# 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:** 11
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/201 "2014-09-08T17:24:13Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > 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 This is the problem. The assumption that you made was totally and completely incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/202 "2014-09-08T17:56:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Doesn’t it support the general sense that the issue is resistant to objective analysis? How so? There are plenty of issues for which it is POSSIBLE to objectively analyze them without anyone having done it. And the type of covering and reporting that a journalist does is very different from the kind of much-longer-term analysis that one might imagine a political scientist doing. It certainly suggests that it’s not EASY to objectively analyze this issue, but then, we already knew that. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/203 "2014-09-08T17:58:30Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > This is the problem. The assumption that you made was totally and completely incorrect. Uh, what? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/204 "2014-09-08T19:27:01Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > How so? There are plenty of issues for which it is POSSIBLE to objectively analyze them without anyone having done it. And the type of covering and reporting that a journalist does is very different from the kind of much-longer-term analysis that one might imagine a political scientist doing. > > It certainly suggests that it’s not EASY to objectively analyze this issue, but then, we already knew that. OK, I grant that “possible” might be too high a bar. But I maintain that the issue is strongly resistant to objective analysis. The reason is that at some point, you have to start assigning values to the reasons for the “obstruction.” If a bill is on the floor mandating that we sell Wyoming to the Gypsies, I think “obstructing” it is the absolutely correct thing to do. But how, objectively, do we measure the real-life instances, when there’s not going to be a unanimity of opinion on the value of obstructing? Or we could just try to measure raw “obstructing” – but that seems to suggest a feeling that the majority party should be permitted to do as it pleases. Again, I think you’ll find that’s not palatable to roughly half the people half the time, and the other half the other times. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/205 "2014-09-08T20:30:23Z")
The reason is pretty much always “Fuck Obama”. As you know. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/206 "2014-09-08T20:53:17Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The reason is pretty much always “Fuck Obama”. As you know. Regardless of whether or not you and I believe that’s true, that’s fairly non-helpful in this thread unless you can test/prove that it’s the case. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/207 "2014-09-08T20:58:08Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > . . . the following verbatim response: > > “Basically both are true. With the midterms around the corner Reid is trying to protect democrats from having to take tough votes and has pretty much shut down the amendment process. That’s probably a more recent development than republican obstructionism and filibusters, which are driven in part by the growing tea party bloc. > It doesn’t help that Reid and McConnell loathe each other personally. > I would have trouble trying to say who is more at fault, although the tea party folks are certainly making things tough, including for fellow republicans.” Cool! Thank you. That sounds pretty sensible. > [@](#): > > (I’m also a bit unclear why having a tea party bloc makes the Republicans MORE obstructionist. If anything, you’d think that having a large seismic split between two wings of your party would make it HARDER for you to work as a unified whole…) In a rational party, they’d just swing back to the middle, relying on the majority of the voters who are sane and moderate. But the Tea Party functions by screaming obscenities at the top of its lungs, and candidates are afraid of getting smeared with that kind of excrement. (Metaphors are for mixing.) The Tea Party is an extremely dynamic minority, absolutely dependable for a certain number of votes. They won’t go away. If the Republicans split with them, they’d form their own party for real, or perhaps form a militia movement and self-destruct in violence. Either way, the mainstream Republicans would lose a lot of elections until moderate Democrats filtered back to them over financial policy. They’re riding a tiger, and have decided it’s more dangerous to get off than to stay on. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/208 "2014-09-08T21:01:52Z")
In regards to the split making it harder to work as a whole, the GOP is having a very hard time working as a unified whole. The main reason more moderate Republicans aren’t defecting on votes is because whatever else the Tea Party is, they can end your career. There are no progressive movements that can take out Democrats who defect, Joe Lieberman notwithstanding(and they actually failed in the end). If Eric Cantor can go down, anyone can go down. Sure, 95% of the incumbents beat Tea Party challenges, but politicians are a cautious lot. 5% chance of defeat is too much for many of them. They’ll toe the line as long as that threat exists. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/209 "2014-09-08T22:58:32Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > It certainly suggests that it’s not EASY to objectively analyze this issue, but then, we already knew that. More than that, what it suggests is that much of what may appear superficially to be objective measures are not actually that. