Robert Draper: GOP decided to oppose Obama in everything on Jan 20, 2009

[BigAppleBucky]

In his revelatory new book, “Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives”, Robert Draper describes a meeting in which GOP leaders decide to oppose the new president in absolutely everything. Obama never had a honeymoon period with this group who never had any goodwill toward him and only wished him failure from the outset.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1452899.html

Whether or not that's shocking depends on the degree to which one's view of politics has been jaded. What's certainly noteworthy is the timing. When Mitch McConnell said in October 2010 that his party's primary goal in the next Congress was to make Obama a one-term president, it was treated as remarkably candid and deeply cynical. Had he said it publicly in January 2009, it would likely have caused an uproar.

[Jack Batty]

Unsurprisingly, I don't find that shocking at all.

[Mekhazzio]

I doubt there's many people to whom this comes as news.

[Happy Lendervedder]

Speaking as an Obama-loving, left-leaning Democratic voter, and I don't mean this snarkily at all: Who is Robert Draper and why should I care what he says?

[Rand Rover]

So what? Are you telling me you didn't want a Democratic Congress to oppose everything GW Bush wanted to do?

[howye]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So what? Are you telling me you didn't want a Democratic Congress to oppose everything GW Bush wanted to do?

ummm, Nope?

You see that is the way things used to work. Some items were too partisan to ever pass. But some things could meet in the middle. This happened as recently as Bush's second term.

Since Obama has taken office though the Republican party has gone insane and it has been the Argument Sketch ever since.

M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So what? Are you telling me you didn't want a Democratic Congress to oppose everything GW Bush wanted to do?

Actually, not. If Bush proposed something that was good for the country, then I would expect the Democrats to support it. What we've had for the past three years are the Republicans blocking everything that Obama proposes, even if he's agreeing to what the Republicans wanted in the first place. Remember 2010- Republicans demand a deficit commisssion. Obama says "fine, let's do it". Republicans immediately say "YOU want it, too? Fuck you, we'll filibuster it."

[elucidator]

I don't recall any Democrats opposing Bush's bold initiative to ban animal-human hybrid research. Mostly, they just sort of stared at him, scratching their heads.

[Gyrate]

Not shocked nor surprised. The GOP's record speaks for itself.

Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder

Speaking as an Obama-loving, left-leaning Democratic voter, and I don't mean this snarkily at all: Who is Robert Draper and why should I care what he says?

This. Is it a new revelation that the meeting happened?

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So what? Are you telling me you didn't want a Democratic Congress to oppose everything GW Bush wanted to do?

Yes, I am saying that.

Mind you, I'd have preferred that they'd opposed a few more things than they actually did, like for example a certain war, but not everything regardless of its merits.

[BrainGlutton]

I can't think of a single (known) instance where the Democratic Caucus had this kind of all-obstructionist attitude from day one towards a Republican POTUS. Not even Nixon, though he might well have imagined so.

[elucidator]

Not your father's Oldsmobile, not Barry G.'s Republican Party. Sooner or later, and we said this for years, the pact between the capitalist right and the Troglodyte right was going to break down. It did, and the Trogs took over. And, Lord God, what a mess.

[Gangster Octopus]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So what? Are you telling me you didn't want a Democratic Congress to oppose everything GW Bush wanted to do?

The Democrats can't even get together to do what Obama wants to do, why would you suspect they can get together to oppose Bush?

[miss elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So what? Are you telling me you didn't want a Democratic Congress to oppose everything GW Bush wanted to do?

I only wanted them to oppose things that (I felt) were bad for the country. I very much wanted them to support things that were good, or things that were an ok compromise. I disagreed with Pres. Bush on a lot of things, but I also think he had some good ideas.

Do you really disagree?

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So what? Are you telling me you didn't want a Democratic Congress to oppose everything GW Bush wanted to do?

Yes, that's what I'm telling you. I didn't oppose every thing Bush or the Republicans during his administration proposed or were for, but that's me, and apparently quite a number of posters in this thread.

Today's GOP is knee-jerk against anything Obama wants, even if they originally wanted it themselves. I'm in my 50s and I've never seen anything like this in my life.

[Katriona]

Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder

Speaking as an Obama-loving, left-leaning Democratic voter, and I don't mean this snarkily at all: Who is Robert Draper and why should I care what he says?

