Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Tired of deadlock

November 3, 2010

Advertisement

To the editor:

Well, the election is over — finally. Congratulations to the winners, but we have a word or two for you.

All we know about you is what you think about your opponent. We know nothing about you. What are your plans other than winning? This has been the most negative campaign season we have ever witnessed and we are glad it’s over. But you must know this: We, Americans, are tired of the deadlock in Washington. We don’t care what side of the aisle you sit on, cooperate with the other side and stop the partisan politics and vote for the issue, not just the party line. It is time to solve our problems. You represent us, not the special interests, and if you don’t vote our will, you will be forced home in a couple of years.

If you don’t like what President Obama has brought forth, don’t kill it and give us nothing in return. The party of “no” is not the answer. It is the party of “Well, no, but how about this,” that wins in the end.

Work together to solve the problems, not blame others.

And if you do nothing to help, you are part of the problem. Your time there will be short. Don’t sell your house in Kansas. It is time for “we the people” to take our government away from special interests and if you minimize them, we will have a more efficient and effective government. Then you will represent the will of the people. Do it now!

You have been elected. We are counting on you!

David Omar,

Lawrence

Comments

grammaddy 4 years, 1 month ago

Well said!Time to quit all the in-fighting and get to work.

mom_of_three 4 years, 1 month ago

yep. I am tired of hearing "what my opponent did." I want to hear "what I want to do or this is what I would have done."
heard someone in the east last night say they want to repeal healthcare, but didn't give an alternative or reason to why, other than it was obama care. That kind of stuff has to end.

walkthehawk 4 years, 1 month ago

yes, where does the government get off thinking it can mandate insurance . . . why, if they had tried that for cars, no one would be driving them!

jafs 4 years, 1 month ago

Yes.

There is still a question of whether that provision is constitutional, and if so, on what grounds?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 1 month ago

You're speaking to deaf ears, David. The Party of the Koch Brothers, Beck, Rush, Palin, et al have no intentions of compromising. Their only intent, and the only tools in their bag, are self-promotion, fearmongering and divisiveness. There is no room for compromise or workable ideas in that bag.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 1 month ago

Obama and the Democrats won a mandate to set the agenda in both 2006 and 2008. Obama is by nature a compromiser, but Republicans didn't want to play along, and they didn't. I don't really expect anything to change in the next two years.

"There is no room for compromise or a truly American agenda in that bag."

Why, yes, of course, anyone who has a different idea from yours can't truly be American, can they?

jafs 4 years, 1 month ago

Interpreting a very close presidential win as a "mandate" seems off to me, regardless of which party does it.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 1 month ago

As presidential elections go, it wasn't all that close. But as you have pointed out, the "true meaning" of any election involving millions of voters will always be a bit murky.

Nevertheless, one message of the last election was very clear-- the majority wanted a very different direction from government from what the previous 8 years had brought. Exactly what the direction should be was up for interpretation, but it was Obama and the Democrats who had been elected to make the determination.

Clearly, a majority of voters in this election expressed dissatisfaction with the direction Obama has taken us (although the total lack of cooperation from Republicans greatly contributed to it.) But more so than in the last election, the dissatisfaction is from both the left, who chose not to vote in very large numbers, and the right, who took advantage of the dissatisfaction of those on the left to elect Republicans in large numbers.

Republicans now have a mandate of sorts, but it's even murkier than such mandates normally are.

What I think the mandate is is for the Dems and the Repubs to find some common ground and get something done. If that doesn't happen, it's not clear at all who they will choose to punish come 2012.

tomatogrower 4 years, 1 month ago

They did compromise. They could have made the health care bill single payer, and put the insurance companies out of business. They could have gone further on health care, but they made it possible for corporations to still profit from health care. In fact, a lot of the ideas in the health care bill were proposed by Republicans in the past. They were for it before they were against it. They are only about winning elections. They spread lies about what is in the health care, including a death panel. People were stupid enough to believe the lies, and still do. So they repeal the law, and the children with preexisting conditions get dropped from their insurance, and the adult children lose their insurance, then maybe people will think again. It's like they are cutting off their hand, because someone told them that it didn't work right.

scott3460 4 years, 1 month ago

Some items from news reports of the last two years:

July, 2009 - The Obama administration endorsed a revival of America's nuclear industry yesterday in an effort to build forward momentum for climate change legislation before the Senate.

May, 2009 - President Barack Obama's decision to maintain Bush-era military commissions is the latest in a series of compromises and delays that allies on the left see as a disappointing shift away from campaign pledges.

Also, May, 2009 - "Spokesman Robert Gibbs said the White House wouldn't intervene in the recent firings of gay servicemen by the military, despite Mr. Obama's promise to allow openly gay men and women to serve."

September, 2009 - "President Barack Obama on Wednesday laid out a series of compromises he's willing to make to get a health care overhaul through a nervous Congress this year, including diluting his vision for a new public insurance program and embracing ideas floated by Republicans.

February, 2010 - The Obama administration is no longer insisting on the creation of a stand-alone consumer protection agency as a central element of the plan to remake regulation of the financial system."

