Quote:Obama, on the other hand, upon making it into office has had a great many problems laid at his feet. Now this man doesn't have all the answers, so he is calling on all of the 'great minds' of America to help solve these issues. He preaches Bipartisianship and fairness yet has been pushing his own agenda maliciously. Judd Gregg, a respected grassroots republican senator from NH DECLINED Obama's request to serve as commerce secretary (or some such position under the president) surprising everyone and there mom. The senator stated that there were 'things that just could not be compromised' and that he did not feel right working with Obama. So much for bipartsianship. Why would a respected man like Gregg, who is coming to the end of his career as he gets up there in age, say "No." to the president? Simple, not all of us Americans are going to allow our country to go the way of the buffalo.
I am somewhat confused by your logic here. A Republican (note: from the party opposite the president) is offered a key administration position by Obama. (He does not have to give the Republicans any key posts at all. Certainly Bush never gave any to the Dems.) That Republican, after mulling it over, feels he cannot work with Obama, and claims that there are things he cannot compromise about.
The conclusion is that this is a failure of Obama to be bipartisan, and he is maliciously (With malice? Really?) pursuing his own agenda? That he can't compromise? That bipartisanship is out the window *because of Obama*?
I don't get it.
-Jester