September 11, 2012
I want one example. Please. Just one.
Just one example of when the Republicans in Congress, under Obama, opposed legislation just because they wanted to hurt Obama.
The left keeps throwing out this line about how Republicans said their top priority was to get rid of Obama. Well, yes, just as Democrats said about Bush in 2000. It's not on the record, but we know that's what happened. They spent 3.5 years -- a brief reprieve due to 9/11 -- trying to get rid of Bush.
But neither the Democrats in 2001 nor the Republicans in 2009 ever said they would oppose everything the President wanted. The Republicans actually have agreed to a lot of legislation under Obama. The legislation they've opposed (sorry, "obstructed") is legislation that they disagreed with ... which is what you're supposed to do if you disagree with something.
Maybe the Republicans refused cooperation on some legislation just to hurt Obama, though I know of no example. Every example I know of is where the Republicans and Democrats have actual disagreements. That's not to say that you shouldn't work harder to cooperate, but the Democrats have been at least as guitly of this as Republicans.
And please don't say the Republicans agreed with "ObamaCare." There's zero evidence supporting this claim. Yes, some Republicans supported some parts of the ACA at various times, but that cannot possibly imply agreement with the bill as a whole. It's so unintellectual an argument that it's barely worth responding to. If I support tax cuts, that doesn't mean I should vote for a bill that has tax cuts, and also requires dog owners to kill their firstborn male pup. You have to consider the bill as a whole, and there are many objectionable items in the ACA that justify opposing it, for any Republican (or, really, any Democrat).
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 11, 2012
08:14 AM | Email This
I find it interesting the the Republicans are to blame as the reason for not having a budget, which some might see as hurting/obstructing Obummer. No mention is made about the lack of counterproposals, especially from the loon in charge of the senate. And as you correctly pointed out, there is a difference between legitimate disagreement and doing things just to be spiteful. Too bad the MSM can't grasp that concept.
If you want an example of spiteful behavior, approving a new sports stadium without a public vote and then demanding voters pass levies to fund basic services or else comes to mind.
2. I find it interesting the the Republicans are to blame as the reason for not having a budget
Where do you get this? Republicans have passed a budget in the House the past two years. The Senate (controlled by Dems) have failed to pass one the past 3 years. How is that Republicans' fault? The Senate hasn't even proposed a budget to vote on. It's a disgrace.
3. Palouse - you misunderstood my post. Yes, I know the Republicans have passed a budget in the House. The point is the MSM does not bother to point this out, rather there is much lamenting about no budget progress without informing the public what is really going on. Since many people rely on nanosecond newsbites and can't be bothered to do any fact checking, the general impression is that the evil Republicans are the reason Obummer doesn't have a budget on his desk.
Oh Pudge, surely you know it's code for "They didn't go along with our scheme of the moment"
It's just like their racist dog whistles - empty sounds of nothing only liberals and Democrats can hear... or claim to hear (considering their nebulous relationship to truth)
5. Careful, Burdabee, the PC moderates won't stand for anyone calling their president names.
6. Oooh, that's right Saltherring -- those who profess to embrace tolerance and diversity are really anything but. Maybe I should refer to their mighty leader as the One Who Spends More Time Planning His Golf Outings Than Governing. :)
Burdabee, I know it is fashionable to call Mr.Obama all sorts of variations on his name. Obummer, Obozo, etc. but I think it really cheapens the argument. I use "Mr.Obama" or just "Obama" and it gets the job done. You can then call him things like Rookie, serial golfer, clueless and other more descriptive words that move the view forward.
Don't be offended, just a thought.
8. Oscarphone - no offense taken. Although if I followed a certain school of thought, I would be phoning a lawyer to start a class action lawsuit because my feelings and self-esteem were trod upon. Hmmmm, how deep are your pockets or should I go after Al Gore since he invented the internet? Ha Ha :)
9. The key point here is the response to Pudge's plea for one example - and that response is basically crickets.
It proves that the Dhimmicrats, formerly Democrats (i.e. liberal progressives) are running only on emotion void of facts. The so-called facts are based on half-truths and distortions and are so predictable.