Mad Men's Bobby Draper, all grown up?

http://madmen.wikia.com/wiki/Bobby_Draper#WikiaArticle

[DigitalC]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So what? Are you telling me you didn't want a Democratic Congress to oppose everything GW Bush wanted to do?

And this is why knowing the kind of scum the democrats have to deal with will mean absolutely nothing in the long term.

[Fear Itself]

I wish someone would ask Romney what he would do as President if Democrats in the Senate promised to filibuster absolutely every program or nominee he supported. Let's see what a former CEO gets done under those conditions.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by elucidator

I don't recall any Democrats opposing Bush's bold initiative to ban animal-human hybrid research. Mostly, they just sort of stared at him, scratching their heads.

I don't recall any Democratic opposition to Bush's initiative to increase funding for AIDS prevention in Africa, either.

[Chronos]

And I thought that he was right about the Dubai Ports World deal, too. At least, before he backtracked on it.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Not your father's Oldsmobile, not Barry G.'s Republican Party. Sooner or later, and we said this for years, the pact between the capitalist right and the Troglodyte right was going to break down. It did, and the Trogs took over. And, Lord God, what a mess.

But -- considering the capitalist right and the troglodyte right first joined forces in 1964 -- what a run they've had!

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Actually, not. If Bush proposed something that was good for the country, then I would expect the Democrats to support it. What we've had for the past three years are the Republicans blocking everything that Obama proposes, even if he's agreeing to what the Republicans wanted in the first place. Remember 2010- Republicans demand a deficit commisssion. Obama says "fine, let's do it". Republicans immediately say "YOU want it, too? Fuck you, we'll filibuster it."

The most recent episode of Key & Peele had a sketch that addressed this very isue. Couldn't find a clip online, but here's an article about it.

[yanceylebeef]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So what? Are you telling me you didn't want a Democratic Congress to oppose everything GW Bush wanted to do?

And with two questions, Rand has exposed everything wrong with Republican politicians


Party Before Country

But hey, at least it's an ethos.

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So what? Are you telling me you didn't want a Democratic Congress to oppose everything GW Bush wanted to do?

Originally Posted by yanceylebeef

And with two questions, Rand has exposed everything wrong with Republican politicians


Party Before Country

But hey, at least it's an ethos.

Agree with yancey.

The fact that you think that, Rand, shows how you think, and more importantly, how you think the other side thinks.

Unlike the GOP, the Democrats want what's good for the country, whether its their idea or the Republicans idea. Health Care mandate? GOP idea that the Dems support and the GOP eventually end up opposing. Deficit commission? Same thing.

Although I suppose this is still better than nothing and something the Dems can end up using to their advantage. Just start supporting whatever they don't want the GOP to pass and they won't. Sort of a little political reverse psychology

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So what? Are you telling me you didn't want a Democratic Congress to oppose everything GW Bush wanted to do?

Hopefully, the next time the GOP holds the White House, the Democrats in Congress will act as they did with Dubya. From 2001 through 2008, there was occasional strong opposition, e.g. Harriet Miers, but often compromise (gang of 14).

Many of them voted for the war against Saddam and its funding and at the same time voted for the Bush tax cuts that are the single largest cause of the current "debt crisis". Those were huge mistakes I hope are not repeated, but they do show a willingness on the part of many Democrats to work with a GOP POTUS.

That is the way American politics should work and has worked. The irresponsible scorched Earth tactics planned January 20, 2009 may have forever poisoned the well of goodwill making future cooperation impossible. Hopefully not.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

That's why we need a 3rd party. So the GOP can exit.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

That's why we need a 3rd party. So the GOP can exit.

I actually agree with this. Things won't improve until the Republicans suffer electoral collapse. Conservatives who agree with the design of the founding father's constitution -predicated upon compromise among those who disagree with one another- would do well to vote for a third party. This would signal that while they disapprove of scorched earth tactics and tiny-tent ideological posturing, they could be coaxed back to a sane party.

Unfortunately, virtually all modern conservatives are nutbags, so we're out of luck. America deserves better conservatives.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So what? Are you telling me you didn't want a Democratic Congress to oppose everything GW Bush wanted to do?

