[tomder55]

I actually hope he plugs Richardson into his cabinet.

The AP report I cited claimed he was considering Richardson for Sec State. Yesterday the name of Senator Lurch Kerry was floated . I think he would be a disaster. We all remember from 2004 his "global test" .

[speechlesstx]

I actually hope he plugs Richardson into his cabinet.

The AP report I cited claimed he was considering Richardson for Sec State. Yesterday the name of Senator Lurch Kerry was floated . I think he would be a disaster. We all remember from 2004 his "global test" .

He could send him to France to be a thorn in Sarkozy's side...

[TexasParent]

I actually hope he plugs Richardson into his cabinet.

The AP report I cited claimed he was considering Richardson for Sec State. Yesterday the name of Senator Lurch Kerry was floated . I think he would be a disaster. We all remember from 2004 his "global test" .

I think he's going to surprise everyone and offer John McCain a position. Perhaps Secretary of Defence? Now that would be reaching across the aisle :eek:

[tomder55]

I would be pleasantly surprised if that happens. I would also suggest thinking outside the box and selecting Michelle Rhee as a special advisor for education . Both candidates praised her innovations in the DC school district during the campaign.

[speechlesstx]

It must be a relief for you; always on the defence for the last 8 years. Now you get to switch sides and be on offence and the people who voted for Obama will have to defend his Presidency like I imagine you did for most of George W. Bush's term; or at least the ideals of the Republican party, Conservatism or the policies of any of the aformentioned.

I’d much rather be relieved that the Dems didn’t have all of congress and the White House … but I can’t wait to say “I didn’t vote for this mess.” :D

I hope the Democrats, Republican's and Independants that supported Obama and the Democrat House and Senate members will call a pig a pig when they see a stinker from the Democrats. Although I voted for Obama and I am for universal health insurance; I'm not a fan of wasteful government. I hope that some of the social ideals that the Democrats campaigned on can be achieved in a bipartisan fashion. My preference is for the private sector to deliver these ideals; or a combination of private and public solutions.

I hope all of them will call a pig a pig, but I have my doubts that either side’s perception of what a pig is will change. I appreciate that you would rather the private sector deliver, and I also realize there is a role for government to play in regulating some things and delivering assistance when needed. I’m afraid however that old saying that people vote with their pocketbooks will hold true, and a whole lot of Obama supporters are counting on him delivering the goods, which means more entitlements.

It is my opinion that when the private sector fails, government steps in. I hope the private sector creativity of the Republican's can be married to the social consciousness of the Democrats for the good of all American's rather than just for profit or to the advantage of special interests.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree here. It’s my opinion that the private sector does much better when the government gets out of the way, even though as I said before I do believe government does need to be an overseer in certain areas. But, the Democrats have no lock on “social consciousness,” they just have different ideas on what that means and how to achieve their goals.

If I stick around here, it will be fun to see if I am defending the new administration, or agreeing with you when you object... ;)

It’s going to be interesting, I’ll say that much. It’s already been fun watching some who have gone ballistic over the idea of uniting behind Bush for the good of the country tell us to do the same for Obama. Gee, I wonder why didn’t they didn’t like the idea of unity before Democrats gained control of everything? ;)

[TexasParent]

It’s going to be interesting, I’ll say that much. It’s already been fun watching some who have gone ballistic over the idea of uniting behind Bush for the good of the country tell us to do the same for Obama. Gee, I wonder why didn’t they didn’t like the idea of unity before Democrats gained control of everything? ;)

I'm sure the country united behind G.W. in 2000, and were glad to have the sex scandal of the Clinton years behind them. It's always rosey in the beginning and Obama hasn't had a chance to screw up yet like George eventually did; I think that's when people started going ballistic ;).

I think the alternative to high ideals is much more depressiing however realistic it may be.

So yes, the jury is still out on the uniting thing until we actually see some policy or Obama has to deal with another new crisis; then I wonder if your group will go ballistic and say shove the uniting crap "Obama is screwing things up" so that they can position themselves for 2012 the same as the Dems did with Bush leading up to this 2008.

Sadly, I think the political environment is more about making the other guy look bad than any real objective review of their policies or decision's.

Unity; aw... nevermind, my cynical side is showing. It would be a miracle. Do you believe in miracles?

[excon]

It's already been fun watching some who have gone ballistic over the idea of uniting behind Bush for the good of the country tell us to do the same for Obama. Gee, I wonder why didn't they didn't like the idea of unity before Democrats gained control of everything? ;)

Hello Steve:

Unity, schmoonity! What makes us great is that we can YELL at each other, and have knock down drag out political barroom fights, and call them elections.

We're MUCH better off that way. So, I don't want you to unite (gag)! I wan't you to scream your bloody head off. Please.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Unity; aw...nevermind, my cynical side is showing. It would be a miracle. Do you believe in miracles?

