Obama '08?

No. It is, instead, an expression of contempt for both the object of all this adulation and those who do it.

However, he will almost certainly depart the political scene soon enough.

[I will take your silence on the subject of that last post as agreement with my position; or at the very least, that you can't formulate an argument against it without tying yourself in knots.

. Much in the same fashion as Clinton, he will continue to be a powerful force for the Dems for the rest of your lifetime. I'd advise getting used to it.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[I will take your silence on the subject of that last post as agreement with my position; or at the very least, that you can't formulate an argument against it without tying yourself in knots.

Take it as you wish. However, you have posed an obviously false dilemma, i.e. rank obstructionism OR principled opposition. The opposition by Republicans in the Congress to the agenda being forced through by the Democrat majorities was clearly and obviously principled.

As time passes the wissdom of their opposition and the folly of the "progressive" agenda for our country have both become more clear.

It was obstructionist in your eyes because you didn't like it, and I note that you tend to frequently confuse what you like with what is good for others. They aren't the same at all.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

. Much in the same fashion as Clinton, he will continue to be a powerful force for the Dems for the rest of your lifetime. I'd advise getting used to it.

Cycloptichorn

Oh, he'll still be around, but the perception of him will be more like that of the hapless Jimmy Carter than that of the far more adroit Bill Clinton.

"Leading from behind" is a phrase that will long be associated with him. Perhaps you should begin to prepare yourself for that.

March 1, 2010
GOP OBSTRUCTIONISM REACHES 'ASTONISHING' LEVEL.... For Americans who wonder why it seems like nothing gets done in Washington, the answer couldn't be more obvious.

The frequency of filibusters -- plus threats to use them -- are measured by the number of times the upper chamber votes on cloture. Such votes test the majority's ability to hold together 60 members to break a filibuster.

Last year, the first of the 111th Congress, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the first two months of 2010, the number already exceeds 40.

That means, with 10 months left to run in the 111th Congress, Republicans have turned to the filibuster or threatened its use at a pace that will more than triple the old record. [emphasis added]

Political science professor Jim Riddlesperger told the AP, ''The numbers are astonishing in this Congress."

That's absolutely true. The scope of this abuse is unlike anything we've ever seen in the United States. A discredited minority decided that elections no longer have consequences, and that blocking the Senate's ability to vote on the majority's agenda is entirely acceptable.

Of course, our political system encourages this misconduct -- the less than gets done, the angrier the public. The angrier the public, the more likely the majority party loses. Ergo, the minority has a powerful incentive to make sure nothing gets done.

I suspect the frustration felt by President Obama must be pretty intense. The country has effectively told him, "We need you to rescue an economy in freefall, oversee two costly wars, fix a deteriorating job market, address a crushing debt, and fix health care, energy policy, immigration, a housing crisis, a collapsing U.S. auto industry, the Gitmo mess, and America's reputation around the world. Oh, and for the first time in American history, literally every measure and nomination of any significance will be blocked by a Senate filibuster. Good luck."

And the great irony is, the party that's responsible for the gridlock and unprecedented obstructionism is poised to be rewarded for their ridiculous behavior.

I continue to think observers should characterize Republican filibuster abuse for what it is: an extraordinary political scandal that undermines the American government's ability to function.

—Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Seriously, you don't sometimes recoil from the idiot argument, required by official Dem talking points, that it's all the Republicans' fault?

For the first two years of his term he had a filibuster proof majority in congress and still he and his followers were blaming Bush.

Since 2010, his party has controlled the Executive branch and half of the Legislative branch and he and his followers are blaming any and all problems on the House Republicans.

When he loses in 2012 he and his followers will be blaming the Supreme Court.

Will your guy ever take responsibility for what goes wrong during his presidency? He certainly wants to take credit for whatever goes right.

I appreciate that as a loyal partisan you have to defend him against Philistines like georgeob1 and me, but surely you are intelligent enough to know that his presidency, thus far, has not been a success...thanks to him.

Can you honestly say Jimmy Carter's one term presidency was a success? Is there a limit to your partisanship?

The book on Jimmy is going to be the book on Barack: a failed presidency during which economic conditions worsened and internationally, American prestige took a big hit.

I'll say this for him though, his actually not quite as feckless as Carter was. At least he has the excuse of never running anything in his life before he won the presidency.

I don't have any argument at all with the proposition that the GOP spent the first two years of Obama's presidency trying very hard to obstruct the enactment of the highly partisan, distributionist agenda of the self-styled progressive Democrats then in charge of both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

That Republicans had some success in obstructing Democrat programs to which they strongly objected, does not mean their behavior was either unprincipled or even harmful to the country.

Do you now claim to know the inner motives of Republicans in the Congress?

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," McConnell said, adding, "Our single biggest political goal is to give [the Republican] nominee for president the maximum opportunity to be successful."

Republicans have a long history in opposing further extention of the interstate commerce power in the Federal government and would never have supported Federal law compelling the purchase of anything.

You are very free with your moral judgments and accusations.

You have called me a liar and accused me of basing my political views on personal greed and a lack of concern for others. I would be quite offended were it not for the comedy involved in the self-important bombast and hyperbole that accompanies your overwrought statements. You demean yourself in doing this.

White House Appears To Want To Shame The Shameless Mitch McConnell And Company

by Tommy Christopher | 7:48 am, October 27th, 2010

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s remarkably honest confession to National Journal’s Major Garrett that “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” got kicked around at length during Tuesday’s White House briefing. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs‘ responses seemed designed to shame the opposition into post-midterm cooperation, but several reporters, myself included, wondered from whence this hope sprang. The voters seem poised to reward McConnell’s party for two years of obstruction, so what is their incentive to do anything differently?

Before learning of McConnell’s remarks, President Obama told the National Journal that “I think it’s going to be important for Republicans to recognize that the American people aren’t simply looking for them to stand on the sidelines; they’re going to have to roll up their sleeves and get to work.”

McConnell’s statement, that the “single most important thing” is not jobs, or even tax cuts, but defeating President Obama, indicates that no such realization is forthcoming. As they have demonstrated these past two years, the Republicans are even willing to obstruct their own ideas in order to deny the President any political victory, so what hope is there that an even more powerful Republican minority (or majority?) will deign to do anything for the next two years?