Dunno about the OP, but I would have been quite upset if a Dem Congress had tried to block the invasion of Afghanistan, or expansion of AIDS relief to Africa. There were any number of things he wanted to do I didn't care about, and I certainly would not have been pleased if they tried to block everything for the sake of doing so.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

That's why we need a 3rd party. So the GOP can exit.

If we have to have a two-party system, better if it were the Socialists or the Greens, not the Pubs, who alternated in office with the Democrats.

[Voyager]

If Bush had gotten his immigration reform package (which was pretty good) past his own parties, many if not most Democrats would have supported it.
And remember that during the financial crisis it was the Republicans who were opposing the Administration's rescue package. They'd rather have a depression than lose their ideological purity.

[John Mace]

Not buying it. If they had agreed to simply oppose Obama on "everything", why did they need this specific plan:

The dinner lasted nearly four hours. They parted company almost giddily. The Republicans had agreed on a way forward:
Go after Geithner. (And indeed Kyl did, the next day: ‘Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it—please?’)

Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies. (Eight days later, Minority Whip Cantor would hold the House Republicans to a unanimous No against Obama’s economic stimulus plan.)

Begin attacking vulnerable Democrats on the airwaves. (The first National Republican Congressional Committee attack ads would run in less than two months.)

Win the spear point of the House in 2010. Jab Obama relentlessly in 2011. Win the White House and the Senate in 2012.

Sounds like the opposition directed at the President's economic policies, but I'm still wondering how Draper knows this. "Jab Obama relentlessly" just sounds like "never say a good thing about him, and make sure you say bad things regularly".

And, seriously, the note about Kyl badgering Geitner in questioning is offered up as proof that the cabal had launched their dastardly plan? That's SOP in confirmation hearings.

This guy, Draper, how is he going about quoting what someone said in a meeting that he didn't attend?

Nope. Not buying it based on the blurb in the Huffington Post.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

Hopefully, the next time the GOP holds the White House, the Democrats in Congress will act as they did with Dubya.

Actually, hopefully the next time the GOP holds the White House, it will be two or three cycles of the Universe from now.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

If we have to have a two-party system, better if it were the Socialists or the Greens, not the Pubs, who alternated in office with the Democrats.

Right. The Dems have pretty much become the sane voice of conservatism as it is while the GOP is reduced almost entirely to appealing to negative pathos. I don't think they are responsible or respectful of the democratic process or the nation as a whole. I'm just happy my view on this doesn't come across as fringe-y.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So what? Are you telling me you didn't want a Democratic Congress to oppose everything GW Bush wanted to do?

People like you (and they exist on both sides but they do seem to congregate mostly on the right) literally can't see any way to do things in a democracy other than this psychopathic oppositionalism. It doesn't even occur to you that others might do things differently--and that's unfortunate because in this case "differently" means "constructively and basically better in every way."

In short, you're blind even the possibility of an honest participation in democracy.

Even as I say this you think I'm either lying or lying to myself. You can't even imagine that there may be people who really do think this way.

But you're wrong.

[Frylock]

nvm

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Not buying it. If they had agreed to simply oppose Obama on "everything", why did they need this specific plan:

Then surely you can point to examples of Republicans cooperating with Democrats since 01/20/09.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Then surely you can point to examples of Republicans cooperating with Democrats since 01/20/09.

They cooperate with the Democrats the way that Lucy cooperates with Charlie Brown by holding the football for him.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Then surely you can point to examples of Republicans cooperating with Democrats since 01/20/09.

All I hear is crickets.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem
Then surely you can point to examples of Republicans cooperating with Democrats since 01/20/09.

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

All I hear is crickets.

Come on. There's got to be something that the Repubicans cooperated on.

- Renaming a post office in West Junction TN?
- A declaration that squirrels are really, really cute when they beg for peanuts?
- A bill congratulating the national spelling bee champion?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

- Renaming a post office in West Junction TN?

What's wrong with Lynch 'Em All and Off Licence?

A declaration that squirrels are really, really cute when they beg for peanuts?

Handouts?! In my day, squirrels had to compete for food according to the God made rules of natural selection! Not that I believe in evolution of course.

A bill congratulating the national spelling bee champion?

Snob!

[drewtwo99]

gamerunknown, that "snob!" quote/comment you made literally just brought tears to my eyes. Thank you so much for that.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

All I hear is crickets.

Unfortunately, those are locusts.

