A Serious Question About "Obstruction"

[Gem]

Saw this on another thread...

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!"

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

 

[Wiseacre]

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.

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

 

[Saigon]

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.

 

[Aristotle]

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?"

 

[Wiseacre]

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.

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.

 

[Saigon]

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?"

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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.

 

[Bfgrn]

Saw this on another thread...

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!"

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.

 

[editec]

Obstructionism of things that your party WILL DO when they get into office is truly evil politics.

And YES, I defintiely think the GOP has been doing that.

So fuck that America hating party for sure.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Step one to working it out is to put all aspects of the nations finances on the table, spending needs to be drastically reduced and those who can afford it need to pay a little more in taxes.

Step one in obstructionism is the refusal to discuss one side of the solution equation.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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?"

The greatest value to American Politics that a Romney loss will foment is that finally, the Republicans will have an excuse to end their religious affiliation with Trickle-Down Economics.

Will they take advantage of the opportunity.....?

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

There's a hint at the bigger problem - using committees and procedural bullshit to move legislation or not with "winner-take-all" politics as the primary consideration instead of accomplishing a goal shaped by compromise.

Having appointees still languishing in the Senate four years after the last election is crap.

 

[Bfgrn]

The late great Republican Senator from Arizona warned us about what was happening to his party.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

 

[The Rabbi]

The late great Republican Senator from Arizona warned us about what was happening to his party.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

Newsflash: Goldwater is dead.
Do you really think Goldwater would vote for stimulus, nationalized health care, cash for____, gutting our military, carbon tax etc etc?
No, I didnt think so either.

 

[Jroc]

The late great Republican Senator from Arizona warned us about what was happening to his party.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz8SYgn4pJk]Artur Davis, Former Democrat Congressman, Speaks at the Republican National Convention - YouTube[/ame]

 

[AVG-JOE]

The late great Republican Senator from Arizona warned us about what was happening to his party.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

You trot that shit out all the time. Newsflash: Goldwater is dead.
Do you really think Goldwater would vote for stimulus, nationalized health care, cash for____, gutting our military, carbon tax etc etc?
No, I didnt think so either.

Not exactly the point there, Rabbi. NObody is claiming that Goldwater was a good Democrat - it's just a historic look at Republicanism.

 

[Bfgrn]

The late great Republican Senator from Arizona warned us about what was happening to his party.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

Newsflash: Goldwater is dead.
Do you really think Goldwater would vote for stimulus, nationalized health care, cash for____, gutting our military, carbon tax etc etc?
No, I didnt think so either.

Yes, Barry Goldwater is dead. And so is the party he once led and believed in. But his message and warning are not dead. There are still many close Goldwater friends and associates that have continued to speak out about what has happened to the Grand Old Party.

Here one...

Invasion of the Party Snatchers

By Victor Gold

After four decades as a Republican insider, Victor Gold reveals how the holy-rollers and the Neo-Cons have destroyed the GOP. Now he's fighting to get his party back.

As a man who served as press aide to Barry Goldwater and speechwriter and senior advisor to George H. W. Bush (in addition to co-authoring his autobiography), Victor Gold is absolutely furious that the Neo-Cons and their strange bedfellows, the Evangelical Right, have stolen his party from him. Now he is bringing the fight to them.

Invasion of the Party Snatchers is a blistering critique not only of the Bush-Cheney administration but also of the Republican Congress. Gold is ready to tell all about the war being waged for the soul of the GOP, including the elder Bush's opinion of his sons work domestically and abroad, the significance of the newly elected Congress, and how Goldwater would have reacted to it all. Gold reveals, among other explosive disclosures, how George W. has been manipulated by his vice president and secretary of defense to become, in Lenin's famous phrase, a "useful idiot" for Neo-Conservative warmongers and Theo-Conservative religious fanatics.

Although there have been other books by dissident Republicans attacking the Bush-Cheney administrations betrayal of conservative principles, none have been by an insider whose political credentials include inner-circle status with Barry Goldwater and George H. W. Bush.