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/210 "2014-09-09T01:32:21Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Kinda like today’s Democrat scheduled vote in the Senate (not sure yet if it is going to happen) on the “Senate Joint Resolution 19”? Everyone knows it has no chance of passing, but Reid is hoping to use the votes against Republicans. To follow up - this is hilarious. Democrats put up the vote, hoping that it fails, and they get to beat up Republicans with it. [Republicans decided to outplay Democrats and voted FOR it](http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/campaign-finance-senate-constitutional-amendment-110726.html?hp=t3_3). 79-18, cloture vote. Democrats are complaining. How dare Republicans not “obstruct” the vote that Democrats put up purely so that it can be “obstructed”! ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/211 "2014-09-09T02:26:08Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > To follow up - this is hilarious. Democrats put up the vote, hoping that it fails, and they get to beat up Republicans with it. [Republicans decided to outplay Democrats and voted FOR it](http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/campaign-finance-senate-constitutional-amendment-110726.html?hp=t3_3). 79-18, cloture vote. Democrats are complaining. How dare Republicans not “obstruct” the vote that Democrats put up purely so that it can be “obstructed”! I’m sure they were hoping that it would be good theater. But as it happens the Dems do want it to pass. We’ll see, tell me when the final vote happens if those seventy nine go for it. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/212 "2014-09-09T02:36:48Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m sure they were hoping that it would be good theater. But as it happens the Dems do want it to pass. > > We’ll see, tell me when the final vote happens if those seventy nine go for it. Of course they won’t. That’s the fun part. Democrats know they won’t. They knew that the whole charade was wasting time. And now they are accusing Republicans of wasting time on it. A classic case of projection. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/213 "2014-09-09T02:38:58Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Of course they won’t. That’s the fun part. Democrats know they won’t. They knew that the whole charade was wasting time. And now they are accusing Republicans of wasting time on it. A classic case of projection. It’s worth doing if it increases public awareness of the necessity of the amendment. It’s not gonna happen, but since the GOP won’t let anything of consequence happen, well then I guess you have to decide how to spend your days. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/214 "2014-09-09T02:42:39Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It’s worth doing if it increases public awareness of the necessity of the amendment. If it’s worth doing, they shouldn’t be complaining that Republicans tricked them by voting for it. After all, now instead of the other bills they wanted to push, they are going to spend the next week “increasing public awareness” by discussing this one. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/215 "2014-09-09T02:47:21Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > If it’s worth doing, they shouldn’t be complaining that Republicans tricked them by voting for it. After all, now instead of the other bills they wanted to push, they are going to spend the next week “increasing public awareness” by discussing this one. So you’re gleeful that the GOP voted for something that they ultimately won’t let pass, so they can waste time? And you contend that the Dems are the obstructionists? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/216 "2014-09-09T02:50:54Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So you’re gleeful that the GOP voted for something that they ultimately won’t let pass, so they can waste time? > > And you contend that the Dems are the obstructionists? Of course. Dems submitted something that they knew won’t pass and will waste Senate’s time. How is that not obstructionist? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/217 "2014-09-09T02:52:59Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Of course. Dems submitted something that they knew won’t pass and will waste Senate’s time. How is that not obstructionist? Because they actually want it to pass. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/218 "2014-09-09T02:56:36Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Because they actually want it to pass. And they knew it has zero chance of passing. Not “small chance”. Zero. That’s wasting time. Is wasting Senate’s time obstructionist? After all, you (plural) are the ones accusing the House of “obstructionism” when they vote for repealing Obamacare, knowing that there is no chance it would pass the Senate. At least in the House they actually pass it, unlike the case in question here. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/219 "2014-09-09T03:05:12Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > And they knew it has zero chance of passing. Not “small chance”. Zero. That’s wasting time. Is wasting Senate’s time obstructionist? After all, you (plural) are the ones accusing the House of “obstructionism” when they vote for repealing Obamacare, knowing that there is no chance it would pass the Senate. At least in the House they actually pass it, unlike the case in question here. As I said, it would have passed, if the GOP didn’t make 60 the threshold. Since they did, and the Dems legitimately wanted it to pass, the GOP takes the blame on this one. Obviously, you have it as an axiom that the Dems are at fault, and I can’t move a mountain, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Know this, however, if this were reversed, I’d say the Dems were obstructing. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/220 "2014-09-09T03:07:52Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > As I said, it would have passed, if the GOP didn’t make 60 the threshold. Since they did, and the Dems legitimately wanted it to pass, the GOP takes the blame on this one. Huh? Are we talking about the same thing? The cloture vote was 79-18. The next vote, for it to pass the Senate, does not need 60 votes. It needs 75. It is not the GOP making that threshold, it’s the Constitution. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071.md?page=12)