Obama vs. GOP Government-in-Exile
Before a new blizzard brought Washington to a standstill, Barack Obama made another effort to dig out of the Republican snow job and verbal high winds that have disabled his efforts to govern.
After a two-hour meeting to clear the path for legislation, the President told White House reporters, “I won’t hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party, but I also won’t hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that’s rooted not in substantive disagreements but in political expedience.”
“Expedience” is a polite word for what the GOP has been pursuing for the past year, voting uniformly against every Obama initiative from the stimulus to health care. In effect, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have chosen not to practice traditional politics but act like a government-in-exile, retreating to the sidelines and sniping until they can return to power.
At yesterday’s meeting, the President’s patience worn thin, and he accused Boehner of just wanting to kill all his initiatives, setting off what was reportedly a “testy exchange.”
Even after conceding that the Obama White House has made many mistakes in strategy and tactics over a year of unprecedented challenges, it’s remarkable that GOP opposition has been so total and unyielding.
Where are the yes votes of “moderate” Republicans–Lugar, Voinovich, Snowe, Collins or the “maverick” McCain–on any single issue? Such a solid bloc of “no” precludes any conclusion that philosophical or ideological differences are involved. The GOP is in a full tantrum, holding its breath and refusing to budge until it can get its way next November.
38 Responses to “Obama vs. GOP Government-in-Exile”
Like the bumper stickers around my Texas home say: ” Nope ” That pretty much sums up the constructive dialogue.
This GOP is beyond embarrassment and beyond shame. They have become dishonest and hypocritical to an unprecedented degree. Calling them the party of no is almost too kind at this point. And yet there seem to be no consequences for the damaging behavior they are inflicting on the country. Any democrats who continue to think they can be reasoned at this point are living in a dreamworld, which in it's own way is almost as bad. Too many closed eyes and closed brains. Old story, the plot just gets worse…
Blaming the Republicans for being Republican only highlights the fact that Democrats have majority enough to pass any bill they wish, but are far to diversified in their ambitions to find any useful consensus.
The Democrats themselves are failing their constituencies and the nation as a whole by being far to diverse and disunited to pass any legislation.
Democrats are a failure.
It is Obama vs. his own party. If he was an effective enough leader to keep his house in order, he could accomplish some of his goals.
Luckily for the American people he is not.
Looks like the inmates have taken over the asylum. The democrats could retake control but are apparently afraid of injuring the artificial self-esteem of the republicans. If the democrats can't show some true leadership (and by that I don't mean any more utterly wasted bepartisan overtures) if they can't stop acting like wimps then maybe they deserve to get run over. And maybe by extension the electorate deserves the same fate, afterall, so many of them seem content to run interference for a party that's determined to keep kicking a country that is already down.
Oh, BS, and you know it.
What they are afraid of injuring is their re-election, as the public has shown they are not supportive of the current direction Obama has tried to take the country. If he ignores the fringe left of his own party, focuses on jobs and deficit reduction, stops trying to force HCR and cap-and-trade down our throats, then he very likely can get re-elected himself, and reduce the heat on Congress.
All he has to do is look at the Clinton Presidency. That is what Bill did when the public revolted against the overly liberal agenda he (and Hillary) tried to ram through. He moved to the center.
[...] one post; we should look at a substantial sample space, and let the conclusions form themselves:Before a new blizzard brought Washington to a standstill, Barack Obama made another effort to dig out of the Republican [...]
There are three groups in congress right now, and they're all minorities: Progressive Democrats, blue dog Democrats, and Republicans. Pretending that there are only two just confuses the conversation. The progressives have been acting like they're one group, which is the real reason they have stalled so far.
I thought that was obvious.
<blockquuote>There are three groups in congress right now, and they're all minorities: Progressive Democrats, blue dog Democrats, and Republicans
Let me correct that for you…
There are three groups in congress right now, and they're all minorities: Centrist Democrats, Right Wingers, and Insane Batshit Crazy Insane Fascist Lunatics.
