# The obstructionist-GOP narrative... can we test/prove it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071 "2014-08-31T20:15:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/1 "2014-08-31T20:15:50Z")
So there’s a general narrative about the last few years of American politics which a lot of liberals (including me) believe, which goes something like this: -When Obama was elected, Republicans decided that they absolutely hated him a whole bunch, for a variety of reasons, and they were determined that his presidency would fail -To accomplish this goal, they settled on a strategy of EXTREME obstructionism, in which they objected to and interfered with an unprecedented percentage of democratic appointments and policies… not because they actually disagreed with them, but just to keep anything at all from happening, all to make Obama look bad So, we’ve had a lot of threads which have at one point basically come down to liberals claiming that this narrative is true, and conservatives disagreeing. Which is fair, people can disagree about things. So, my question is… is there any way we can look at any facts or figures or records or anything to objectively determine how much truth there is, if any, to this narrative? What objectively countable statistics would look different depending on whether this narrative is true or not? A few suggestions: -more fillibusters than in previous equivalent time periods -fewer laws passed in general -more lockstep-block-voting by Republicans One thing I think is at least worth discussing is the debt-ceiling-raising kerfuffle… which I believe was basically something that had never happened before, although of course there are different interpretations of what triggered it. So, I’m hoping that this thread does NOT just degenerate into another round of he-said-she-said. What I’d really like to come out of this thread with is something objective to either support the belief that I already have, but make it something more substantial than just “I know this is happening because it’s obviously happening”, or else something that causes me to question what I thought was true. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/2 "2014-08-31T20:58:11Z")
Most prominent evidence: ACA was _their own fucking idea._ Now they claim their top priority is \*repealing \*it (they’ve quietly dropped the “replace” part, not having anything else). ---
**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:** [August 31, 2014, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/3 "2014-08-31T21:15:32Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Most prominent evidence: ACA was _their own fucking idea._ Now they claim their top priority is \*repealing \*it (they’ve quietly dropped the “replace” part, not having anything else). We really need to rid this board of that meme. While it’s true that some parts of the ACA were the idea of some Republicans, it’s simply untrue that the law was ever embraced by a majority of the GOP members of Congress today. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/4 "2014-08-31T21:26:41Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > A few suggestions: > -more fillibusters than in previous equivalent time periods > -fewer laws passed in general > -more lockstep-block-voting by Republicans I think if you define obstructionist behavior as voting against something with the primary aim of having nothing get done (as opposed to any actual opposition to the thing in question), then none of those are particularly good metrics. They are all equally consistent with a deep fundamental disagreement about what should be done. A few ideas for measurable things. 1. Look for policy proposals that were originally made by Republicans, appointees who were appointed to earlier positions by Republicans, and pilot programs that were started by Republicans that were then opposed when they were supported by the Democrats. 2. Look at individual politicians past behavior. “I voted for it before I voted against it” became an unfortunate sound byte for Kerry, but it does describe voting behavior that is indicative of Of course, the devil’s in the details. It’s totally possible that a politician would change his mind after seeing how a policy actually worked out in some case, or that there is a slight tweak to the new law that means he can’t support it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/5 "2014-08-31T22:15:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We really need to rid this board of that meme. It may be inconvenient for a “Both sides are guilty!” argument, but that isn’t reason enough. > [@](#): > > While it’s true that some parts of the ACA were the idea of some Republicans Essentially all of the major features. Not “some parts”. [Educate yourself.](http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/) > [@](#): > > it’s simply untrue that the law was ever embraced by a majority of the GOP members of Congress today. When it became an actual bill, first as Hillarycare and then Obamacare, it was sponsored by Democrats, so to that narrow definition, you’re right. But the fact that you \*have \*to define it so narrowly proves the larger point. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/6 "2014-08-31T22:17:15Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > appointees who were appointed to earlier positions by Republicans The nomination of Chuck Hagel as SecDef? > [@](#): > > Look at individual politicians past behavior. Romneycare, which we found later was actually “severely conservative”. Scott Brown voted for it in MA, btw. