Just saying that obstruction runs both ways. And if the GOP wins the Senate, the obstruction will be by only one man starting in Jan. 2015.
No, it doesn’t. Consider what the word means and perhaps you’ll see why this statement is ridiculous. Normally when you are out of power that means you compromise since you’re in no position to make demands, but that’s not going to happen.
I have this crazy fantasy where the President, the House and the Senate communicate with each other about bills as they come up, negotiate with each other and work out there differences.
Insane, I know.
The Republicans aren’t out of power. Believe it or not, Congress is supreme in legislation, not the President. And the Republicans control half of Congress. Besides, it’s not like nothing’s coming out of Congress. They agree often enough to get some things done. And the President has been cool about not making trouble with his veto pen.
Every time Sarah Palin is brought up in the news I stop and wonder how the hell she was chosen as running mate and almost became vice president
And President Romney is doing a great job.
Three branches of government, dude. Co-equal. Neither party is “out of power”. We are NOT a banana republic.
Anyway, I expect the President will get full cooperation on his request to expedite the removal of children trying to cross the border:
Nevermind. Trying to correct you when you go off on a tangent is foolish, so I’ll just stop.
Neither is the UK but there is always a party “out of power,” and that seems to work better than our system.
True, the Republicans control the Supreme Court.
No, because he’s asking for money to do it. And because it would mean cooperation.
The UK is a Parliamentary system. If you’re not the majority, you’re the minority. The Republicans control the House, which means that in the House, the Democrats are the minority and the party out of power.
And since the Constitution gives the HOuse authority to originate revenue bills, the Republicans control the revenue, which last I checked was a pretty significant authority to have.
There are actually some great reasons to impeach Obama, but that would require the US to have a genuine Left, like the great Clare Daly.
The left won’t impeach Obama, because the left forgives all if it furthers the larger strategy. If LBJ can bomb Vietnam and be a liberal lion because of Medicare, then Obama can bomb Iran and still be loved because of ACA.
There’s no chance of Obama bombing Iran, and liberals have very mixed feelings about LBJ. LBJ was great for Civil Rights and Medicare, and LBJ was very bad for Vietnam. Both can be true.
This is possibly the best metaphor I have ever read. Well done!
Now it’s your turn to be wrong, twice in one post. The President has not taken military action off the table and if Iran gets close he will take military action. as for LBJ, I suggest you re-read the “Greatest Presidents” thread. Quite a few liberals don’t have mixed feelings. Unless it’s possible to think LBJ is one of the greatest ever counts as having mixed feelings.
The Iran thing is my opinion, whatever the official position is. As far as LBJ, most liberals I know have very mixed feelings. I’m sure there are some that love him, and some that hate him as well.
So no, not wrong. Yet, anyway – hopefully I’m not proven wrong on the first count.
I seem to recall Obama getting a lot of criticism from the left earlier in his administration for “leading with compromise” in his proposals to congress only to get zero cooperation. Was that an accurate portrayal?
Any POTUS can do irreparable harm with the “nuclear football.” Not that I expect that this Admin.
Even when we need Iran as a counterforce against ISIS?