# Should Obama have been able to get Congress to work with him? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2016, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064 "2016-01-13T20:11:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/81 "2016-01-14T16:41:11Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > Why can’t it be that they just didn’t agree with what he wanted to do? Why does it have to be a vast right wing conspiracy? Because it’s never been like this before, not even when Clinton was POTUS. Because the Congressional Pubs have repeatedly made clear their determination to deny the Obama Admin any successes no matter what – I recall one Pub even baldly told a Dem leader, “You see, we can’t afford to let you succeed.” That attitude goes way, way beyond any disagreement on specific policies. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/82 "2016-01-14T16:53:31Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > Why can’t it be that they just didn’t agree with what he wanted to do? Why does it have to be a vast right wing conspiracy? And, because Thomas E. Mann (of the nonpartisan Brookings Institution) and Norman J. Ornstein (of the conservative American Enterprise Institute), in their book [_It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism,_](http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465074731) are in complete agreement that the gridlock in Congress is entirely the fault of obstructionist Pubs. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/83 "2016-01-14T17:05:06Z")
If I run for congress on the platform that I will do my best to ensure congress can not act on anything and I get elected, am I governing by fulfilling that promise? (this would be my platform if I ran for office) Governing from a congressional standpoint is meaningless - it means doing whatever the fuck they want. The only way they could not “govern” is if they are out of office. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/84 "2016-01-14T17:08:35Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > If I run for congress on the platform that I will do my best to ensure congress can not act on anything and I get elected, am I governing by fulfilling that promise? (this would be my platform if I ran for office) 😕 . . . Why?! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/85 "2016-01-14T17:27:38Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No, my post was responding to D’Anconia’s claim that there is nothing in the Constitution which obligates Congress to govern. Right. But (at least as I read it) **D’Anconia** ’s comment was in response to a claim that governing did not include mere obstruction: > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Congress, regardless of Party affiliation, is not obligated to cooperate with the President (let alone actively promote his agenda) regardless of his Party. Congress passes the laws, and the President can sign them or veto them. That’s it. > > Checks and balances. And that’s a feature, not a bug. We don’t elect a Dear Leader in this country. > [@Airbeck](#): > > Congress is under obligation to govern. If they do not want to do it then why are they running for office? Holding their breath and pouting like 3 year olds who aren’t getting their way is not governing. Its a tantrum. So I took **Airbeck** to be saying, in effect, that what Congress was doing – or not doing – was not “governing.” And D’A was replying that Congress had no obligation to govern _as Airbeck was using the term_. ---
**Author:** ![Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pearl_Clutching_Provocateur)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/86 "2016-01-14T17:38:38Z")
Perhaps if Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and John Kerry had obstructed Bush on the Iraq War, it wouldn’t have happened. Sometimes all you can do is obstruct. I vote elected officials to represent me not go along with the opposing party. Yeah, I know Sanders and Obama didn’t vote for it. But they could have done more. A lot more. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/87 "2016-01-14T17:41:12Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > I don’t think so. You seem satisfied that simply refusing to cooperate with the President on anything qualifies as governing, which ignores absolutely everything else that is considered as part of that word. If that’s not the point you were making, then I don’t think your point actually answered anything. If you refuse to do any important aspect of keeping the country running and to promote the general welfare of the country, then you are not governing. I tentatively agree with the last sentence above – but point out that the GOP controls both House and Senate, and the country is still running, with a budget passed and a debt ceiling raised. Therefore, it is not the case that the GOP literally refused to do any important aspect of keeping the country running. Correct? > [@](#): > > You seem to be saying that as long as you are doing one thing that can be stretched to be considered part of governing then you are doing your entire job. If that’s not your point, then I’m afraid I don’t get what you’re trying to say and how it actually disproves my claim. > > Also, causing actual measurable harm to the country such as lowering our credit rating should not simply be referred to as ‘unwise governing’ when their failure to do their basic job is what led to that happening. I guess I hold our elected officials to a bit of a higher standard than you do. I expect them to not purposely harm the country out of spite. Your mileage may vary of course. No, no – you refuse to accept that anyone can hold a contrary principled position to the one you espouse, that’s all. I don’t agree with the approach, but I don’t agree that it’s impossible to articulate a rationale for the decision to fight on the debt ceiling. You argue that it caused “actual harm” in the form of lowered credit ratings; I argue that this could have been balanced by the harms accepting the budget expenditures did. This is not science: you cannot baldly assert that your harms mass 14kg and mine mass only 2kg, so that clearly your harms are greater. This is a subjective weighing; you can argue for the reasons to accept your view but not claim your view is objectively correct. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/88 "2016-01-14T17:52:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I tentatively agree with the last sentence above – but point out that the GOP controls both House and Senate, and the country is still running, with a budget passed and a debt ceiling raised. Therefore, it is not the case that the GOP literally refused to do any important aspect of keeping the country running. > > Correct? > > No, no – you refuse to accept that anyone can hold a contrary principled position to the one you espouse, that’s all. I don’t agree with the approach, but I don’t agree that it’s impossible to articulate a rationale for the decision to fight on the debt ceiling. You argue that it caused “actual harm” in the form of lowered credit ratings; I argue that this could have been balanced by the harms accepting the budget expenditures did. > > This is not science: you cannot baldly assert that your harms mass 14kg and mine mass only 2kg, so that clearly your harms are greater. This is a subjective weighing; you can argue for the reasons to accept your view but not claim your view is objectively correct. Our credit rating and its decline due to Republican intransigence is an objective fact, and if you don’t think that has harmed the country then we are talking past each other. If we can’t agree that something as concrete as a lowered credit rating is a harm and that it happened simply due to the republican congress refusing to pay the bills they already approved then we are not going to meet on any middle ground here I’m afraid. An argument where the two sides cannot even agree on the basic facts is doomed to be pointless. Also, if the expenditures were ultimately accepted after the harm caused by the credit rating downgrade, then the Republican harm and the actual harm both happened, so how is that not worse than if they had just approved paying the bills that they accrued in the first place. Its not science but it is still bound by logic, correct? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/89 "2016-01-14T17:57:03Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Our credit rating and its decline due to Republican intransigence is an objective fact, and if you don’t think that has harmed the country then we are talking past each other. If we can’t agree that something as concrete as a lowered credit rating is a harm and that it happened simply due to the republican congress refusing to pay the bills they already approved then we are not going to meet on any middle ground here I’m afraid. An argument where the two sides cannot even agree on the basic facts is doomed to be pointless. > > Also, if the expenditures were ultimately accepted after the harm caused by the credit rating downgrade, then the Republican harm and the actual harm both happened, so how is that not worse than if they had just approved paying the bills that they accrued in the first place. Its not science but it is still bound by logic, correct? You missed the point of Bricker’s post. He did not say that lowered credit rating is not a harm, he said that the harm as a result of lowered credit rating could have been balanced (or offset) by greater harms in accepting the budget expenditures. There is no objective measure here in weighing the magnitude of these harms. Maybe signaling that this was an option being entertained would garner some future activity that comparatively yielded net positive results. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/90 "2016-01-14T17:57:54Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > On Inauguration Night, 2009, top Republicans met and they decided that they would block Obama on everything he wanted to do and give him zero cooperation on every issue. Where is that reported? Mitch McConnell’a famous “one-term president” comment wasn’t until the 2012 mid-terms. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/91 "2016-01-14T18:00:19Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You missed the point of Bricker’s post. He did not say that lowered credit rating is not a harm, he said that the harm as a result of lowered credit rating could have been balanced (or offset) by greater harms in accepting the budget expenditures. There is no objective measure here in weighing the magnitude of these harms. Maybe signaling that this was an option being entertained would garner some future activity that comparatively yielded net positive results. Speaking of missing something, you clearly didn’t read my entire post. Please check my second paragraph, read carefully, and maybe don’t accuse me of missing the point when you’ve missed half of my post. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/92 "2016-01-14T18:03:06Z")
> [@Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](#): > > Perhaps if Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and John Kerry had obstructed Bush on the Iraq War, it wouldn’t have happened. Sometimes all you can do is obstruct. I vote elected officials to represent me not go along with the opposing party. Yeah, I know Sanders and Obama didn’t vote for it. But they could have done more. A lot more. Point taken, except keep in mind that Obama was not in Congress when that vote was taken (2002). He was still a state legislator in IL. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/93 "2016-01-14T18:32:43Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Speaking of missing something, you clearly didn’t read my entire post. > > Please check my second paragraph, read carefully, and maybe don’t accuse me of missing the point when you’ve missed half of my post. Yep - I read it initially, quoted it in my previous post. I stand by my comment. You think one harm is worse than another. People disagree. You must be devastated. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/94 "2016-01-14T18:34:02Z")