Obama's initial response to the killing of an US diplomat in Libya smacks of that of a muslim sympathizer (crafted by Valerie Jarrett who is one herself, as is Obama). If this doesn't give people a glimpse of relations in the middle east over the next 4 years (if he is reelected) nothing else does. SOS Clinton added in her statement that the US condemned the attacks, better - but not good enough. More to come no doubt, as Obama will try and walk back his initial statement after showing his true feelings initially.
11. ...the Dhimmicrats, formerly Democrats (i.e. liberal progressives) are running only on emotion void of true facts. Their so-called facts are based on half-truths and distortions and are so predictable and are emotionally convenient and purposely misleading.
You would have to admit the way they handled Obama's budget was pretty brilliant. Opposing the ability to add amendments to it in a flat out open attempt to get zero votes for his budget....a marvelously successful (and open) attempt to hurt Obama with a piece of legislation.
Of course if the GOP did not oppose adding amendments to the legislation it would have been an utter failure for the GOP.
Yes, this is our
Popping the Bubble (If Not a Blister) By David Boze on 9.12.12 @ 6:08AM
Republicans haven't cooperated with Mr. Obama? Someone in authority says they have.
@12 - So what ! Tough crap. After the Democrats rammed through Obamacare, all bipartisanship went out the window. Why ?
because as Biden said; "It was a big f'in deal ! "
Obama was not serious about his budget to start with. Besides that, it did not matter to him then as nothing was heard from him or his minions at the time and the only reason it matters now is politics. You are the poster face for intellectual dishonesty !
Obama and the white house is a boil on the buttocks of America and the world and must be lanced..
15. Opposing the ability to add amendments to it in a flat out open attempt to get zero votes for his budget....a marvelously successful (and open) attempt to hurt Obama with a piece of legislation.
Uh, the Democrats control the Senate. They can propose whatever budget they want as a brand new bill and the Republicans could not filibuster it. The vote on Obama's budget was an attempt to get the Senate Democrats to do their job.
16. @12 doug- Not only are you the poster face for intellectually dishonest, you also are a liar about how Obama's budget was voted on and defeated 97-0 in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
@12 doug - The Republicans used a procedural move that forced the Democrat controlled Senate to bring Obama's budget to a vote; something they weren't going to do. It showed that Obama's budget was totally unsupportable.
The next course of action would have ben for the Democrat controlled Senate to offer a budget of their own. They didn't.
The Republican controlled House has passed several budgets. They sent those to the Democrat controlled Senate and the Democrat controlled Senate has been obstructionist and deliberately refused to produce their own alternative budget.
By refusing to produce their own budgets for over three years, the Democrat controlled Senate has, through their actions (or inaction) strongly pronounced that they have zero interest in working with Republicans.
18. I don't read doug's comments as disagreeing with what y'all are saying. He was saying they forced a vote on the unamended budget.
doug misstated the facts though, so I was correcting his assertion.
In addition, I added some background filler for the edification for readers.
An update on the apology by the White House to Egypt & Libya (from Powerline) -
For the record, here is Romney's statement:
I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
What Romney said was precisely correct: the administration's first response was not to condemn the attacks, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. We wrote about that here and elsewhere. And Obama can't really disagree with what Romney said, since he disavowed responsibility for the embassy's statement and someone apparently directed the embassy to delete tweets that defended the initial apology."
The presstitutes (media) are trying to pile on and defend Obama, but Romney is correct here and they will look like biased idiots here. For Romney, this is a gateway to a much bigger issue - Obama sides with the muslim brotherhood (welcoming Pres. Morsi, Egypt and throwing Israel under the bus - no time for a meeting in Sept.) and the overall recklessness of this Administration in the Middle East, where the chickens are starting to come home to roost.
Pudge just wanted one example. I'm just guessing that the leadership in both parties before making a move decide whether or not it will influence the elections that are coming up - of which the presidential election is the most important.
I would hope that the leaders of my party are actively trying to get a Republican elected President, while also doing their job....I expect the democrats to be doing the same thing.
So, I brought up the issue of Obama's budget. My mistake....I guess when Pudge said he wanted one example, what was really happening was he was throwing a worm on a hook out there for all the idiots to attack whoever actually answered the question.