Please, Nancy, Reid and Newt aren't that bad.
Re: “Where are the yes votes of “moderate” Republicans”
The moderates are not voting “yes” because the bills in front of them are not at all moderate. Yes, it's really that easy.
When you put a crazy far-reaching government-take-over of Healthcare in front of a true moderate, the moderate, not being a far left liberal, should end up voting against it EVERY TIME.
Alas, “moderate” has turned into some kind of code word for “goes along for the ride with whatever the majority party is pushing along.”
Yes they are.
Same old parroting of rightwing talking points. God, are people really that easy to hoodwink? This situation is so far beyone partisanship it's not funny. Wake-up call: We are going down the tubes and when functioning as a clueless electorate we greasing the slide.
How about, “they're not that much worse than the rest of them”?
You'll see the political parties change when people start abandoning them in droves instead of running between them. Until then, prepare your household, warn others, and batten down the hatches, because the storm is coming.
Luckily for the American people he is not.”
WOW, FT and Schad agreeing.
I liked (cough) O's statement seeking cooperation: ” but I also won’t hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that’s rooted not in substantive disagreements but in political expedience.”
That's right, start out with a negative, brilliant (he must be taking lessons from Ahmadinejad).
Perhaps so… but I hope you're wrong. Btw, I apologize for the mixed metaphors. Everything else was on target.
Yes, amazing, I know.
But he still won't take me up on my back-rub offer.
Me too (but my Panzer will look silly then).
back-rub offer.”
Watch out, he may be into beastiality, and you may qualify in a pinch.
The Democratic majority's current act of trying to appease the tandruming 2-year-old that is the Republican minority shows that they are incapable or unwilling to run the country with any discipline. Not that I'm suggesting giving the power back to the 2-year-old (no, GWB, I do not miss you yet). My big hope lies with those dear friends I have who grew up in horribly disfunctional families, yet somehow turned out to be highly productive, kind, and functional adults.
Yah, I'll probably regret selling most of my non-hunting weapons. So.. d'ya get good gas mileage with that thing?
Wow. The Left just REFUSES to see reality, don't you? It is not the Republicans they cannot appease – it is their own dysfunctional party.
The Republicans have clearly shown their are functioning as a group, while the Democrats, despite what should be an unassailable majority plus outright bribes to other party members, continues to show a complete inability to lead their way out of a wet paper bag.
Agree with Schaden here. Also agree with roro. Also agree with – shoot… far too much agreeing. I'm outta here..
Did you even read my comment, S_l? Just choose to ignore it? Focus on the part where I (rightfully) criticize those on the right side of the aisle and pretend it's the only thing I said? Or do you honestly think that the Republicans have no part at all in how our government is moving so slowly and ineffectually? And if you actually read what I wrote, it's entirely clear that I am placing the lion's share of the blame on the Democrats, who are in charge. Even in the sentence you quoted, I blame the Democrats and their inability to lead.
Haven't driven it. I plan on living in it (I was too cheap to build a real bomb shelter).
Yes, I most certainly did. You blame the Democrats for trying to appease the Republicans (who you refer to in insulting and childish terms), say that under circumstance do you want those (more childish, insulting terms) Republicans back in power, and finished by saying you think the Democrats can still be productive adults.
So please enlighten me in my ignorance. Where exactly is the part of YOUR tantrum post that is not a slam against the Republicans?
There is one reason the GOP is acting obstructionist, and that is because it works. Obama's numbers are going down, Democrats are losing seats, the GOP is gaining seats.
I think Obama is smart to try to get the GOP involved, otherwise he we will be unable to re-frame public perception. Think back to the Newt-Clinton budget deadlock – even though both parties were equally stubborn Clinton was able to frame it with the GOP in a negative light, and eventually the GOP had to blink.
