Too late for edit - I don’t intend to debate specifics, but I just looked up the Bork vote. While every Dem voted Nay, 6 Repubs joined them. And it DID come up for a vote. That impresses me as different. But, like I said, I don’t wish to debate this single point or discourage further discourse.
What does this mean? Did McConnell ever “blatantly” express that his position was to “win at all costs”?
He certainly said his #1 goal was to make Obama a one-term president. He didn’t say that he intended to do this by “oppos[ing] anything the Obama administration proposed”, which is what you said. (See also the quote from Larry Sabato in your linked article.) I don’t think the record shows that McConnell opposed anything the Obama administration proposed. He certainly did oppose things that the Republican party opposed.
There is a certain amount of electioneering when it comes to votes on issues by both parties, and this seems to be accepted pretty matter-of-factly by political analysts. You’re attributing an extreme form of it to McConnell, but I don’t see it at all, either in his words or deeds.
In some ways it was different and in some ways it was not. The significant point was that while it was technically within the power of the Democrats in the Senate to do that - much as it was technically within the power of McConnell to sink the Garland nomination - it violated the norms which had governed SC nominations to that point. (Similarly, Democrats sinking the John Tower Defense Secretary nomination at around that time.)
Once you decide that you’re going to cast of historical norms in pursuit of your interests, it’s inevitable that the other side is going to do the same. They might not be the same norms but the principle is the same. You will not be able to maintain a situation where the other side feels constrained by “this is the way we’ve always gotten along and done things” if you make clear that you yourself don’t feel similarly constrained.
How did you think he intended to make Obama a one-term president…sticking pins in a voodoo doll? Making prank phonecalls to Obama’s private phone in the middle of the night so he wouldn’t get any sleep?
Good grief. Talk about splitting hairs…
Thank you very much for expressing your opinions.
Just to chime in, it’s pretty clear what that the GOP plan was to categorically oppose Obama’s entire agenda to make him a 1-term president. And it wasn’t just McConnell, it was uniform across GOP leaderhship.
I’m have been libertarian and just voted for a non L candidate for president for the first time when I voted for Biden. Trump is a moron and generally evil. I don’t see anything he’s done since the election that is any different than the things he did before the election and I see him having the same enablers doing the same things. I have seen people that I hoped weren’t insane come to defend trump and I’m having trouble finding sane Republicans right now.
I’ve been thinking about joining either the Rs or the Ds at a local level to get more involved in my county government so I’ve joined their respective mailing lists. My county republican group is refusing to certify the election results from our election because they want to see the source code in the vote reading machines. We do 100% paper ballot and a hand count would detected any issues they are implying exist. I’m so angry about this that I’m pretty sure they just made me a Dem.
I don’t feel great about the Republicans’ actions.
I followed the election closely and it did seem strange that in the final hours of counting (in the close races where Trump was slightly ahead) almost all the votes were for Biden. But Nevada was going to Biden anyway so it wouldn’t have made any difference if there was some vote fudging on the other states.
If there actually was fraud it seems like there would be some type of evidence to show it. If they have evidence I’d be willing to see it but I don’t think it would change the outcome of the election.
As far as the not being willing to step down thing goes; yeah that’s not needed. I’d prefer Trump was professional about it.
I just want to say I love the tone in this thread so far. I hope it continues.
One question I would love answered is about social conservatism. A vast majority of the intelligent Republicans I know self-identify as fiscally conservative, but socially liberal or libertarian. Is that how you self identify? What are you thoughts on the large swath of socially conservative, mostly evangelical, Republicans who are trying to undo protections for the LGBTQ+ community and get super-protection for their discrimination? Does the small government/fiscal conservatism (although I highly doubt the R party can claim to be fiscally conservative anymore) outweigh the social downside of their movement?
I sometimes get frustrated because I’d like to vote more ‘left’ than I currently do but I cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate supporting abortion. To me it’s as egregious as saying, “Here’s this great political party which agrees with most of your values except it’s pro-slavery.” “But why would you let that stop you?”
It’s “pretty clear” because it’s repeated ad nauseum in liberal circles, to the point that it’s “pretty clear” to someone who moves largely in such circles.
Here’s the WaPo fact-checking the McConnell statement, including the actual interview from McConnell:
McConnell: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”
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.
As a pro-life registered Democrat, I can tell you that issue took a fair amount of soul-searching. But the complete lack of Republican support for other things that are clearly more helpful in reducing the number of abortions (contraception, sex ed., insurance coverage for women’s health, more financial support available to pregnant women, same sex adoption) as well as all the other social issues the R party is wrong about, made it a lot easier. I don’t think any one issue should stop anyone from weighing all the pros and cons of their choice in candidate. But I can see your point, even if I disagree with it.
As a liberal, I always want to respond to allegations of fraud by asking, “Do you really think that - given their track record - the Dem fuckups could pull something like this off w/o a trace?” 
Again, not wanting to argue, but interested in opinions. It surprises me to hear the ongoing meme (NOT expressed in this thread) of “tax and spend” Dems, and Repubs favoring a smaller gov’t and limited spending. I THINK that decades ago that might have had some validity, but Since Reagan, we’ve seen AT LEAST as much spending by Repubs as Dems. Can’t say I’ve seen any consistent fiscal restraint. And - IIRC - the last time the budget was balanced was under Clinton.
As I see it, the biggest difference simply goes to what the parties want to spend the $ on. And - as I see it - the Repubs seem less willing to raise the taxes needed to cover their expenditures.
Am I completely off base?
FDR Roosevelt Republican? I thought that Republicans didn’t like New Deal at all, and disliked FDR because of it.
I’m a bit tentative on answering this. But ISTM that the relationship between libertarianism and social conservatism has shifted over the years as the culture wars have shifted.
For example, if social conservatism means that the government should outlaw gay sex, then a libertarian position would be opposed to social conservatism. But if the social conservatism means that someone should not be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding, then a libertarian might well support that. And so on for other issues.
And here is the crux of the issue. How often did Obama attempt to meet Republicans halfway, only for them to walk away anyway? How many Republican votes did the ACA get, when it started as a Heritage Foundation plan and gained dozens of amendments by Republicans? How many Republican votes did Merrick Garland, stated BY REPUBLICANS TO BE A GOOD COMPROMISE, get in his nomination? Do you have any major policy examples where Obama met Republicans halfway and they worked with him?
I agree there’s been very little fiscal restrain among Republicans, but that’s forced by political realities. People want the government to give them things, and telling them that they can’t have them in the name of fiscal restraint while the other party is telling them they can have all sorts of stuff and “the government” (or at least people other than themselves) will pay for it is a losing proposition.
What does seem clear is that there are more fiscal hawks in the Republican party than in the Democratic party, though as a practical matter free stuff usually wins the day, as above.
The Clinton years were an anomaly in that 1) the economy was growing, which meant as long as you held the line on new spending the deficit would shrink, and 2) the Congress was controlled by Republicans, which made holding the line on spending easier.
I was looking for the big picture. We could certainly debate the intricacies of what it means to be “socially conservative”, but I was more focused on the big picture of where socially conservatism fits in a persons’ identification as a Republican.
I thought he would nuke North Vietnam if elected.
I recall Dixiecrats from my childhood. I did find this Googling about:
The night that Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the [Civil Rights Act of 1964, his special assistant Bill Moyers was surprised to find the president looking melancholy in his bedroom. Moyers [later wrote] that when he asked what was wrong, Johnson replied, “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come.”