The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Elections

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:08 PM
BigAppleBucky BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Robert Draper: GOP decided to oppose Obama in everything on Jan 20, 2009

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

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 04-26-2012, 07:40 AM
Jack Batty Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Unsurprisingly, I don't find that shocking at all.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-26-2012, 07:48 AM
Mekhazzio Mekhazzio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
I doubt there's many people to whom this comes as news.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-26-2012, 07:48 AM
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-26-2012, 09:33 AM
Rand Rover Rand Rover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,307
So what? Are you telling me you didn't want a Democratic Congress to oppose everything GW Bush wanted to do?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-26-2012, 09:40 AM
howye howye is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
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!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-26-2012, 09:47 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
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."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-26-2012, 10:45 AM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-26-2012, 11:00 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Not shocked nor surprised. The GOP's record speaks for itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-26-2012, 11:35 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-26-2012, 11:45 AM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-26-2012, 11:57 AM
Gangster Octopus Gangster Octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-26-2012, 12:22 PM
miss elizabeth miss elizabeth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:03 PM
Onomatopoeia Onomatopoeia is online now
僕は女性の香りが大好きですよ。フア!
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 小浜国
Posts: 5,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:05 PM
Katriona Katriona is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:19 PM
DigitalC DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:30 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 28,745
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:53 PM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-26-2012, 02:35 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 54,596
And I thought that he was right about the Dubai Ports World deal, too. At least, before he backtracked on it.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-26-2012, 03:41 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
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!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-26-2012, 04:31 PM
Superdude Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 5,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-26-2012, 04:58 PM
yanceylebeef yanceylebeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Denver City Denver
Posts: 1,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-26-2012, 06:30 PM
YogSosoth YogSosoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
So what? Are you telling me you didn't want a Democratic Congress to oppose everything GW Bush wanted to do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanceylebeef View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-26-2012, 09:18 PM
BigAppleBucky BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-26-2012, 10:03 PM
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
That's why we need a 3rd party. So the GOP can exit.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-26-2012, 10:43 PM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,600
Like the Whigs, the Republicans should be put out to pasture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
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.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 04-26-2012 at 10:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-27-2012, 05:42 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-27-2012, 05:44 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
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.

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 04-27-2012 at 05:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-27-2012, 06:15 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 34,503
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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-27-2012, 06:51 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Not buying it. If they had agreed to simply oppose Obama on "everything", why did they need this specific plan:

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-27-2012, 07:47 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 20,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-28-2012, 10:53 AM
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-29-2012, 06:12 PM
Frylock Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
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.

Last edited by Frylock; 04-29-2012 at 06:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-29-2012, 06:17 PM
Frylock Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
nvm

Last edited by Frylock; 04-29-2012 at 06:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-29-2012, 07:12 PM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-30-2012, 04:52 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-30-2012, 09:20 AM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Then surely you can point to examples of Republicans cooperating with Democrats since 01/20/09.
All I hear is crickets.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-30-2012, 09:45 AM
Euphonious Polemic Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem
Then surely you can point to examples of Republicans cooperating with Democrats since 01/20/09.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Captor View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-30-2012, 09:57 AM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic
- Renaming a post office in West Junction TN?
What's wrong with Lynch 'Em All and Off Licence?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
A bill congratulating the national spelling bee champion?
Snob!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-01-2012, 07:50 AM
drewtwo99 drewtwo99 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 8,577
gamerunknown, that "snob!" quote/comment you made literally just brought tears to my eyes. Thank you so much for that.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 05-01-2012, 10:18 AM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Captor View Post
All I hear is crickets.
Unfortunately, those are locusts.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-01-2012, 02:10 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 20,941
I'm not dismissing the basic premise of the OP, but why 01/20/2009, and not 11/05/2008?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-01-2012, 02:17 PM
Lobohan Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-01-2012, 06:24 PM
Euphonious Polemic Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Come on folks....

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

Anything?

Bueller?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-03-2012, 07:01 AM
BigAppleBucky BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-03-2012, 08:06 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Come on folks....

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

Anything?

Bueller?
Sotomayor?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-03-2012, 09:11 AM
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
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.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-03-2012, 11:35 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-03-2012, 03:07 PM
Euphonious Polemic Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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"]

Last edited by Euphonious Polemic; 05-03-2012 at 03:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-04-2012, 01:24 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,600
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
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.