A Serious Question About "Obstruction"

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Gem, Sep 18, 2012.

  1. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    Saw this on another thread...
    [​IMG]

    Here's my question:
    What is shocking or inappropriate about stating forthrightly that you intend to fight against someone who is trying to enact change that you feel is inherently dangerous to what you feel your constituents want/elected you to do/is in the best interest for the country?

    No one seemed shocked when Democrats stated during the Bush Administration that they opposed the administration's policies, called them or the President directly, stupid/dangerous/criminal/etc. It seemed only logical that if you were against what President Bush was trying to do you would fight against it...not rally to his side as a sign of good sportsmanship or in the spirit of bipartisanship.

    So here comes our new president...and we know from his books, his votes, his statements, etc. that he is going to push for massive healthcare reforms, higher taxes, that he believes the best approach to foreign policy begins with apologizing to various nations for the ways we have "wronged" them in the past...etc.

    Agree or disagree, these are ideas that are inherently opposed to much of what the Republicans in Congress claim to represent.

    Why exactly are you expecting them to say, "Well - gee, the President is a Democrat so I guess we should all just bow down/bend over/shut up and let him do whatever he wants to this country for four years...and then we'll revisit the ideas and see if the people want a Republican again!"

    Why is it shocking or offensive to hear a Republican politican say that they want to shut down Obama's agenda and that they'd like him to be a one-term president? Why isn't it just a "Well...duh!" observation.

    If Romney wins the Presidency in November...will we witness Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid shake his hand and say, "Congratulations, Mr. President, lets have lunch and discuss how we can lower taxes on the rich, end Obamacare as quickly as possible, and do whatever else you have in your rich, Republican head to do!"
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2012
  2. AVG-JOE
    Offline

    AVG-JOE American Mutt Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    22,888
    Thanks Received:
    4,882
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    Your Imagination
    Ratings:
    +7,017
    There's a difference between promoting policies or an ideology as an opposition voice and making it your goal as a salaried employee of the United States to sabotage the President.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194

    The opposition party always tries to obstruct the current president, they're usually a little more discrete about saying so. That quote from McConnell, he later says in the same interview that if Obama would actually compromise with the repubs that he and they would work with him. Funny how the left always leaves that part out.

    snippet:

    NJ: What’s the job?

    McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

    NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?

    McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.

    NJ: What are the big issues?

    McConnell: It is possible the president’s advisers will tell him he has to do something to get right with the public on his levels of spending and [on] lowering the national debt. If he were to heed that advice, he would, I image, [sic] find more support among our conference than he would among some in the Senate in his own party. I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change. So, we’ll see. The next move is going to be up to him.

    Read more: Woodward Gets Scarborough to Apologize for Misreporting McConnell's 'Make Obama One-Term President' Remark | NewsBusters.org
     
  4. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    11,434
    Thanks Received:
    870
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +1,240
    I think all politiians in both house should respect democracy.

    I understand that opposition parties do not support the vision of the party that defeated them at the polls, but they should respect that the people voted for that vision.

    I'd rather see opposition parties try to get amendments made rather than jut set out to block and sabtoage.
     
  5. Aristotle
    Offline

    Aristotle Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,599
    Thanks Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +125
    Most Obama opponents both in Washington and civilian in my opinion are no smarter than the pebbles of the Grand Canyon. My think to Obama haters is "you hate Obama but would rather elect a president that gives tax cuts to the rich?"
     
  6. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194

    Right now we have diametrically opposing policies in the areas of economics and foreign affairs by the two major political parties. Without getting into another argument about who is right, if I were a member of Congress I could not support any legislation that I really believed was counter productive to the nation's best interests. I maybe in the minority party but that doesn't mean I'm not right, nor does it mean I should roll over.
     
  7. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    11,434
    Thanks Received:
    870
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +1,240
    Wiseacre -

    I think demcracy requires firm opposition. We need opposition parties to ask questions, challenge assumptions and present alternative visions.

    What we don't need is legislation so heavily compromised that it does not work, or legislation bogged down in committees for years when it could make a real difference once implemented.

    When a party stand on a couple of key issues and wins an election on them, they have a mandate from the people, even if they do not have a majority in the house. I think opposition parties should respect that, even if they do not support the legislation themselves.
     
  8. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,619
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,214
    Is that a serious response?
    Obama has been the worst president ever. The results of his policies are total failure. We have the worst recovery on record. We have the results of the worst foreign policy on record. I am glad the GOP decided to block the rest of Obama's policies once they could. If they had gone along with what he wanted it would be disaster.
    Romney offers a clear choice. "Giving tax cuts to the rich" is a caricature of what he wants. The left would say that no matter what Romney actually stood for.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    Because unlike Bush, it was done in the context of the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, where republican politicians were actually willing to let millions of Americans suffer as part of a scheme to ‘get rid’ of Obama; where republican politicians were refusing to enact legislation designed to help the suffering American people for fear such measures would succeed and the president realize re-election.
     
  10. Bfgrn
    Offline

    Bfgrn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    16,829
    Thanks Received:
    2,480
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,060
    It goes much deeper than that. When obstructionism prevents reforms and legislation that were part of your own Republican agenda, it becomes a form of domestic terrorism IMO.

    Republicans were well aware that health care reform was paramount to repairing our economy and protecting the financial security of American families. McCain, and Republicans ALSO ran on promising health care reforms.

    But Republicans made a conscious and collective decision to block and undermine any reform. Because it would be seen as a success for our President.

    David Frum, the Republican and former economic speechwriter for George W. Bush was fired by the American Enterprise Institute for writing this op-ed, a right wing think tank whose 'scholars' ironically were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

    Waterloo
    by David Frum

    At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

    This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

    Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The final irony:
    The health care bill Obama and Democrats passed was not the reform liberals and progressives sought. It was and IS a carbon copy of the Republican bills proposed by Senator John Chafee, (R-R.I) and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole in the early 1990's. Including the conservative idea...the individual mandate.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page