A Serious Question About "Obstruction"

[Wiseacre]

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.

Respect it how? The GOP won the 2010 midterm elections by a large margin, wouldn't you call that a mandate? I don't see the democrats respecting that result at all.

 

[Wiseacre]

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.....?

I wouldn't count on it. Keynesian economics hasn't been huge success lately either.

 

[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.

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.

Been reading about last summer's debt ceiling debacle. From what I got out of it so far, the GOP refused to even discuss tax hikes but were willing to talk about reducing tax deductions and exemptions that would've increased revenue. They wanted to make other changes to grow the economy, thereby increasing revenue that way.

But the democrats were as unwilling to discuss making any changes to the entitlement programs, which is where the big money is. They took it off the table, and instead went looking for nickle and dime stuff in other areas. Looks to me like plenty of obstructionism on both sides.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Respect it how? The GOP won the 2010 midterm elections by a large margin, wouldn't you call that a mandate? I don't see the democrats respecting that result at all.

It's not a mandate because they could have done better than Democrats said they would after the election. Right?

 

[Qball]

A lot of this so-called "obstructionism" seems like a carefully crafted narrative to mask the fact that Obama's out of his depth in his capacity as President. I doubt if anybody else had won in 2008 that you'd hear so much about one party obstructing the other. That's such a subtly inappropriate term, as if the Obama administration is owed some summer rain of soft kisses because, I don't know, he's the first Black President and he's doing the best he can and he wants to bring us hope and change or whatever. It also presumes something profound: that Obama's agenda is beyond reproach. It seems like they're trying to safeguard against any of Obama's mistakes damaging his credibility by harping on the fact that Republicans don't want him to succeed. Uh duh. Of course they don't...just like Democrats didn't want Bush to succeed. So where's the surprise part?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?"

Dude, you are in no position to speak of intelligence.

Seriously.

 

[auditor0007]

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!"

There is a huge difference between trying to find compromise on issues and having some give and take so that both sides get some of the things they want. Obviously, the party holding the power will usually get more of the benefit, but they don't just stonewall the opposition. The Republican Party, during Obama's entire presidency, has been stonewalling Obama and the Dems. They have not given on anything, and this is why this is most likely the most ineffective Congress we have ever had.

 

[Wiseacre]

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!"

There is a huge difference between trying to find compromise on issues and having some give and take so that both sides get some of the things they want. Obviously, the party holding the power will usually get more of the benefit, but they don't just stonewall the opposition. The Republican Party, during Obama's entire presidency, has been stonewalling Obama and the Dems. They have not given on anything, and this is why this is most likely the most ineffective Congress we have ever had.

So you say, but I think the dems have been just as unwilling to give on entitlement spending unless it is reducing what the providers get. I have to say, your assertion that the repubs have stonewalled Obama and the dems over his entire term is laughable, they didn't have much chance of doing that until Jan 20, 2010, which is when the repubs took over control of the House. The dems' approach has always and forever been to raise taxes now and we'll cut spending in the future, which they never do. I don't see the dems as any more willing to give in on anything either.

 

[Big Black Dog]

It isn't "obstruction" if you are doing the right thing by voting against potentially stupid and dangerous laws.

 

[Intense]

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!"

There is a huge difference between trying to find compromise on issues and having some give and take so that both sides get some of the things they want. Obviously, the party holding the power will usually get more of the benefit, but they don't just stonewall the opposition. The Republican Party, during Obama's entire presidency, has been stonewalling Obama and the Dems. They have not given on anything, and this is why this is most likely the most ineffective Congress we have ever had.

The RNC did not succeed without some DNC Support. Pelosi and Reid were failures. The DNC plan is a fail, that is why we are worse off. I wonder how things would fare, if the Media could for once put a muzzle on it's bias, and stop cheer-leading for Obama. George Orwell must be turning in his grave. We are sure Fucked. That is a given. The question is how much more are we willing to take.

 

[Intense]

It isn't "obstruction" if you are doing the right thing by voting against potentially stupid and dangerous laws.

