That’s just partisan twaddle. The terms “campaign of obstruction” and “repeatedly block” are loaded terms. When one party gains the White House, is the other side expected just to roll over and help them enact their agenda? Did the Dems do this when Bush was elected?
Of course not. The opposition always gathers because they truly believe that the occupant in the White House will do things that are bad for the country. They will meet and come up with plans to win over the American people to show that their side is right and that the President’s proposals are wrong or dangerous. This is nothing new.
The article takes a further shot by mentioning that they met at an expensive restaurant, somewhat implying that they should go to Burger King instead. Where do rich people go to eat? Oh yeah, expensive restaurants. The whole article is a slam piece.
That’s the first time you’ve ever described a liberal, much less a majority of 'em, as super.
And I think you are mistaken about jumping on ideas and posts they don’t like. Supposed liberals on this board will jump on liberal ideas and liberal reasoning with savage cruelty and idiocy, provided it is an idea that they reject to begin with. You call it hypocrisy, we call it maize…er confirmation bias and pig-headedness.
The ACA. It was a Republican proposal back when Clinton proposed universal health care, then became Romneycare in Massachusetts and when Obama proposed it and got it through Congress it became the most evil thing ever. But, I’m sure we can hand wave that one away by a vote in one Chamber of Congress, or 50 such votes or whatever the number is up to now.
Then you’re either far more stupid than I would have ever though or like Shodan you really do recognize that there is a fundamental difference and you just don’t care.
How about nominees to courts? Senator Burr blocked the appointment of a federal judge that he himself recommended for the job in 2009. There are nine judgeships open in Texas, but the state’s two Republican senators refuse to work with the White House on any nominees.
What the hell is a “liberal”, anyway? I’m a liberal, BG is a liberal, Obama is a liberal, hence, we are all approximately the same? The label I apply to myself is radical, relying on the somewhat outdated definition as being someone who believes that fundamental change (“at the root”) is what is required. Whereas a liberal believes that you can progressively tinker with a diesel powered people crushing machine until finally you arrive at a solar-powered rainbow extruder. Not that I have anything against liberals, mind!
But where’s the line, and has it moved over time? I haven’t much changed my political opinions over the years, but my opinions that used to be beyond the pale have become more or less centralized. And when I first started on this long, strange trip I never even considered something as out of bounds as gay marriage. I most likely would have said “Sure, why not?” but never would have thought to live to see it.
So, who are these liberals, and what do they think, outside of not thinking like Bricker? Bob Dole is a conservative, Ted Cruz is a reactionary, I sure don’t think they are the same!
Quaint old radical notions of change…how charming! I think we are coming up on one of those moments that happen from time to time in history. That moment in which the topmost layer of society needs to be forcibly reminded that they can be dragged from their mansions and torn to pieces by those below. They forget this lesson, you see, and it must be retaught.
The context of the statement by Reid now and McConnell then is, in my view, just an opinion, the same statement in the same context. By the opposing heads of the party in the US Senate.
There is a difference in implementation. McConnell fully intends to carry through such statements into practice and has a long history of doing exactly that and setting records since 2009 in blocking, filibustering and shutting down budgets, defaults, etc. in not going along with the majority party.
Reid and other Democrats, when in the minority leadership position, will oppose some measures and nominees supported by the majority, but the effort is a small fraction of such measures and nominees. If effectiveness is to be measured by the cohesiveness of the minority, McConnell is far better at it than any minority leader in history.
I think that the policy difference is that when Democrats are in a minority, they take their duty to keep the country running more seriously than they do their obligation to stop measures that they think will hurt the country. Republicans do not acknowledge that their measures could possibly hurt anyone that matters and will benefit everyone that matters.
At least some of the “our highest priority is to make Obama a one-term President” proclamations came after a general election, not before. To me there’s a big difference between what one says in the middle of a campaign, and what one says after an election, when the goal should be responsible government.
There were so many nasty remarks like that by GOP figures, that it’s hard to find specific ones Googling. This webpage mentions several nastinesses including a Dec 2010 (post-election) utterance by Mitch McConnell that “Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term.” If Bricker cannot see the difference between “over the next two years” and “during this campaign” then he really is more stupid than he seems.
A challenge to Republiopaths: Can you identify nastiness directed against GWB by Governors or Congressmen comparable to the garbage referenced by the link above?
The thing is, there are circumstances surrounding every statement.
Screaming “I’ll Kill You!” while charging someone in a bar is quite different than a wife giggling “I’ll kill you!” when her husband jokes that he’s going to play golf on her birthday.
But apparently in this case the circumstances just don’t matter, at least to some people.
Those damn liberals, with all their “facts” and all their “reasoning” and all their “morality” - it just isn’t fair! (pout, stamp of little foot)
Why can’t they just let me believe whatever the fuck I want to, relieving myself of any sense of obligation, without always challenging me so annoyingly?