Review:
"Make no mistake: author Gold, a former speechwriter for George H.W. Bush and aide to Barry Goldwater, is one disgusted Republican. The GOP of the 2006 midterm election, he writes, is 'a party of pork-barrel ear-markers like Dennis Hastert, of political hatchet men like Karl Rove, and of Bible-thumping hypocrites like Tom Delay.' Gold looks to Goldwater, 'a straight-talking, freethinking maverick,' as the yardstick by which to measure just how far the party of Lincoln has fallen.

He traces the beginning of the end to the 1980 Republican National Convention and the presence of 'a militant new element...personified by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.' The other half of the equation, the neoconservatives, are embodied by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, 'two cuts from the same Machiavellian cloth.' In efficient prose, Gold scrutinizes a significant swath of recent GOP history, in particular Newt Gingrich's 104th Congress and the Bush II White House, without losing momentum.

He also has choice words for 'the Coulterization of Republican rhetoric,' the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street, and 'sideshow' legislation like the Flag Protection Amendment. Gold sees a promising future for the Republican Party, but not until they lose some major elections and are able to keep down a slice of humble pie; for those disillusioned with the state of the GOP, this quick, uncompromising polemic provides substantial support, along with a large dose of cold comfort." Publishers Weekly (Starred Review) (Copyright Reed Business Information, Inc.)

Synopsis:
The last real Goldwater conservative in America attacks the current state of his movement and his party.
Powell's Books - Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP by Victor Gold

Victor Gold grew up in New Orleans, Louisiana, where he attended the public schools, and Tulane University. After working as a reporter-correspondent for the BIRMINGHAM (Alabama) NEWS, he earned his law degree (J.D.) from the University of Alabama. He served in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, 1950-52.

In 1958 he moved to Washington, D.C., and joined the public relations firm of Selvage & Lee. Six years later he became Deputy Press Secretary to Senator Barry Goldwater during the 1964 presidential campaign.

In 1965 Gold opened his own political public relations firm in Washington, listing among his clients then-Republican House leader Gerald Ford and Senator Bob Dole. At the Republican conventions of 1968 and 1976 he worked with press secretary Lyn Nofziger on behalf of the presidential candidacy of then-California Governor Ronald Reagan. During the Nixon administration he served as press secretary to Vice President Spiro T. Agnew until January, 1973.

In 1980 Gold joined the staff of Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush as a speechwriter and senior advisor, a position he held during the Reagan-Bush campaigns of '80 and '84. He served on the Bush vice-presidential staff in 1981, and as a Bush advisor in the campaigns of 1988 and 1992. In 1992 he received the Distinguished Achievement Award for Political Communication from his alma mater, the University of Alabama.

In 1989 Gold served as a member of President Bush's election-oversight delegation to the first free Romanian elections.

A frequent speaker on the national political and campus circuits, Gold has also appeared on numerous network television shows. His articles, covering politics and sports, have appeared in NEWSWEEK, HARPER'S, ATLANTIC MONTHLY, PLAYBOY, CONNOISSEUR, READERS' DIGEST, NATIONAL REVIEW, THE WEEKLY STANDARD, NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, and THE WASHINGTON POST.

 

[The Rabbi]

Utter garbage. It is touching the concern that dyed in the wool liberals have for the GOP. The GOP is doing just fine, thank you, as we saw in 2010. There is little influence from "those preachers". And the GOP has eschewed the isolationism preached by the libertarians in favor of a vigorous foreign policy, something the Democrats used to stand for, btw.
Yes, that part of Goldwater's party is gone. Thank goodness. Especially the part that lost to LBJ in a landslide.
It is teh Democratic Party that has changed the most. I recall the party of 1968 or so. It was led by men like Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern. You could disagree with their policies but you never questioned their integrity. When a flap enveloped Wilbur Mills, powerful chairman of the ways and means committee, the Democrats demanded his resignation. They did not join in lockstep and declare, "It's just sex" or "They all do it." I mourn the loss of a reasonable Democratic Party in this country.