Should President Obama meet again with House Republicans in an open format?

Last week President Obama met with House Republicans at their retreat and took questions from Republcian House members. I think most people enjoyed hearing from both sides. The Brits do this kind of thing on regular basis. So the question is, should we in the US do this more often.

Fox abruptly haulted coverage of the event and quite inexplicably gave summarized highly biased summations of the event instead. CNN and CNBC played the entire event uninterrupted.

Congressman Pence (Republican) does not want to repeat the event with an open question and answer period. I don't think Republicans want to repeat the event period as it gave President Obama an open ticket to debunk the nonsense Republicans have been pushing as truths.

So the question is, should the event become a regular part of politics in the US? My vote is yes. I love to see this kind of stuff more often. It gives each side an opportunity to put up their best case...none of this wallowing in the slime stuff that is typical.

If you agree that this should become part of the political discourse in the US, then you may want to add your name to this petition.

http://demandquestiontime.com/

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/03/demand-question-time/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why, Obama wasn't their to listen to Republicans, He was there to whine about it not being His problem.

Sorry, He is now the POTUS, He is now in His second year, and it is His problem, His budget, His deficit.

In the Senate, He voted for every spending bill that came down the pike, so He is even responsible for the deficits from 2008.

Time for the Obama to man up, stop blaming His failures to deal with the National problems on everyone else, grow up and be a POTUS, and stop being a whiny 3 year old.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, I think what you mean is that Obama wanted to hear credible ideas about how the Republican plans could solve the problems we now face. The operative word being credible. Screaming false nonsense at cameras to rile the passions of the devoted does not qualify as a credible solution to the nations problems.

Can you give us one quote from his speech where he denied the nations problems were not his to solve? He did recite how the nations problems came to be and did point out the inconsistencies in what Republicans have been saying (e.g. engaging in two wars, greatest expansion of entitlement programs since LBJ, tax cuts, all on the nations credit card adding 8 trillion dollars to the national debt). But that is far from denying ownership of the problems. It is just defining the problem. If it makes you uncomfortable then maybe that is a good thing. Because maybe, just maybe you might rethink what you have been doing (I doubt it is in you. But it is worth a try.)

It seemed to me Obama defined the problem well and outlined his plan to fix it. But do not confuse defining the problem with passing the buck. Because the two are very different. I think it is time, high time, for the Republicans to own up to their involvement and do the right thing instead of blaming others for their mistakes and mismanagement.

In 2008 Obama was running for president and did not spend a lot of time in congress lest you forget. And the big spending issues/problems started in 2002 through 2006. That is the period that the Republican Congress and Republican President really let things go to hell in a handbag. That is when they decided to engage in two wars without funding them; that is when they decided to give a blank check to the treasury to the drug and health insurance industry with the largest expansion of entitlement programs the country has seen since Medicare.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

YOU LIE! boy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

lol

 

But when He was there, He voted for the Bail Out and Tarp, and any other spending bill coming down the pike.

Not according to the speech He delivered to the Republican Retreat, joe, it was nothing but Blame the Republicans.

Now think Real Hard joe, I know you can do it, Obama had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.....a Major Majority in the House, where He steamed rollered the Health Care Bill down the Republicans throats, and massive additions to the Bail Outs for Wall Street, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.

It wasn't the Republicans in the Senate who stopped Health Care, they didn't have the Votes, only 40ty Republicans in the Senate, it was Obamas own Democrats who stopped it, No filibuster, no way to stop the Legislation.

 

Unless you are advocating that we should have shot ourselves in the foot and gone back to the days of food lines and soup kitchens with massive numbers of homeless people, then voting for the bailout (aka: TARP) was the right answer - the right thing to do. By the way, McCain (the Republican Presidential candidate and Palin were for the bailout bill too).

Like I said, I can understand how an objective defining of the current state of affairs could make Republicans a wee bit paranoid. But the facts are what they are, and when Republicans try to shift the blame to the innocent, it becomes a problem for the Republicans when someone fights back and calls them on their lies.

The issue here is not healthcare. But the Republicans had 40 votes and not one of them were cast in favor of healthcare. The Democrats had 58 votes plus 2 independents. If you recall one of those independents campaigned for the Republicans last election...name is Lieberman. Does that ring any bells. Coincidently he was the vote that nixed healthcare that was acceptable to the House Democrats. Does that ring any bells?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

it allows the public to know if the prez can answer criticism and lets us know if the opposition party is being a legit one.

 

Yes he should do it, it gives the impression of accountability even though there is none.

 

I barely paid attention to whatever was going on here, so F*** me for 5 weeks, but the more public discourse, the better, I say.
Not that most Republicans are very cool. They seem to love big government if it fits their agenda (more war, etc.) They just hate it when Obama does it.

 

I agree whole-heartedly. But, I wonder: had Scott Brown NOT won in MA, would Obama have still gone to visit the Republicans?

 

I guess we will never know. But it appears to me that Obama has a record of being more open and transparent than any recent president.

 

Do they not like it when Obama does it or is that just empty rhetoric - red meat for the party devotees? I think it is just red meat for their supporters. It is funny no one seems to care about government spending when Republicans are in control of government.

 

Was there a record of bipartisanship in Obama's administration thusfar? I don't know, really---I haven't followed it.

 

Given the fact that the Dems have incorporated a lot of Republican ideas and positions into the bills they have crafted, and given that they spent 3 months trying to negotiate a deal on healthcare with the Republicans I would say yes.

 

It could be a good thing

I think it's a good thing when the President and Congress get together and talk from time to time, but I agree with String:

I don't know about every month, though. Perhaps once a quarter. Or it might be more useful if they did this sort of thing when a major issue got contentious. One of the problems of having the President answer questions like that is that the range of issues gets really broad, so it's tough to delve deeply into one particular aspect. If they're going to do this, they should try to force things to go deeper than talking points and sound bites, otherwise there is generally no point. The session with Republicans has been a bit controversial, with various pundits trying to claim victory for each side. But the underlying question is how the politicians and their handlers feel about it. David Fitzsimmons published an excellent cartoon for The Arizona Daily Star the other day:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

But, for now, it seems the sides are still open to the issue.

I wonder how people would feel about the opposite, though. Perhaps the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, and the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders should individually come to Camp David and sit down to be interviewed on television by the President. Imagine the President looking at Reid or Pelosi and saying, "Why are you sending me these crappy bills? Do you know how hard it is to look at people with a straight face and talk about the progress we're making?" Or looking at McConnell and Boehner and asking, "Why are you opposing everything after spending years arguing that we owed a Republican president his agenda? What the hell is your problem?"

 

Execellent idea Tiassa!

 

I voted yes, but I sure do wonder what these talks actually accomplish.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That statement aside, I do think it's a good idea for the president to meet with the opposition once in a while. It should help keep him a bit more grounded and connected with reality than always being surrounded only by those of his own party.

 

Fixed.