[kaylasdad99]

I'm not dismissing the basic premise of the OP, but why 01/20/2009, and not 11/05/2008?

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

I'm not dismissing the basic premise of the OP, but why 01/20/2009, and not 11/05/2008?

Because until they knew who won, they didn't have to start doing their homework.

They had to make sure that the newly elected tea-party worthies were on board. They had to do polling to make sure this wouldn't blow up in their face. Luntz had to come up with the words to sell this to the angry tea-partiers. They had to let the shaky members of the caucus (I'm looking at you NE Republicans) knew they would be utterly hammer-fucked by primary challenges if they even thought of breaking ranks.

This is more than just, "Hey, we're gonna say 'no' to everything, kay?" It was a strategy that they had to make happen.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Come on folks....

An Obama idea or initiative that some Republican politicians gave bipartisan support towards.

Anything?

Bueller?

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

I'm not dismissing the basic premise of the OP, but why 01/20/2009, and not 11/05/2008?

Timeline would probably have been that they were in shock and mourning for a time, then the year end Congressional recess.

Probably took a bit of effort to get all the guys to agree on a time and place to meet.

And the inauguration brought them all together in Washington for the first time since November. Of course, it was also symbolic.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Come on folks....

An Obama idea or initiative that some Republican politicians gave bipartisan support towards.

Anything?

Bueller?

Sotomayor?

[Try2B Comprehensive]

I haven't heard any GOP complaints about the indefinite detentions move. As I understand it you no longer have habeus corpus rights once the executive branch accuses you of being a 'terrorist'. You can be jailed indefinitely- without a trial! The Founding Father-obsessed GOP seems perfectly content with this one.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So what? Are you telling me you didn't want a Democratic Congress to oppose everything GW Bush wanted to do?

You mean like Medicare Part D, Bankruptcy Reform, the Energy Bill, Invasion of Afghanistan, Invasion of Iraq (just ask Hillary Clinton, it cost her the presidency), and both Bush tax cuts (which incidentally the Heritage Foundation predicted would completely eliminate the national debt by 2010), Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito (interesting story on how Rehnquist's death made O'Connor feel betrayed, she apparently wouldn't have resigned if she knew Rehnquist was at death's door)?

Granted the tax cuts had very little Democratic support but there were Dems voting for it in both houses of congress. So the notion that Democrats were anywhere nearly as monolithically opposed to everything Bush did the moment he took office is pure fucking bullshit.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Sotomayor?

Only 9 Republicans in the senate were on board with her appointment. So I guess you can say that those 9 did not oppose everything Obama did.

Nine of the Senate's 40 Republicans backed Sotomayor. The rest, while hailing her as a trailblazer and role model, portrayed her as a liberal who favors affirmative action, gun control and limits on property rights.

GOP strategist Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition argued that GOP senators were right to oppose a nominee whose "extreme judicial views" are bound to alienate the party's core conservative voters.

Another article Republican support for Sotomayor looks paltry"]

[Measure for Measure]

Look, the Mitch McConnell has been explicit about his policy of obstructionism. In fact, it's sort of rational: the majority party benefits from bi-partisanship. I'm surprised in fact it took the pros this long to figure that out. My fear is that the Republicans have successfully located a bug in the system as it were. Recall that most stable democracies rely on single coalitions, not bi-partisanship. Put another way, it's normal for the opposing party to oppose everything. The history of the United States is an exception to this tendency.

Anyway, here's the Mitch McConnell quote, which I've shared elsewhere:

On Tuesday, McConnell sat down with Politico's Mike Allen for a free-ranging discussion on politics. Here's what he said:

MCCONNELL: If the president is willing to do what I and my members would do anyway, we’re not going to say no and –

ALLEN: But that’s not much of a concession. That’s not bargaining, to just give you what you want.

MCCONNELL: Um, I like to think I’m a pretty good negotiator.

Those three comments outline the three most important dynamics driving the modern political system. (1) The top priority of the minority party is getting back into power. (2) Being bipartisan is bad politics, as it makes the country think the majority is doing a good job. And (3) bipartisanship increasingly relies on the lowest-common denominator, the things everyone "would do anyway," not the things they can be persuaded to do as part of a more ambitious deal.

And here's what McConnell thinks of bi-partisanship:

“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals, because we thought -- correctly, I think -- that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ost_hones.html