Obama can't re-frame the situation by maintaining the status quo, and the Democrats can't re-frame it by pushing things through unilaterally. That will just mean more Democrats get voted out in November. By engaging the GOP Obama is choosing his best option even if it upsets his base. His base sure isn't going anywhere.
Yes, I referred to the Republicans as children. They are acting like children. This was true when they were in power as well, but now it's up to Democrats to act like adults and lead. They are unwilling or unable to do so. And when I said that sometimes people with poor upbringings grow up to be excellent adults, I was talking about the country, not the Democrats. My point was that I hope that somehow we — as a country — make it through the tantrums of the Republicans and ineffectual spinelessness of the Democrats that we're seeing today. You misread the metaphor, or else are so blind such as to think that your chosen party are and have been doing a super duper job, and therefore you are extra-special touchy on criticism of them, even when couched in criticism of their opponents.
Interesting thread. The Dems control the White House, the House, and the Senate. We should have gotten more done by now than we have. President Obama has been content to give speeches. He's inspiring, but it's time to produce. I hear rumbling in November 2010…
Those who read of disappointment in Obama from the left would be very mistaken in thinking that meant the blame for the problems and the difficulty in solving them was being laid at his doorstep. That blame, rightly and justly belongs at the feet of the republicans who have abdicated their responsibility for working in the country's best interest. Being a minority party doesn't give them a pass from that. Instead they have done everything in their power to gum up the works, and to try and shift the blame as well. Obama's only failing has been his patience in believing these shameful and cynical pseudo senators and representatives would ever bargain in honesty and good faith.
“Looks like the inmates have taken over the asylum.”
Better late than never, sir. This has been the problem, most notably with the lib Dems in the House, all this past year. The public voted against the GOP in 2006 and in 2008. The public did not vote for a new agenda of the Dems, much less to lurch well left of the mainstream, as well as vastly overreach all year.
* * *
“The Dems control the White House, the House, and the Senate.”
They began the previous year with more power than they could have ever imagined, with more Republicans leaving Washington during that year, and still managed to amazingly fumble their advantage as well as repel the mainstream public. (They were so bad they even managed to offend extremists on the left, for their extremism, which repelled everyone else, was seen by the far left as not far left enough!)
“There is one reason the GOP is acting obstructionist, and that is because it works.”
Well, it's working at least by default, because they're characterizing themselves as opponents of the farther-left silliness that has put the Dems into quite a crater currently. To be more specific, they still suffer in the “noun” realm, in defining themselves mainly as opposing the Dems or current liberal agenda items, but they're not suffering that much, and even getting some credit by default in the “verb” realm by dissasociating themselves with as well as opposing what the Dems have been doing that is offensive.
The Dems' problems are nearly 100% of their own making. They only look worse when trying to use the GOP as a bogus scapegoat.
Grow up and accept the Democrats are 100% responsible for their inability to govern.
They had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, a 79 seat majority in the House, and the Presidency.
Yet all they can do is whine and complain that their utter failure to govern is somehow not their fault. They are victims!
Please.
Reverse the situation. How many here think if the Republican party had that same set of circumstances they would be completely paralyzed and unable to pass their agenda?
“We are going down the tubes and when functioning as a clueless electorate we are greasing the slide. “
More and more people are joining those of us who never were clueless, and that's why the slide is being arrested — and that's why the Dems are currently inhibited, and likely to “proceed” more carefully — at least we non-clueless people Hope [tm].
“They are victims!”
This is not another 1994. I keep being warned that it's becoming that way, or it is that way, but I'm reluctant to accept that view. If the Dems do more press conferences as they did after the 1994 elections when they appeared shellshocked, with all the spirit beaten out of them, whimpering, and truly speak and act as if they believe they are “victims,” then I'll accept it's like 1994 again.
An interesting read:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/republic…
Funny how having control of both Houses of Congress and a until recently, filibusterproof majority kept the democrats from governing isn't it?