Thursday, November 18, 2010

A One-Term President?

With the midterm election behind us and the lame duck of Congress in session, it is important that the newly elected Republican majority in House take the time to stand up for the American people and help us continue moving this country forward. Although I strongly believe Democrats have done more to help this staggering economy and improve the quality of life for Americans, I welcome the Republicans help and hope they are willing to work together in the name of progress.

So far, however, it has been somewhat confusing. On one hand, the top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, recently endorsed President Obama’s moratorium of pork-barrel projects (known as "earmarks"). As a long time defender of using these special funding requests, McConnell has sought nearly $1 billion worth of earmarks, primarily benefiting his home state of Kentucky. Although he “does not apologize” for his actions, his reversal will help eliminate such wasteful spending.

On the other hand, the Republican leadership decided to postpone a bipartisan congressional meeting with the president at the White House due to scheduling conflicts. John Boehner told the White House that “the crush of business setting up the new Congress while juggling a lame duck session of the old one was too much”. If the new speaker of the House cannot manage a simple meeting with the President of the United States, how can we expect him to lead Congress? According to current House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, “I can never remember an instance where President Bush asked the Democratic leadership to meet with him and we did not accommodate our schedule to that request.” This is not only a sign of disrespect, but also does not reveal a future of healthy cooperation and bipartisanship.

Obama wanted to hold the bipartisan meeting to discuss national issues following the midterm elections, including such economic issues as the possible extension of Bush tax cuts set to expire January 1. As I mentioned in my blog post, America in the Driver’s Seat, the Republican argument that these tax cuts would encourage small businesses, stimulate the economy, and create jobs are misleading and haven proven wrong since their enactment in 2001. Even BILLIONAIRE investor Warren Buffett agreed that “we should raise taxes on the very rich, and I think maybe we should cut taxes for the middle class." If one of the world’s most successful entrepreneurs sees the benefits of letting the Bush tax cuts expire, I think it’s something to make note of.

Although the Republicans say they want to work with the Democrats, it is hard to imagine any talks of bipartisanship when the day after their victory, McConnell says, “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” This proves that the Republicans are simply a party of NO, failing to put aside politics for the success of the American people.

They are against repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the discriminatory policy preventing any American who wants to defend our country to do so; against extending unemployment benefits to millions of jobless Americans; against supporting the DREAM Act, which would award citizenship to illegal immigrants who have gone to college or served in the military; and against ratifying the new START treaty, a bilateral nuclear arms reduction agreement between the U.S. and Russia signed earlier this year. If ratified, the treaty will reduce Russia’s nuclear arsenal to the lowest level since the Cold War.

But, I guess when politics is put before policies, “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”


  1. The Republicans are in power and have a track record for success. You talk of bipartisanship. But when GOP leaders try to cooperate with Democrats, they get the cold shoulder.

    Ofcourse Obama should be a one-term president. He has not done ANTHING! He's ruined the U.S. image across the globe; ruined the U.S. economy; and has not added a single dime to our pockets!!!!!

  2. I think it is disturbing that Republicans are being so selfishly single minded, but what can you say about a party that only seeks to benefit the rich, and sway the demographics of this country that perhaps do not understand the true nature of politics. Both parties should work together to try and maintain the state. If there is an opportunity to do so, natually compromise will have to occur, but it does not mean that the solution is useless.If either party proposes single solutions to the state of the nation, it does not benefit people across demographics. If they work together, all these areas will be covered, which is why the bipartisan meeting was important. People's concern should not be about trying to get someone one-term/two terms. It should be only for the mutual working towards acheiving the betterment of the state.

  3. it really does depend on who runs against him in 2012 though. if its sarah palin, then obama will have a second term

  4. Glenn Beck...let's not forget that Obama inherited from Bush this ruined US Economy and ruined US image across the World. Obama's recent trip to South Asia is the first step in building back our global reputation that the Bush administration destroyed.

    As for Obama being a "one term president," I really don't see an issue with the comment. Probably taken out of context and not what he meant. Do you really think McConnell is an idiot? He is just trying to rally the Republicans.

    One thing I find funny is that if Obama is indeed a one term president who the heck will represent the Republicans? Palin is a joke. Romney seems to be the one of the few credible Republicans out there, but let's not forget how he brought universal health care coverage for all people in MA. Would Republicans be okay with candidate with that kind of record?

  5. Interesting point Ashwani I must admit, but I wonder if Democrats made such comments and contradictions when Bush was in power... I am sure they did.


Do You Agree or Disagree? Why? Please leave comments.