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/7 "2014-08-31T22:33:09Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > I think if you define obstructionist behavior as voting against something with the primary aim of having nothing get done (as opposed to any actual opposition to the thing in question), then none of those are particularly good metrics. They are all equally consistent with a deep fundamental disagreement about what should be done. > > A few ideas for measurable things. > > 1. Look for policy proposals that were originally made by Republicans, appointees who were appointed to earlier positions by Republicans, and pilot programs that were started by Republicans that were then opposed when they were supported by the Democrats. The most interesting thing to me regarding the human caused climate change issue is how it pops up on many areas. In this case I do remember that before this issue was politicised Republicans were in favour of cap-n-trade to deal with the issue. But during the Bush the lesser era the issue was weaponised for politics thanks to the efforts mde by industry and conservatives like Frank Luntz. The result today is that cap-n-trade to be used to deal with CO2 emissions became toxic in 2010 and the few conservatives that still looked at science and to use a tool that worked well in the days of the acid rain issue got voted out of office and replaced by extreme tea partiers. > [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > 1. Look at individual politicians past behavior. “I voted for it before I voted against it” became an unfortunate sound byte for Kerry, but it does describe voting behavior that is indicative of > > Of course, the devil’s in the details. It’s totally possible that a politician would change his mind after seeing how a policy actually worked out in some case, or that there is a slight tweak to the new law that means he can’t support it. The problem here is that what works politically is not the same at what works regarding what the experts on the issue recommend, even conservative politicians found out that the money was not there for their campaigns because they committed the “sin” of listening to the scientists and voted accordingly. I said **voted** because in this subject almost all Republicans that voted before for things like cap-n-trade to deal with the emissions were voted out of office so in this case I have to say that they did not have much of a chance to show a change of mind… Thanks to powerful groups many obstructionists gained access to our government, and in this issue those obstructionists are almost all Republican. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/8 "2014-08-31T23:04:34Z")
They actually shut down the government. What’s debatable here? They actually did that. If that isn’t obstructionist enough, you’re using a private dictionary. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/9 "2014-08-31T23:23:03Z")
Well, we could go with the fact that [senior GOP officials literally met on the night Obama was elected and laid out a plan to obstruct him on every issue;](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/26/democrats-gop-plot-obstruct-obama). > [@](#): > > Attending the dinner were House members Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions. From the Senate were Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign and Jon Kyl. Others present were former House Speaker and future – and failed – presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who organised the dinner and sent out the invitations. > > The dinner table was set in a square at Luntz’s request so everyone could see one another and talk freely. The session lasted four hours and by the end the sombre mood had lifted: they had conceived a plan. They would take back the House in November 2010, which they did, and use it as a spear to mortally wound Obama in 2011 and take back the Senate and White House in 2012, Draper writes. > > “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.” I even found [a thread on some message board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=649663) about it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/10 "2014-08-31T23:50:24Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > They actually shut down the government. > > What’s debatable here? They actually did that. > > If that isn’t obstructionist enough, you’re using a private dictionary. So were the Democrats obstructionist under Gerald Ford when they controlled both houses and actually shut down the government from Sep-Oct 1976? How about under Carter in '77? That’s a Democrat in the White House and controlling both the House and Senate, and the government shut down for 29 days. Obstructionist? 18 days in 1978, the fight over the aircraft carrier. Carter is President, Robert Byrd (D) is Senate Majority Leader, Tip O’Neal (D) is Speaker. Obstructionist? '79. Same cast of characters. 11 days. Etc. So, I’m guessing there’s some newly discovered reason that “They actually shut down the government,” isn’t REALLY the rule after all. Right? ---
**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:** [September 1, 2014, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/11 "2014-09-01T00:03:01Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Well, we could go with the fact that [URL=“[Democrats condemn GOP's plot to obstruct Obama as 'appalling and sad' | Barack Obama | The Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/26/democrats-gop-plot-obstruct-obama)”]senior GOP officials literally met on the night Obama was elected and laid out a plan to obstruct him on every issue: > > > [@](#): > > > > We’ve gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign. Emphasis added. “Challenge” = “Obstruct”? ---
**Author:** ![OldOlds](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a3d4f5/32.png) [@OldOlds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldOlds)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/12 "2014-09-01T00:34:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So were the Democrats obstructionist under Gerald Ford when they controlled both houses and actually shut down the government from Sep-Oct 1976? > > How about under Carter in '77? That’s a Democrat in the White House and controlling both the House and Senate, and the government shut down for 29 days. Obstructionist? > > 18 days in 1978, the fight over the aircraft carrier. Carter is President, Robert Byrd (D) is Senate Majority Leader, Tip O’Neal (D) is Speaker. > > Obstructionist? > > '79. Same cast of characters. 