Some are so spoon fed and brainwashed, there is no turning back for them. Prepare for the worst. It's like watching a multi-car-wreck on ice in slow motion. Everyone is an expert on spending other peoples money, yet can't even balance their own check book. One thing is for certain. We get the Government we deserve. The only thing that comes to mind is "Sack Cloth and Ashes". We are truly our own worst enemy.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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!"

Bullshit.

 

[waltky]

Yea, Uncle Ferd says he'll vote fer Miss Ashley, Granny says, "You go girl!...

U.S. Senator Ashley Judd? Actress/activist being touted for run against McConnell
November 7. 2012 - The actress and activist is being touted as a potential Senate candidate in Kentucky.

U.S. Sen. Ashley Judd? Some Democrats are wondering. In all the pundit chatter leading up to and in the aftermath of Tuesday's re-election of President Obama, the most intriguing talk was about actress and Obama activist Judd as a potential U.S. Senate candidate in her former home, Kentucky, or even her current home of Tennessee. Judd, who campaigned vigorously for Obama, has hinted before she might run for public office but never said anything about the U.S. Senate. But that hasn't stopped wishful Dems from dreaming.

On MSNBC Wednesday evening, NBC's political honcho Chuck Todd reported "serious speculation" about Judd being recruited to run in Kentucky against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who's up for re-election in 2014 and might be in trouble with his own party thanks to the GOP's sorry showing Tuesday, especially the failure to re-take the Senate. Meanwhile, the Louisville Courier-Journal interviewed U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., who said a Judd-McConnell match-up would be a "premier race" and the money would "pour in" for her.

Even before the election, Huffington Post political analyst Howard Fineman said on MSNBC that Democrats in Kentucky would love to draft the 44-year-old TV/movie star, the sister and daughter to best-selling country stars Wynonna Judd and Naomi Judd. "They want her. I know they want her," Fineman said. "The money people in Kentucky want Ashley Judd."

Judd grew up in Kentucky and went to college there but lives in Tennessee with her husband, race car driver and three-time Indianapolis 500 winner Dario Franchitti. She attended the Democratic National Convention this summer as a delegate from the Volunteer State. Judd told The Tennessean in August that Democrats had not approached her about running against Tennessee's U.S. Sen. Bob Corker in Tuesday's election and she wouldn't have said yes even if they had. "The way I'm doing my service right now is the best use of me," she said.

Source

See also:

McConnell stiff-arms Obama, Senate Dems
WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 (UPI) -- After Democrats increased their U.S. Senate majority Tuesday, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell challenged the president to "move to the political center."

While McConnell congratulated President Barack Obama on his re-election, the Kentucky Republican showed no inclination to concede any political ground, The (Louisville) Courier-Journal reported. "The American people did two things: They gave President Obama a second chance to fix the problems that even he admits he failed to solve during his first four years in office, and they preserved Republican control of the House of Representatives," McConnell said in a statement. "The voters have not endorsed the failures or excesses of the president's first term, they have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together with a Congress that restored balance to Washington after two years of one-party control. "Now it's time for the president to propose solutions that actually have a chance of passing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and a closely divided Senate, step up to the plate on the challenges of the moment, and deliver in a way that he did not in his first four years in office. "To the extent he wants to move to the political center, which is where the work gets done in a divided government, we'll be there to meet him half way."

McConnell said a starting point would be to find a way to avoid taking the federal government over the "'fiscal cliff' without harming a weak and fragile economy." The next step, he said, would be to reform the tax code "and our broken entitlement system." U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, offered a similar assessment in Washington Wednesday. Republicans picked up one Senate seat in Nebraska but lost seats in Maine, Massachusetts and Indiana -- dashing their hopes of wresting control away from the Democrats. The Democrats retained an open seat in Virginia, where Tim Kaine held off a strong challenge by Republican George Allen, CNN projected. Kaine held a 51-49 edge with 86 percent of the vote counted.

GOP state lawmaker Deb Fischer defeated Democrat Bob Kerrey, a former U.S. senator and Nebraska governor, for the seat given up by Democrat Ben Nelson. CNN said Fischer had 55 percent of the vote to 45 percent for Kerrey with 44 percent of precincts tallied. Fischer had led in the polls throughout the campaign, though Kerrey had closed the gap heading into Election Day. Maine independent Angus King defeated GOP nominee Charlie Summers and Democrat Cynthia Dill, MSNBC projected. King had 51 percent of the vote to 28 percent for Summers and 6 percent for Dill with 14 percent of precincts counted, CNN reported. In winning the seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Olympia Snowe, King was generally expected to caucus with the Democrats if elected, though that remained to be seen.

