Mitch McConnell declared in January 2009 that henceforth the Congressional Pubs’ first priority would be to make sure Obama would be a one-term POTUS. And since then, their apparent strategy/policy has been to stonewall, to obstruct, to deny him anything he might claim as a success or accomplishment.
Well, Obama is not going to be a one-term POTUS, that has been decided. So, can the Admin perhaps get a bit of cooperation, now, from the Congressional Republican Caucus? Pretty please, and for America’s sake?
They won’t. With no control of the Senate or the Presidency, the House is the only lever they’ve got. Boehner has already thrown down the gauntlet, saying they wouldn’t budge on tax increases. Look for more roadblocks and crises over the next four years. He has styated that their retaining control of the House constitutes a “Mandate”. Huh.
Not really. The House races are much less competitive, because state legislatures can gerrymander safe seats for each party. You can’t (to my knowledge) gerrymander the Senate races, and there you see that people voted more Democrats in.
Unless you mean that they voted for gridlock when they voted in Republican/Democratic state houses back in 2010 when the results of the census were due to come in, requiring redistricting.
I do wonder if by “gridlock” the voters meant a brick on the gas pedal and a rope on the steering wheel while the car is headed for a cliff.
Gridlock = tax hikes heavily tilted towards the wealthy and spending cuts heavily aimed towards the military. If the GOP wants that outcome then I’m tempted to say more power to them.
If they want to negotiate, then I’m sure Obama’s listening.
When in recent years has the GOP wanted anything but the opposite of what you suggest?
I’m sure the GOP will gladly negotiate, but they seem insensitive to the idea of “compromise”.
I’m sure this may come as a shock to you, but amazingly, your idea “compromise” seems to be that we do what you ask and get jack squat. Sure, I can see how you’d love this. I don’t see why we would particularly agree to it. Also, it’s not actually a useful compromise if your offer virtually jack squat, by throwing some token tidbits our way, or if you stop anything from happening until or unless we go along with whatever you desire.
Meh, the GOP doesn’t really have much choice. Sequestration and the end of the Bush tax-cuts are going to happen automatically if they don’t try and cut a better deal.
Add that to the fact that they don’t have to worry about stopping a future Obama re-election, that their last attempt at fiscal hostage taking backfired and that the next set of GOP primaries isn’t for another two years, and I think we’ll see a more permanent compromise on fiscal issues.
Agreed. So the question is - do they do real compromise (something along the lines of tax hikes for the top brackets only, and phasing out the payroll tax cut in exchange for spending cuts that are less onerous on the military and instead hit some other discretionary accounts) or do we go back to Clinton-era tax rates and hammer on defense contractors?
My money right now is that we’ll hit the cliff, at least temporarily. But that might just be the effect of the election having not quite settled in yet.
Well in 2 years Mr. Boehner will face election again, What ever he does will be judged by his constituates, and he better remember he does work for someone. I’m so tired of the fat, entitled, congress critters that think we have no choice but to admire their mendasity and consider ourselves lucky to have them in charged.
Bull. Compromise means to us what it means to you: you give some, we give some. You surrender a part of your ideal, perfect outcome, and we do the same.
In the last four years, Democrats have offered to surrender much more of what they want – will you take a 60/40 deal? Will you take a 70/30 deal? The Republicans have refused even to negotiate.
However… I predict this will end. Enough Republicans will switch from protecting their party to promoting the good of the country. We won’t see as many votes going along pure party lines. A bloc of moderate Republicans will step up and start to “defect,” in order to make the necessary compromises to reduce the deficit and keep the government running.
2: an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor
3: one whose position or term of office will soon end
Obama isn’t a lame duck, and won’t be for several years.
Absolutely yes, for Heaven’s sake! I’m sure that for the good of the country, the GOP will be willing to repeat its standing offer.
The only stipulation is that Obama and a sufficient group of Democratic Congressmen do exactly as GOP leadership instructs, without deviation or complaint. I don’t even think GOP will insist that the Democrats kiss their rapists on the mouth, but of course they will be expected to fake moans of pleasure while being butt-f**ked.
Many Americans think that having Congress and the President in opposite parties is the cleverest concept since buttered popcorn. Any idea how many Americans feel that way, and what their average IQ is?