11 days. Etc. > > So, I’m guessing there’s some newly discovered reason that “They actually shut down the government,” isn’t REALLY the rule after all. Right? Bricker, As I am in my early 40s, all those were before my time (I may have been a clever kid, but I wasn’t watching C-Span at 6 years old, assuming it even existed then). So for the sake of argument, I will assume that in fact the Democrats were extremely obstructionist when they shut down the government and killed a bunch of puppies. I believe you’re a lawyer? Tell me, does it work when someone is up on a murder charge and he responds to the charge with a litany of all the murderers who have come before him? I get so tired of the “someone else was as bad or worse” argument, as it is just avoiding the actual question posed. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2014, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/13 "2014-09-01T00:45:24Z")
> [@OldOlds](#): > > Bricker, > > As I am in my early 40s, all those were before my time (I may have been a clever kid, but I wasn’t watching C-Span at 6 years old, assuming it even existed then). So for the sake of argument, I will assume that in fact the Democrats were extremely obstructionist when they shut down the government and killed a bunch of puppies. > > I believe you’re a lawyer? Tell me, does it work when someone is up on a murder charge and he responds to the charge with a litany of all the murderers who have come before him? > > I get so tired of the “someone else was as bad or worse” argument, as it is just avoiding the actual question posed. Bad analogy. **Bricker** is challenging the definition of “obstructionist”, not engaging in a _tu quoque_. He’s betting that **Trinopus** ’ definition will be withdrawn once he learns that the Democrats had done the same thing on several other occasions. Now, it’s quite possible that **Trinopus** will respond that, indeed, the Democrats were being obstructionist in those instances **Bricker** noted. And we should note that the OP is claiming EXTREME obstructionism, which I suppose we are to take as being different from everyday obstructionism. Whatever that difference is suppose to be… ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/14 "2014-09-01T00:55:41Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So, we’ve had a lot of threads which have at one point basically come down to liberals claiming that this narrative is true, and conservatives disagreeing. Really? I must’ve missed it. I don’t think I’ve seen this anywhere. The main RW reaction I see is that libs are whiny crybabies who stamp their feet because the opposition party is…opposing them. And if Dem policies were as popular as they think they are then the Pubs would be punished by the electorate. But instead they’re probably going to gain seats. Why change what works? These are the same guys who think government is best when it looks like two wet cats fighting in a sack. ---
**Author:** ![OldOlds](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a3d4f5/32.png) [@OldOlds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldOlds)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/15 "2014-09-01T00:57:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Bad analogy. **Bricker** is challenging the definition of “obstructionist”, not engaging in a _tu quoque_. He’s betting that **Trinopus** ’ definition will be withdrawn once he learns that the Democrats had done the same thing on several other occasions. Now, it’s quite possible that **Trinopus** will respond that, indeed, the Democrats were being obstructionist in those instances **Bricker** noted. > > And we should note that the OP is claiming EXTREME obstructionism, which I suppose we are to take as being different from everyday obstructionism. Whatever that difference is suppose to be… Well, the OP is asking a completely fair question (that is, I would argue the question is objectively fair) over whether we can measure and determine essentially, “Are they as bad as so many claim?” Bricker did not claim that those earlier events were for pure political purposes (which would have supported the idea that no, the current is not especially bad). What he appears to do is to try and drag the argument from the lofty idea of “can we evaluate this with reason and fact” into the usual, and probably inevitable, lining up behind one’s side. Perhaps you’re right and I misunderstood Bricker’s intent. If so, I will withdraw my objection and apologize. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/16 "2014-09-01T01:02:23Z")
It’s hard to even define what is meant by “obstructionist”. Actually testing or proving it… The issue is that it comes down to a series of discrete events, none of which mean that much on their own. Added together though… Oh, sure, there were more filibusters than ever before in history, and the rules changed in the house to ensure that most bills couldn’t even be heard, but that alone isn’t much. Sure, McConnell basically made it clear that over the next 2 years, the political goal should be to ensure that Obama is unelectable, but that alone isn’t much. Sure, doing _absolutely nothing_ - not a single fucking bill - to try to create jobs in the last 6 years may not mean much on its own. But put it all together, and it’s hard to have sympathy with those claiming that the republican party has an agenda and that it is worth a damn. Or how 'bout the government shutdown. You know, using _every tool at their disposal_, no matter how harmful, to get what they want _despite having only a majority in one house of congress_. That willingness to say “All right, we’re going to get what we want, or we will shut down the government, default on our debt, and leave you pick up the pieces.” That’s a discussion I’m much more interested in having, personally. Obstructionism can be left by the wayside. The problem with modern republicans isn’t obstructionism. It’s the willingness to burn everything to the fucking ground to get what they want. Fuck democracy. Fuck due process. Fuck the principles of good governance. Repeal obamacare, or we will fuck up the country. You know what? Let me make this as clear as I possibly can. Let’s a imagine a situation where congress had to vote once a month to prevent nuclear bombs from going off in NYC, Boston, LA, Seattle, and Houston. If they cannot pass a bill to prevent it every month, those bombs will go off. In such a situation, I could very well imagine many republicans in the house and senate saying “we will not vote for this bill unless it contains a passage with \”. At least, until it started to seem like it was hurting them, politically, which might take a while, because you know for a fact that no matter how outlandish their demands, Rush Limbaugh and co. would still take their side, blaming the democrats for not giving them what they want. That’s where we are, as a nation. Not as explicitly, mind you, but need I remind you that the economic equivalent of those bombs going off _damn near fucking happened?!