The degree to which it is appropriate for Congress to prevent real or imagined harm from the Presidency, at the expense of acting to pass compromise legislation, as a general question on the form of our government, is a subjective question and hard to judge. But whether Congress over the last several years has been acting appropriately in prioritizing blocking any substantive action, instead of seeking compromise, can hardly be considered so hard to judge. The approval rating of Congress has gone from low (like high 30s, low 40s) ten years ago, to roughly mid-20s in the late Bush years, to consistently in the 10-16 point range since 2010. That’s just the facts – Americans increasingly think Congress is totally worthless, and it hasn’t always been this way. Republicans themselves are dissatisfied with Congress as an institution for producing insufficient legislation. The Senate Republicans are holding a policy retreat today in Baltimore, and several press articles indicate that one of the top agenda items is whether to reform the Senate’s rules to make it easier to pass budget bills on time. The general concept that Congress is doing something productive by doing nothing — or whatever spin or nuance one cares to apply to that general idea — is an idea that only seems to have currency in this thread and among certain right wing Tea Party types. Even by objective measures, the argument over whether Congress is “not governing” or simply “governing unwisely” is clarified. One could fairly claim that, for example, rejecting record numbers of appointees to the judiciary and executive positions would be an example of governing, but perhaps governing unwisely depending on your point of view. But that isn’t happening. As others have detailed, more and more judicial appointments are simply in limbo, not receiving votes at all, despite the fact that there is no longer a filibuster possible on such appointments. That is simply ducking decisions, not making unwise ones. Similarly, dozens of nominations for important positions are simply being ignored. The nominee to head the Treasury Department’s office to track down and stop terrorist financial activity has languished for nine months without a vote. The nominee to be ambassador to Mexico, with whom the U.S. has very serious issues to deal with in terms of narcotics and immigration, has been frozen for nearly the same. The nomination for the head at the US Agency for International Development sat for eight months, throughout the beginnings of the Syrian refugee crisis, until being approved. Literally the only bright spot – and it really ain’t so bright – is that bipartisan cooperation on writing the individual budget bills isn’t all that bad. But those committees are probably the only relic of the “smoke filled rooms” era where politicians find it mutually beneficial to cooperate. So while deals can be cut on proposals to fund individual agencies, the process of getting those recommendations approved is also a record of inaction and lack of decisions. To explain, budget talks to relieve sequestration started in September. But there was no reason they could not have started in April, when the first budget proposals were debated. But no, the will of Congress was inaction and delay. All that wasted time can hardly be considered an important check on executive policies – it was just wasted time. No action at all. A failure to compromise and govern, until the very last possible minute. If your teenager drags his or her feet on doing chores in this manner, they get chided for being lazy and shiftless. Now some folks here are trying to cast criticism of congressional inaction as mere difference of opinion on what Congress should be doing – if not outright noble? Puh-leeze. Maybe Cliven Bundy and his ilk would buy that, but not me. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/95 "2016-01-14T18:43:18Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Yep - I read it initially, quoted it in my previous post. I stand by my comment. You think one harm is worse than another. People disagree. You must be devastated. Dead wrong, and betraying a basic lack of comprehension of what I wrote. My post actually argued that two harms is worse than one. The Republican harm of the funds being spent and the debt ceiling being raised HAPPENED ANYWAY, after the credit rating was reduced. Once again 2 harms \> 1 harm, especially when one of the harms was unnecessary and the other one was always going to happen anyway. Can you not see that? Do you really think not paying our bills was a reasonable option? Maybe save the condescending tone for a situation where its warranted. Otherwise you just end up embarrassing yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/96 "2016-01-14T19:07:23Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Our credit rating and its decline due to Republican intransigence is an objective fact, and if you don’t think that has harmed the country then we are talking past each other. If we can’t agree that something as concrete as a lowered credit rating is a harm and that it happened simply due to the republican congress refusing to pay the bills they already approved then we are not going to meet on any middle ground here I’m afraid. An argument where the two sides cannot even agree on the basic facts is doomed to be pointless. > > Also, if the expenditures were ultimately accepted after the harm caused by the credit rating downgrade, then the Republican harm and the actual harm both happened, so how is that not worse than if they had just approved paying the bills that they accrued in the first place. Its not science but it is still bound by logic, correct? Sure – but again you simply hand-wave away any possible interpretation that you don’t like. I agree that the credit rating was a harm. But calling attention to the issue of the debt ceiling and resisting its increase in a very public way brought renewed public attention to the problems of continuing to spend at a massive deficit. Why isn’t that public airing of the issue accounted as a benefit, one that counterbalances the harm? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/97 "2016-01-14T19:10:33Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Dead wrong, and betraying a basic lack of comprehension of what I wrote. My post actually argued that two harms is worse than one. The Republican harm of the funds being spent and the debt ceiling being raised HAPPENED ANYWAY, after the credit rating was reduced. Once again 2 harms \> 1 harm, especially when one of the harms was unnecessary and the other one was always going to happen anyway. Can you not see that? Do you really think not paying our bills was a reasonable option? > > Maybe save the condescending tone for a situation where its warranted. Otherwise you just end up embarrassing yourself. Oh I understand what you wrote. I find it amusing you continue to miss the point. It’s not simply a 2 is greater than 1. You are attempting to put objective measures on subjective things. What if a person values the result of sending the message that they are willing to let it all burn to get their way greater than anything else? Maybe the calculus is that in future sessions debt ceiling threats will be taken more seriously in order to extract future concessions? It’s not math, it’s politics. