As soon as the inaugural platform was cleared from the Capitol steps, the Republican leadership in both houses of Congress strategized how to make Barack Obama a one term president. That strategy lead to obstructionism and stonewalling. If they could block Obama's legislative initiatives, they reasoned, the economy would continue to tank, thus crippling the newly elected president and resulting in a massive GOP victory in 2012. Was holding the president's feet to the political fire a good tactic? Should Romney win and the GOP retain the House and maybe even pick up a couple of Senate seats, all would be sunny in the Republican world, right? But the consequences of this strategy meant American households would suffer lack of jobs and eventually a crushing tax burden while Wall Street and the wealthy get coddled and stroked as the "job creators". Well, private sector business is sitting on a mountain of cash but refuse to "create" jobs. Wealth is redistributed upward making the rich richer and the middle class smaller. And for all this the American people are expected to run to the Republican party for solutions solace? Was obstructionism the grand strategy? Should the Republcans prevail, won't they have an even bigger hole to climb from? Did they enhance their political brand being petulant? Has the emergence of cable news and the internet fostered a deepening of political partisanship for the better or worse? Are we as a free people more capable of reaching consensus on issues thus moving our country forward, or has the new media divided us irrepairably? In 1990, could we point to the political landscape and cite instances of irreconcilable differences or was there a real chance of political and ideological compromise resulting in effective legislation? Are we better off today, politically as sharply divided camps of ideologues, or should our real focus be on solutions? The Republicans played the ideological card often resulting in gridlock and stalemate. Should they have assumed the traditional position of the minority party and worked a little harder at solving America's problems? Or, would you agree that political ideolgy and partisanship is the best way to get things done?
It was a terrible idea to elect a far left extremist and try to pass him off as a moderate in a center-far right country
Center-far right? So basically you're saying we're a right-wing country? 'Cause from the center to the far right, that's pretty much the entirety of the right, isn't it?
Both sides always try to get the opposition party out of power and their own people in there. It is not a new phenomenon in politics. Do you honestly think the democrats were not trying to get Gore in office and remove Bush in 2004? Of course they were. The republicans want Obama out and they also do not agree with his policies and neither do the majority of Americans which is why you saw such a massive removal of democrats from office in 2010. You are confusing the public and honest statements the republicans made with their difference in ideology. Just because they are not going along with Obama does not mean it is only for the reason of removing him but rather its because they don't like the path they are leading us down. We've seen the republicans negotiate when they can such as extending unemployment benefits for retaining the Bush tax cuts. The democrats have now walked away from the negotiating table however and are putting the republicans in a position where they can't do much. The House has passed 342 pieces of legislation that Harry Reid has stalled, put them in limbo basically, he won't even bring them up for consideration which means no debate and no compromises can be worked out. Basically this is why you see so many filibusters, because the democrats will not negotiate one iota with the republicans. Who is really the obstructionist here?
You realize how stupid it is to complain about "obstructionism" when Democrats had not only the Presidency, but also the House and Senate for most of Obama's time in office, so far? They even had a fillibuster proof majority for a while, how often does that happen? Few Presidents had a smoother ride getting their (*)(*)(*)(*) passed through Congress as Barack Obama, but liberal sychophants are pining over the fact that he no longer has complete control. You want a dictator, not a President. Most of the unemployment rate drops and "encouraging signs" started occurring after Republicans successfully took back the House and stopped Obama's free-for-all. Coincidence? I think not. The country will do better with a neuteured Obama Administration, which is why I look forward to 4 more years of gridlock if Romney doesn't win. I also look forward to you making excuses for Democrat "obstructionism" if Romney wins. I always like pointing out hypocrisy from liberals.
Gotta love that obstructionism. It helps slow down the growth of government. We're always better off when we have a stalemate between political parties. May obstructionism live on and on.
If you believe that there is nothing done by government that is at all beneficial, I suppose that would be a valid point. Is there anything done by government that is beneficial in your opinion?
Did Al Gore run in 2004 or was that 2000? If a majority of Americans want Obama out, wouldn't they have expressed that in 2008? If Obama wins next month, how will your argument stand up? And what would be the political consequences to Republicans had they voted against unemployment extensions? That was not a compromise as much as it was a politically motivated retreat.
The point about Gore still stands or any President and the opposing party for that matter. Americans wanted Obama in 2008 but after they saw the path the democrats were going they changed their minds in 2010 and I'm sure that if Obama had been up for re-election at that time that he would have been out also. The larger point that you may not be seeing is that the republicans are doing what the people elected them to do. If they had wanted to maintain the democratic path then they wouldn't have replaced them so people who try and fault the republicans for being obstructionist are not realizing that its why they are in office. The democrats should have taken the 2010 elections as a sign that they need to move from their current policies and move to the middle some but they did not get it. If Obama wins again then that will mean that people still have faith in him but the real sign is what happens with Congress. They are the ones that write legislation in the end, not the President.