_ And yet we still have a republican majority in the house. The system _can_ work. But it won’t unless operated in good faith, and that good faith is _gone_. That’s the real issue here. Obstructionist? What does that even _mean_? How do we define the term? At what point can we say someone is being obstructionist? At what point do we say, “Okay, that’s too many filibusters”? I dunno. If someone nominated Hitler as the secretary of defense 5000 times, then 5000 filibusters would be absolutely appropriate. That said, though, there have been some 50-odd votes to repeal obamacare in the house of representatives. Not a single vote has been cast on any sort of replacement, nor on any bill intended to stimulate the economy and create more jobs. I’m not sure how you’d have to define obstructionist to make the Republicans not look like obstructionists, but I can tell you this - it doesn’t matter. Obstructionist or not, these people have about as much business running the most important economy in the world as Rush Limbaugh has opening a fitness studio chain. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/17 "2014-09-01T01:11:07Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > And if Dem policies were as popular as they think they are then the Pubs would be punished by the electorate. But instead they’re probably going to gain seats. I expected that when Obama won in 2012 because of history and gerrymandering, but it does not take away the fact that in my example it is not a thing to be proud or that it should be considered a good thing. Bill Moyers said “God help us” when he noticed that climate change denier Senator Inhofe could become the leader of committees that deal with the same issue if the Republicans take the senate. As for more to the point evidence, I will have to go with what Dr. Sheldon Goldman, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts who focuses on judicial nominations had to say about obstructionism of court nominees: > **[Media Guide To The Nuclear Option: How Republican Obstructionism Got Us Here](https://www.mediamatters.org/washington-post/media-guide-nuclear-option-how-republican-obstructionism-got-us-here)** > > As Republicans gear up to filibuster yet another of President Obama's highly-qualified judicial nominees, Democrats are mulling Senate rule changes to allow a straight up-or-down vote on these picks. After unprecedented obstructionism on the part of... > [@](#): > > Goldman calculates his Index of Obstruction and Delay by adding together the number of unconfirmed nominations, plus the number of nominations that took more than 180 days to confirm (not including nominations towards the end of a given Congress) and dividing that by the total number of nominations. During the last Congress, Goldman calculates, the Index of Obstruction and Delay for Obama circuit court nominations was 0.9524. > > “That’s the highest that’s ever been recorded,” he tells me. “In this last Congress it approached total obstruction or delay.” > > By contrast, during the 108th Congress, from 2003-2004 – which is the most comparable, because George W. Bush was president and Republican controlled the Senate, meaning Dems had to use procedural tactics available to the minority to block nominations – the Index of Obstruction and Delay for Bush circuit court nominations was far lower, at 0.6176. > > On Obama’s district court nominations during the 112th Congress, Goldman’s Index of Obstruction and Delay was a high 0.8716, he says. Nothing in Bush’s years comes even close, he adds. > > “It is true that when Democrats controlled the Senate and Republicans were in the White House, the index has spiked, especially during Bush’s first two years,” Goldman says. “But it is unprecedented for the minority party to obstruct and delay to the level that Republicans have done to Obama in the 112th Congress.” [The Washington Post, 6/4/13] ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/18 "2014-09-01T01:21:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So were the Democrats obstructionist under Gerald Ford when they controlled both houses and actually shut down the government from Sep-Oct 1976? > > How about under Carter in '77? That’s a Democrat in the White House and controlling both the House and Senate, and the government shut down for 29 days. Obstructionist? > > 18 days in 1978, the fight over the aircraft carrier. Carter is President, Robert Byrd (D) is Senate Majority Leader, Tip O’Neal (D) is Speaker. > > Obstructionist? Of course. Obviously. What’s your point? Is that really the best you can do? The patented **Bricker** “But you did it too!” It’s remarkably unpersuasive, and comes off as whiny. The current Republican leadership is obstructionist. Does the fact that other people have also been obstructionist somehow make the current Republicans not constructionist? “You know who else shut down the government?” When you actually have something to offer this discussion, bring it. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2014, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/19 "2014-09-01T02:57:25Z")
What is all this fuss about constructionists? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/20 "2014-09-01T03:32:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What is all this fuss about constructionists? Always going around with their shirts off, and spitting, and whistling at women, and the language they use would curl the hair of a saint. But I suppose the danger of working on those high-rises, with all that heavy steel and hot rivets, must produce a lot of stress… [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071.md?page=2)