INDEED pandering to Tea Baggers only gets you steeped in extremism.
If the GOP wins Congress, they’ll pass bills and Obama can obstruct or not obstruct.
However, if the GOP fails to win the Senate, they have little choice but to work with Democrats. But that goes two ways. If Democrats respond to their victories by trying to dictate to the House they won’t get very far.
Unless, of course, it’s a wave election and the Democrats take back the House. Then, if Reid is pissed enough to actually change the filibuster rules, the Republicans can be effectively neutered until at least 2014.
Duh, of course Yahoo comments are disconnected from logic and common sense. If they were coolly rational, we’d call them Houyhnhnm comments.
See “The idea that the hatred is purely about Obama is stupid” again.
But that’s exactly what’s been happening the last two years and it’s led to a historically low approval rate for Congress and is now leading to the Democrat’s having a decent shot at retaining the Senate when, just two months ago, the smart money would have bet against it. So why will that suddenly shift to a Republican advantage post-election? It hasn’t been one up to now.
If Republicans in Congress think compromising with the president will sit well with their constituents, they will work with him. If they don’t think their constituents want compromise they are under no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to give in to the president on any issue.
I think if one stretches one’s imagination, a scenario leading to a greater degree of cooperation can be thought up. Perhaps a war or a horrible terrorist attack.
Another possibility would be a gathering political black cloud over the Republicans in early 2014 that would lead them to finally pass some jobs bills.
- But obviously, no political observer really expects the Republicans to cooperate in any way to help the country between 2013 through 2014 if Obama is president.
No, not that Obama is stupid, it’s that he’s dark, but thanks for clarifying that you think dark is stupid.
I would think that they are ethically obligated to agree with the President, when he’s espousing policies that they personally support. But they won’t do that, either. The current crop of Republicans will refuse to even allow votes on bills that they themselves sponsored, just because the President support them too.
No, Yahoo comments are particularly amazing. You can be reading about the latest Bears loss, and somehow someone will try to connect it back to Obama. I wish I were exaggerating.
You actually believe this happened?
Nope, and that should tell you something. They oppose their own ideas with a straight face on multiple occasions. Policy means nothing, good governance is meaningless.
If you cooperate with a guy that 60% of republicans think is the antichrist/born in Kenya/a communist then you are going to lose the primary. Dick Lugar lost his primary mostly because he cooperated with Obama on things like reducing nuclear weapons proliferation.
What if some Republican constituents want compromise but others don’t? What if the ones that want compromise are threatened by leadership to toe the line?
It seems to me that legislative bodies should aim to represent the median voter. But McConnell worked out that bipartisanship tends to help the majority party. So it is in the minority party’s interest to obstruct. Mitch McConnell has been pretty explicit about all of this: it has very little to do with grass roots pressures. That’s just prolefeed jabber.
That said, a lot of our problems can be addressed with some straightforward reform of filibusters and mid-level appointments: the latter shouldn’t be vulnerable to congressional obstructionism.
Some Republicans, mostly senators, will see their futures threatened and attempt to appear reasonable. But the election is entrenching the Tea Bagger wing of the party and they will double down on the stoopit. This leaves reasonable Republicans in a bad position. They can’t claim they are forcing the Democrats to compromise when a significant portion of their representation is still dead set in obstruction mode. This could be the trigger for a schism within the GOP, or a super-majority victory for Democrats in 2014. Or things could get worse, and in 2014 the GOP maintains their control over the House, and expands their control of the Senate, maintaining the gridlock until Hell freezes over.
So when Obama says “Elections have consequences. I won” and thumbs his nose at Republicans, I guess that’s a good example of compromise, right? What I’ve found is that “compromise” means “agree with what I say and want” and not actual compromise.
I’m sorry, what fictional world were you speaking of?
They won’t do that. Democrats don’t actually want to be responsible for what they pass. They like the security blanket of being able to blame Republicans for everything.
Obama does not believe Republicans will cooperate, he is not that stupid. But Obama intends to cooperate with the Republicans on economic issues, because Wall Street owns him and most of the Democrats. Saying that the Republicans will cooperate with HIM is just a way of concealing what’s really going on.
Of course. That explains why democrats haven’t passed a single bill since 2008. I heard they switched parties and voted against their own bills if something was ever in danger of passing.