I could continue, but my stomach is turning.

And one more tidbit: "And supporters of the president's more compromising stance say his positions will help liberal causes in the long run."

Yes, the President's willingness to compromise with the right wingers has certainly been very helpful, hasn't it?

scott3460 4 years, 1 month ago

The republicans won the elections for the following reasons:

  1. Low voter turnout resulted in an older, whiter and more conservative electorate. Traditional left political blocks largely stayed home. See my post re: the President's love of compromising with right wingers.

  2. The President and Democrats did a poor job of selling their accomplishments on behalf of the American public (see item below re: the corporate control of the media.)

  3. The Supreme Court's discovery of free speech rights for corporation's led to the infusion of obscene amounts of money which was spent in support of politicians favored by corporations.

  4. Relentless mainstream media propaganda in support of right wing positions as a result of consolidation of the media in to fewer and more corporate hands. Unsurprisingly these large business interests program content that supports the point of view of a large corporate entity. American media is increasingly little more than a 24/7 brainwashing of right wing views.

jafs 4 years, 1 month ago

At least we should be able to discuss and debate ideas without degenerating into personal insults and attacks.

I invite all who agree with me to simply ignore posts which contain those sorts of ad hominem comments.

Perhaps that will improve the quality of discussions on here.

tomatogrower 4 years, 1 month ago

I suppose you believe in the "death squads". I don't suppose you have a child who was denied insurance, because of a pre-existing condition. I suppose you have never had your insurance refuse payment, because you got sick. I suppose you have no grown children struggling to make it in this economy and need to be kept on their parent's insurance. And, of course, since it has never happened to you, it doesn't exist, and you could care less about anyone else. More compassionate conservatives.

libra101 4 years, 1 month ago

I'm afraid what we will quickly find out is you can't compromise with crazy. And any sane Republican who tries to play nice and actually work to get things done will find themselves primaried by a tea bagger so fast it will make their head spin.

Abdu Omar 4 years, 1 month ago

The people must speak for themselves. I agree wholeheartedly with this letter and I think it is time to break the old paradigms and bring in something new, like a real government. Obama tried to break the deadlock, but remember when he took office, the republicans when into hiding to plan a strategy? Instead of listening to the people, we are listening to others who share our opinion and no one else. This must stop and it will if we the people are firm in what WE want. In a larger sense, we are listening to the media and agreeing with them and not doing the homework of finding out the real truth. The situation with the "Ground Zero" mosque is an example. It was neither a mosque nor on ground Zero.

weeslicket 4 years, 1 month ago

as for myself, i was expecting: republican control of the house. president obama is still president obama. and, i was actually rooting for a 50-50 tie in the senate.

on mixed government: hasn't reasonable compromise , in our history, delivered to us mostly satisfying and long lasting improvement to our life as a nation? any commentary on the evidence of that observation?

perhaps we are now forced to have this conversation.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 1 month ago

Only problem is that now more than ever, both parties are controlled by corporate interests. Which means that any "compromises" almost always favor them, and not us. That's what got us Obamacare.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 1 month ago

David Omar I can appreciate your letter. You and I must stop kidding ourselves into believing that much change will take place UNTIL you,me and all others across the nation demand that special interest financing of our election process must stop immediately.

Special interest financing of elections is why:

  1. multi trillion dollar wars exist against nations that did not attack the USA

  2. Americans cannot have access to IMPROVED Medicare Insurance for ALL in which insurance giants together with the Chamber of Commerce spent $1.4 million a day to defeat. What a waste of medical insurance dollars!

3.Americans do not have more fuel efficient vehicles on the road. Oil kingdoms such as Koch brothers,EXXON-Mobil,Phillips-Conoco etc etc constantly feed us BS about global warming and air pollution

4.It takes forever to have cleaner,less expensive and more efficient energy sources

  1. we do not have elections and legislation NOT controlled by corporate american conflicts of interest.

6.Americans cannot get truth in advertising from all sources of media = It was noted that campaigns spent $3 billion on the media.

Then again why do voters elect the big spenders and send back incumbents time and time again? This makes voters a big part of the problem!

Slaphappy 4 years, 1 month ago

I'd like to do what the Democrats want, but I can't afford it.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 1 month ago

Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. He had a balanced budget in 1956 and 1957.

Since then, there have been two presidents to preside over balanced budgets, LBJ in 1969 and Clinton in 1998 through 2001.

During the last 40 years there have been five budget surpluses, all five were under Democratic Presidents: 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001( GWBush blew this surplus quickly).

weeslicket 4 years, 1 month ago

no one got a "surplus check". what you got was an "advance" on your "next tax return" check with your tax preparer.

gl0ck0wn3r 4 years, 1 month ago

Since he who shall not be named won't engage in useful conversation, I am curious... What specific programs would you cut to balance the budget if you believe a balanced budget is important. I see this conversation constantly and yet I rarely see any sort of coherent strategy to reduce govenment spending. I am uninterested in hearing "OMG NO GULF WAR" because those are sunk costs as is the stimulus bill. What systemic changes would you suggest? Which social programs should be cut? Which military programs should be cut?

tomatogrower 4 years, 1 month ago

And how was he suppose to pay for the war? Spend the money, but don't take in any. That's real smart. Let's have a war and eat your cake too. How much money did you make from the corporations who are profiting from this war.