MSNBC also projected Democrat Elizabeth Warren as the winner over Republican incumbent Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Warren had 53 percent of the vote to 47 percent for Brown with 44 percent of precincts in, CNN said. In Indiana, the seat held by Republican Sen. Richard Lugar went to the Democratic column, with MSNBC projecting Joe Donnelly the winner over Republican Richard Mourdock. Donnelly led Mourdock 49-45 with 75 percent of the vote in, CNN reported. Mourdock knocked off Lugar in the GOP primary but got into hot water with comments during a debate that he is opposed to abortion in the case of pregnancies resulting from rape because they are "something that God intended to happen."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012...Senate-Dems/UPI-55861352214084/#ixzz2Bh5dLdW4

 

[daveman]

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!"

The left believes the duty of the GOP is not to represent their constituents, but to rubber-stamp the Democrat agenda. Anything less is "un-American", "obstruction", "oppression", and sometimes "treason.

Of course, the left believes an awful lot of stupid shit.

 

[daveman]

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.

And yet, oddly, you see no problem with Reid refusing to let House bills off his desk, because they might help America and the GOP would then get credit for it.

In summary, the left's idea of cooperation and bipartisanship is "STFU and do what we tell you to do".

 

[daveman]

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!"

There is a huge difference between trying to find compromise on issues and having some give and take so that both sides get some of the things they want. Obviously, the party holding the power will usually get more of the benefit, but they don't just stonewall the opposition. The Republican Party, during Obama's entire presidency, has been stonewalling Obama and the Dems. They have not given on anything, and this is why this is most likely the most ineffective Congress we have ever had.

Again: The GOP is under no obligation to rubber-stamp the Dem agenda.

As I said, the left cannot comprehend this.

 

[Katzndogz]

If the Congressmen won't obstruct obama's policies they will be replaced by a Congress that will. That's what happened in 2010. National voters don't elect district representatives. People in that district elect those. Look at an election map. obama dominated in the bloated cities, but those in the bloated cities don't elect representatives from the suburbs or rural area. They elect their own. That's what a representative democracy is all about. Democrats just don't like the representatives the people elect. They want to make democrat choices.

Republicans will either obstruct, or be replaced by someone who will.

 

[Sactowndog]

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

But in fact the actions did not follow the words. The Republican leadership did want him to fail to the point of when he adopted Republican ideas they promptly opposed them.

A perfect example is the mandate in health care. The simple fact is this a Republican concept stated by the Heritage Foundation. Nor does it violate Republican principles because in fact without it people freeload off the system by gaining catastrophic health care insurance free of charge. But once it was included in the Obama health care plan Republican's attacked it.

Simply put Republicans are not willing to move at all and despite what they think, the vast majority of American's don't think they have the monopoly on good ideas.

 

[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

But in fact the actions did not follow the words. The Republican leadership did want him to fail to the point of when he adopted Republican ideas they promptly opposed them.

A perfect example is the mandate in health care. The simple fact is this a Republican concept stated by the Heritage Foundation. Nor does it violate Republican principles because in fact without it people freeload off the system by gaining catastrophic health care insurance free of charge. But once it was included in the Obama health care plan Republican's attacked it.

Simply put Republicans are not willing to move at all and despite what they think, the vast majority of American's don't think they have the monopoly on good ideas.

I don't see the democrats as willing to address the problems with our entitlement programs or cut spending at all, except defense spending. Democrats are no more willing to budge than the repubs are.

About the ACA, too bad the democrats didn't try to include the repubs in the creation of the bill. But no, they completely shut them out and then expected their support. Fuck that.

 

[Sactowndog]

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.

You can't say the Republican Party is fine when it is fundamentally a regional party. In the Northeast and on the Pacific Coast the party is all but dead. The only hope Republicans have in these states is to get away from the national brand and move in mass to the Libertarian Party.