Yes, elections have consequences, but not these consequences

Rep. Trey Gowdy, Whichpartydoyathink-SC:

Look, sir, a president gets to claim an electoral mandate of the whole people, independent of Congress’ mandate, for his whole term. That’s the presidential system for ya – if you don’t like it, go parliamentary.

In any case, no POTUS is obliged, constitutionally or otherwise, to change course in response to midterm results. You know that, man – W was in these same shoes in 2007.

I’m hoping President Obama’s veto pen/stamp/whatever catches fire from how much he uses that sucker during these two years he has to deal with a Republican Congress, 'cause he is gonna get bombarded with absolutely cuckoo bills.

Heck, it’s already started.

But wait, I thought record obstructionism was bad??

I’m so confused…

I wish you liberals would get your story straight.


If the Republicans can’t get everything they want when they are not in power because, you know, they refused to negotiate, then the President is obliged to give them everything they want so as not to look like an obstructionist? :dubious:

I wish you conservatives would understand that you can either eat your cake, or you can have it. You have to decide.

Good or bad, the point is it’s something you get to do, if you’re in Congress or in the WH. The obstructionist Pubs in Congress have been causing a lot of trouble and grief over the past four years, but nobody ever suggested they were overstepping a constitutional line. But that’s the charge they now seem ready to throw at Obama every time he does not do what they want.

Obstructionism is bad. It was certainly bad when the Republicans did it for the past 6 years. It will also be bad if Obama does it for the next 2 years, although after the past 6 years I won’t be able to get all worked up about it.

However, and this is the key point, Obama vetoing all sorts of things is not, in and of itself, obstructionist. If Obama and the Republicans meet to discuss taxes, and he says he wants 30% and they say they want 20% and he says he’s OK with 25% and they say 20% and eventually they submit a bill that says 20 and he vetoes it, that’s not obstructionist. Obstructionist would be they say 20 and he says 30 and then they offer to compromise at 25 and he says 30 and then they send in a bill that says 28 and he vetoes it because it doesn’t say 30. And then they submit a bill that says 30 and he vetoes it because it doesn’t say 35.

I’ll be waiting for you, or the typical posters on the SDMB, or even the mainstream media, to accuse Obama of obstructionism. I bet it doesn’t happen. Not once.


Meanwhile, do you acknowledge that the Republican use of the Senatorial Filibuster for the past four years has been obstructionist?

No, I do not. The Congress passes the laws, the President either signs them, or he doesn’t. Shrug.

It’s not “obstructionist” to decline to pass laws that further a President’s agenda.

Conservatives and liberals both use the same logic: “Obstructionism is fine when our side does it, but it’s bad when the other side does it.”

He’s not obliged, but with a Republican Senate, his agenda will be harder to pass. That’s simply reality.

Obstructionism is bad when it is conducted for political rather than policy ends.

Please do correct me if I’m wrong, but if President Obama does it, then it will be for policy ends, rather than political reasons, right?

You’re talking about a hypothetical, non-specific future event? How should I know?

How about a bill to modify, or (gasp) repeal any part of the ACA? The tax on medical devices, for example. There is almost literally no policy reason for that to exist.

Then why all the triumphalism and boasting about others not using the word, if you don’t think it’s the appropriate word either?

“I’ll bet you people never accuse O.J. Simpson of treason. Not once.” Uh…right.

I don’t consider it triumphalism or boasting. That being said, folks on one side of the aisle have been squawking about “obstructionism” for the better part of six years.

Suddenly, as if by magic, that squawking will go away, when the Democrat President obstructs the will of the people.

Really, you’ve studied that small point? Personally come to this conclusion? Or did you hear about it from someone?

Here is a policy argument for it, for anyone who is interested.

Which is pretty much how the Republicans have been doing business for the past four years.