I voted for McCain didn't I? :D

[TexasParent]

I voted for McCain didn't I? :D

I'm not sure you did, perhaps you are a Democrat operative planted to energize the Democrat base? ;)

Oh, and well done!

[tomder55]

Excon

Bingo there is 100 % unity in oppressive governments.

[speechlesstx]

I'm not sure you did, perhaps you are a Democrat operative planted to energize the Democrat base? ;)

Oh, and well done!!

Hey, all I have to do is show up here and it energizes the Democrat base.:D

[TexasParent]

Excon

bingo there is 100 % unity in oppressive governments.

If a sports team wins the Championship it's in part because the players are on the same page, they are united in their cause and their approach, each doing their part.

Seems to me that isn't oppressive at all. Teams who are divided rarely accomplish anything because the players are too busy with there own self interests and don't care about the team as a whole, they are only concerned about their own self promotion.

[speechlesstx]

Unity, schmoonity!! What makes us great is that we can YELL at each other, and have knock down drag out political barroom fights, and call them elections.

We're MUCH better off that way. So, I don't want you to unite (gag)! I wan't you to scream your bloody head off. Please.

LOL, Obama's magic wand has no affect on me. I gave him and his supporters yesterday to enjoy their victory... I'm sure I'll be back to "screaming my bloody head off" soon :D

[tomder55]

Texas Parent
The reality is that this country has had very vocal and very passionate opposing visions of itself since it's origins . It's the American way. I would in no way stifle it . I welcome it. Bring it on ! It is much better than shooting at each other .

[excon]

If a sports team wins the Championship it's in part because the players are on the same page, they are united in their cause and their approach, each doing their part.

Hello again, Tex:

I don't know...

I would agree about being united behind the goal, and buying into the head coaches methods...

But, beyond that, I doubt there is unity. Certainly there's competition among the players. There's competitive ideas about how to run the offense. I'm sure there are other coaches on the team who voice their ideas. I doubt any great coach would want his underlings to keep quiet.

A team like THAT could certainly BE a winner. But, I don't know if I'd call them "united" in the sense that you think they are. I don't think they sit around and sing kum bi yaa in the locker room. They're united in PURPOSE, but NOT in methods.

In the first place, we're not built that way. Any organization who tries to make us that way will fail miserably.

I again assert, that the CLASH of ideas, and the louder the better, is what makes us great.

excon

[TexasParent]

Hello again, Tex:

I dunno....

I would agree about being united behind the goal, and buying into the head coaches methods....

But, beyond that, I doubt there is unity. Certainly there's competition among the players. There's competitive ideas about how to run the offense. I'm sure there are other coaches on the team who voice their ideas. I doubt any great coach would want his underlings to keep quiet.

A team like THAT could certainly BE a winner. But, I dunno if I'd call them "united" in the sense that you think they are. I don't think they sit around and sing kum bi yaa in the locker room. They're united in PURPOSE, but NOT in methods.

In the first place, we're not built that way. Any organization who tries to make us that way will fail miserably.

I again assert, that the CLASH of ideas, and the louder the better, is what makes us great.

excon

The head coach is the leader, and if he is a good one, he will listen to all his assistant coaches who have listened to the players input. He will allow competition of ideas and decide which to run with. Important in his decision is can the idea he has chosen be implemented, will he have the support of the majority of the coaches and players? Will they buy into it, will they become united in seeing it through to it's conclusion. So it's not the best idea at times that wins, but the idea that most people support which has elements of the best idea. Other times, the leader implements the best idea but one that isn't overly supported, it is at that time the coaches and players have to decide; do they believe in their leaders judgement and will they support this direction to it's conclusion? It is at this moment where players (Democrats, Repulican's all American's) decide to unite, or divide.

An example is the cost and access to healthcare insurance (especially for the unhealthy, you are too big a risk; there is no profit). The situation is a mess; I think even Republican's would agree and the government has tried to reform it for over 20 years with little or no progress while it only gets worse and more people suffer. It's time we united over doing something about healthcare and compromise on the methods and ideology, but get something done, rather than the status quo of nothing getting done at all.

Yell and scream all you want, stand up for you ideas, but in the end, when the decision is made by your leader; do you help, or hinder it's implementation. Will you help the team win, or will you sulk and either overtly try and make the team loose, or will you through your apathy make it harder for the team to win?

To me, that is Unity or lack thereof.

[excon]

Hello again, Tex:

I don't think we disagree. Or maybe we do. I don't know.

Let's take healthcare. I think we ARE united about reforming it. But, the Republicans have an outlandish idea, and frankly, I don't believe the Democrats have a better one.

Given the above, we're NOT going to agree about methodology. The only way it's going to happen, is if either the Dems or the Republicans have the POWER to make it happen. I don't know if any compromises are possible.

DOING it, is what's possible, and the dems can now DO it. That's fine with me. Ain't going to be any coom by yaa over universal health care.

excon