“So the struggle I am having is this. Can we afford NOT to work with a Democrat President if it means we can help the USA? If he works WITH our guys, moves to the center, limits government spending and frees up the market and that helps our nation, then it stands a chance he could get re-elected, something I don’t want to see.”
First:
It’s not “can we afford NOT to work with” Obama, because that question does not begin with or depend on what it is that Obama wants to do.
Outside of some specific policy or action, there is no answer to that open-ended question.
Second:
Obama has an agenda, and a purpose to which he believes he was elected. That agenda and purpose is not dependent on any policy area that anyone thinks must be addressed because of any condition in the economy or the nation at this time.
Obama’s agenda, his purpose to which he and the intellectual core of his backers sought to get him elected is not a purpose focused on actually solving specific problems or issues.
Obama’s agenda, and his purpose is PRIMARILY to use the occasion of anywhere and anything that is considered as an issue for which something “needs to be done”, by the Federal government, as an opportunity to have legislation crafted as “the solution” filled with language that has the primary purpose of extending the breadth, the depth, the reach and the detailed invasion of centralized Federal power and authority into the economy and our daily lives.
Obama’s agenda, and his purpose is NOT about actually solving problmes; it’s about total transformation, total building up of, the power and role of the Federal government - period.
What individual issues the media, the Congress critters and the public are focused on, they are not the central concern of Obama. For his agenda, we could have any and all kinds of issues we do not have now. His agenda, the legacy he wants to leave would be the same - transform the Federal government into a massive central government socialist state, in any manner the language for it can be inserted into any legislation thought to be needed for any “solution”.
Unless the GOP understands that, their “cooperation” with Obama will assume he, like them, actually wants certain real problems solved, and he will be able to get the language he wants slipped into enough bills they cooperate on, to “solve” the only problem that to him needs solving - to turn over more power to the Federal government.
That was a great response (that I wish I could respond to)..............We said the same thing about Clinton...he wanted to transform the government into a socialist state and it sure looked that way when Hillary came out with her megaboondoggle health care gang rape.....
There are some big differences.
First, the Congress, particularly was much more Leftist, as of 2006 and continuing as of 2008, providing Obama a bigger base of subversion waiting to work with him than Billary ever had at any time.
Second; big pieces of Obama's "transformation" agenda have already been enacted, in the language of the "health care reform" legislation, in the language of the "financial reform" legislation, in the total Federal takeover of student loans, and many other items. Not only did Billary never get that far, getting that far now requires reversing something, not just stopping something. Keep in mind the Leftist have had this agenda since FDR. They have never stopped working for it and the Liberals are always their most useful "useful idiots" who have been trained since their college days to think of their ideas as "Liberal" and not as the Marxist ideas they truly are. Most of the real people who have kept the agenda for those ideas in play have not been the public faces, but behind the scenes "working for" those public faces. Not Obama. He is one of them.
Third: Hillary is the real Marxist half of the slimey political opportunist duo known as Billary. Bill's slimey half is all about public accolade, political "accomplishments" that "make him look good", and producing a perpetual self-interested political influence peddling machine that can continue after his own Presidency, keeping him in the Nexus of power circles, keeping his hand in as a player, keeping that machine as his lucrative personal business. If he made friends and cooperated with Hillary's Leftist intellectual peers, he did so for any benefit it gave him, much more than an abiding and deep intellectual sympatico. He is not principled enough to be a die-hard Leftist. Obama is none of those things; his only principles are Leftist.
It would be fine with Obama to be hated by the GOP and the Dims alike, and have low popularity ratings (so unlike Clintoon), as long as legislation enacted during his term actually accomplishes big elements of the transformation he sought to do.