Abdu Omar 4 years, 1 month ago

We the people will never own our government until we get rid of special interests, period. This should be the first item of business. But the legilators cannot get rid of them because they give them money and lots of it for whatever they want. Why is it that a person goes to Washington as middle class and comes home after two three years as a millionaire? It is the special interests. Let make them go away!!

JayCat_67 4 years, 1 month ago

Oh, my friend, if only it were that easy...

jafs 4 years, 1 month ago

That's the crux of the problem.

Those who would have to vote to prevent the money from coming in are those most at risk from being corrupted by it.

Unless we get some outsiders in, and they can quickly change that part of the system before they succumb to the temptations.

Unfortunately, that seems unlikely.

jafs 4 years, 1 month ago

And, it's even a little worse than that.

Since campaigns cost so much, by the time that someone is even a viable candidate, they're already beholden to their contributors.

Slaphappy 4 years, 1 month ago

When my kids demand something I can't afford I tell them No.

gl0ck0wn3r 4 years, 1 month ago

I, for one, shall not rest until Lawrence gets a solar powered monorail paid for by a tax on energy inefficient landscapers. Further, I would like the city to explore building a wall around the city and outlawing chain stores within the interior.

JayCat_67 4 years, 1 month ago

The real issue is the two party system as it currently exists. The fact is that the entire country is left to vote for candidates that are selected by the extreme ends of the political spectrum. In order to get through a primary, a democratic candidate has to pander to the extreme left of the democratic party and, if eventually elected to office, must continue to do so to avoid getting bounced in the primary the next time around. The same concept applies to Republican candidates. Honestly, was Sarah Palin selected as John McCain's running mate two years ago because she was an experienced, competent leader, or was it because McCain wasn't considered "right" enough to energize the Republican base? Think about it. Unfortunately, independent or third party candidates don't stand much of a chance as there is so much special interest money being funneled into the major parties; money that can be spent on those wonderful attack ads that we all love to hate. (Unfortunately, as much as we do hate them, they are much more effective at eliciting a powerful emotional response than an ad that says "Hi, I'm Joe Blow, and this is what I stand for...") Anyway, the last third party candidate of any real consequence was Ross Perot, and he had a whole ton of his own money to spend. Because of this though, he was able to present his ideas without having them approved by party interests. Would he have been a good president? After his goofy "on again/off again" campaign, I have serious doubts, but he is an excellent example of what it would take for a third party candidate to have any chance. So what is the answer? The two party system isn't likely to go away any time soon. Perhaps opening the primary process to everyone regardless of party affiliation would work. Of course, this would allow hard core Republicans and Democrats to vote against what they perceive as their greatest threats in the primaries. However, a moderate candidate may actually be able to run on their own merits and rely on the votes of independents and like minded members of both parties instead of worrying about toeing the party line on every issue. Come the general election, we may actually end up with candidates that can truly debate issues and give us someone to vote "for" with some hope that they'll actually represent more than just special interest groups. Then again, maybe I'm just a foolish dreamer. Oh well, dream on.

JayCat_67 4 years, 1 month ago

Yeah, I was feeling philosophical this evening. The other thing that's kind of amusing is that it seems that every time either party makes a significant gain in an election, they suddenly have a "mandate" to push their party's agenda on all Americans. As you say, the cycle just repeats itself while those of us in the middle sit and shake our heads while watching the pendulum speed by us on its way to another extreme.

gl0ck0wn3r 4 years, 1 month ago

You are close but for the wrong reasons. A third party is virtually impossible in our system because our system is not a parliamentary system and thus there is virtually no realistic mechanism for coalition building and power sharing between multiple parties in power. For example, if party X took 25% of the Congress, party Y took 30% and party Z took 45%, there is no real way for parties X and Y to form a coalition (even informally) against party Z. Realistically one can argue the last time the US had a viable third party it ended in a civil war.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 1 month ago

"Realistically one can argue the last time the US had a viable third party it ended in a civil war."

So the Civil War was the Republicans' fault? It didn't have anything to do with slavery, or the Southern states seceding?

gl0ck0wn3r 4 years, 1 month ago

Read some history and get back with me. I am not taking that bait. The Civil War, like all historical events, had multiple causes... one of which was a breakdown of the party system.

Oh, and I am still waiting on your answers to my post above about cutting spending.

kernal 4 years, 1 month ago

Not only do the legislators need to get the job done without the party line spats, but so do the American people. I cannot believe the hatred and ignoranceof so many commentors on so many sites during this election. It's become apparent a large number of our citizens don't understand the difference between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights or how the House works. The lack of understanding of what is in certain Bills and Acts is so appalling that people don't always know what they are voting for, or against.

We need to work on that, us, not the politicians.

JayCat_67 4 years, 1 month ago

Hatred and ignorance on this board? Surely you jest! :-D

Commenting has been disabled for this item.