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/98 "2016-01-14T19:13:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure – but again you simply hand-wave away any possible interpretation that you don’t like. I agree that the credit rating was a harm. But calling attention to the issue of the debt ceiling and resisting its increase in a very public way brought renewed public attention to the problems of continuing to spend at a massive deficit. Why isn’t that public airing of the issue accounted as a benefit, one that counterbalances the harm? I’m not handwaving anything, because the debt ceiling was raised anyway, and the funding was approved anyway. As it always was going to be. Do you think there was a chance that it wasn’t going to ultimately happen that way? That we’d actually default forever and let the economy crash as we become the worlds deadbeats? Threatening just short of letting the credit rating decline would be what you’re referring to, and that while I don’t agree with the tactic, I would agree isn’t dereliction of duty. Actually letting it decline though, out of spite? Causing real harm in addition to doing exactly what they were crying about doing simply out of petulance? I don’t know if you are a parent, but would you allow your child to act that way? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/99 "2016-01-14T19:17:14Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Where is that reported? Mitch McConnell’a famous “one-term president” comment wasn’t until the 2012 mid-terms. There’s apparently a couple of books that details a meeting between GOP leaders in 2008 about how they were going to obstruct Obama. One comes from [Robert Draper](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html), the other from [Mike Grunwald](http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/). These were the [participants](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/6/8/1098434/-Eric-Cantor-Paul-Ryan-Kevin-McCarthy-Plot-To-Sabotage-US-Economy-with-Frank-Luntz): Frank Luntz - GOP Minister of Propaganda Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA), Sen. Jim DeMint (SC-R), Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ-R), Sen. Tom Coburn (OK-R), Sen. John Ensign (NV-R) and Sen. Bob Corker (TN-R). Non-lawmakers present Newt Gingrich Sessions detailed a model of the Taliban and how their tactics could be used to thwart Democrats: > [@](#): > > “Taliban Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. Insurgency is the way they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person’s entire processes. And these Taliban – is an example of how you go about to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that Insurgency may be required when [dealing with] the other side” > ~Rep Pete Sessions, March 2009 to National Journal [Here,](http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/03/The-Conspiracy-to-Commit-Legislative-Constipation) McCarthy was quoted as saying: > [@](#): > > “If you act like you’re the minority, you’re going to stay in the minority,” said Keven McCarthy, quoted by Draper. “We’ve gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign.” And indeed[that’s what they did](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html): > [@](#): > > 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. Of course now in 2016, we know they stuck to the plan. The idea of opposing Obama was relentless. Whereas under Bush, all of those members who could vote voted for: > [@](#): > > – “Yes” to Bush/Cheney January 2008 Stimulus > – “Yes” to Bush/Cheney bailing out Bear Stern > – “Yes” to Bush/Cheney bailing out AIG > – “Yes” to Bush/Cheney TARP (sept 2008) > – “Yes” to Bush/Cheney TARP (oct 2008) And these same people suddenly clamped up and couldn’t spend one single dime more on saving the economy under Obama (though joke’s on them, Obama was able to grow the economy anyways). The GOP as it stands now has no credibility. They willingly and gleefully harm America only to remain elected. They don’t give a shit about America, don’t give a shit about Americans, and would sell their own mothers to get one Democrat out of office. They are the ones who did not compromise. It is 1000% their fault that compromises are not made. Obama bears absolutely no blame on failing to work with the GOP. The only thing I fault Obama for is not recognizing the evil festering within Congress early enough to deal with it. And even still, we got the ACA done miraculously in that period where the Dems controlled all the branches of government. Imagine what we could have done without the GOP. Hell, we could have replaced fossil fuels, created flying cars, put every child through school, and been to Europa and back 3 times already. The GOP has been obstructing all progress in America for the last 8 years. All fault is on them. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/100 "2016-01-14T19:19:17Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Oh I understand what you wrote. I find it amusing you continue to miss the point. It’s not simply a 2 is greater than 1. You are attempting to put objective measures on subjective things. What if a person values the result of sending the message that they are willing to let it all burn to get their way greater than anything else? Maybe the calculus is that in future sessions debt ceiling threats will be taken more seriously in order to extract future concessions? It’s not math, it’s politics. Please stop accusing me of missing the point, this is great debates. Take it to the pit if you want to have a pissing contest. If you want to have a debate then lets keep it on that level please. Which is worse: Option A: causing the nations Credit rating to decline, and then raising the debt ceiling and paying our bills so we don’t default. Option B: raising the debt ceiling and paying our bills so we don’t default. You are arguing that these are exactly the same and its only a matter of perception. I’m saying that actually letting the country’s credit rating is a real objective harm that did not need to happen and which ultimately resulted in nothing exept economic harm to America. You may be ok with your politicians threatening (and actually taking steps) to let the country burn. I am not ok with that. Burning down the country is not one of the congressional duties outlined in the constitution. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064.md?page=6)