shit, my answer is: I find if funny that you'd support a failed 2008 candidate who is not even in the running in 2012....Rudy was stupid to focus only on Florida is 2008...and if that's the kind of foresight he possessed, I think he'd make a terrible president for Amercia...