Just to be intellectually honest here, even if you are such an establishment republican that you think Mitch McConnell is the second coming, you still must admit that the move the GOP did there was specifically to embarrass the President and it worked wonderfully.
So what? Who cares whether they did it or not, it was a good move to. Still, why bother putting your heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't happen. Pudge's main point is valid though, why do the Dems and their supporters spend so much time complainly of this hidden tactic....because their complaining also works to an extent.
22. KDS, oh by the way, I was referring to the 400+ to zero vote defeat in the House.
Palouse @ 15
"Uh, the Democrats control the Senate. They can propose whatever budget they want as a brand new bill and the Republicans could not filibuster it. The vote on Obama's budget was an attempt to get the Senate Democrats to do their job. "
If I remember correctly, the vote in the Senate came a day or two after Ryan rammed the vote on Obama's budget through the house via amendment where it didn't get a single vote. It was definitely NOT done in the Senate as an attempt to do their job, and I am not going to be buying the Brooklyn Bridge from you. The vote in the Senate was the second stage of the GOP plan to embarrass Obama on the budget, it was temporanously successful and could still reap rewards if used this election.
@22 - BTW - I would like to see both McConnell and Boehner replaced as Senate Majority(?) chairman and Speaker of the House respectively. They are the old guard and country club checked-pants Republicans who have gone along to get along with the Dhimmicrats and are partly responsible for us getting to this point.
If Obama gets reelected, I believe that the Republican Party should be leveled, destroyed and morph into a completely new party, because they are done - stick a fork in them !
doug: Pudge just wanted one example.
Yep. Still waiting. Did you think you gave one? I don't see why.
I agree with you ... they forced a vote on the budget. So? How is that an example of the GOP opposing legislation just because they wanted to hurt Obama? They actually opposed the budget, because it was bad, not because they wanted to hurt him.
That they embarassed Obama by forcing a vote on it doesn't change anything.
Pudge's main point is valid though, why do the Dems and their supporters spend so much time complainly of this hidden tactic....because their complaining also works to an extent.
Because people believe it, because we don't force them to back up their claims.
26. LOL! I needed a laugh. Thanks.
27. Spot on with this write-up, I truly think this website needs much more consideration. I'll probably be again to read much more, thanks for that info.
28. Yes, it also served to embarrass Obama and the Democrats, as it should. It's a disgrace that they haven't passed a budget. It also exposes the Democrats as frauds when they tell people that it's the Republicans are holding up the budget process. If they actually passed a budget, any budget, it could go to reconciliation with the House version and move on from there. They refuse to even do their jobs, at a basic level. You can't work with someone who refuses to do their job.
So, forcing a vote
on the exact bill as delivered by the White House is an example of obstuction
designed to embarass Obama and make him fail?
I thought obstructionism was in not allowing a vote to take place.
If Obama was embarassd by the budget vote, then maybe it was because of his budget and not obstructionism.
SouthernRoots: Actually neither of the amendments that were offered and voted on were the 'exact bill' as delivered by the White House - they were much shorter versions created by the Republicans.
Also, if you knew much about the budget process, those things never get passed as presented by the executive, whether it's federal, state, local or school districts. It would be quite the horrible defeat if the GOP faithful held Romney to the same standard and demanded that the GOP house and senate pass the Romney budget as presented. That would be another budget shot down by both parties.
Two things: It is my understanding that the intent of the OP is to show frustration with the dems and the MSM as painting the GOP as having not voted on specific bills in an attempt to have Obama fail - and thus cause the failure of the economy.
It is also my understanding the pudge wanted an example where what they claim actually took place.
Obviously, on most of the big things Obama and the Dems are wrong and the GOP opposing them is good for the economy. However, it is also true that with Obama's budget, the GOP intentionally tried to embarrass Obama himself for political gain.
Whether it qualifies as opposition to legislation to hurt Obama or not is a point of view. Yes, the GOP rightfully opposed the budget, however, it is clear that the way they did it was to hurt Obama.
I happen to think that it is dishonest to believe the GOP didn't do what they did to hurt Obama, but who should care, it was a smart move. I also think that just like the 'blame Bush' meme, the Dem's ranting about it will get old and begin to backfire.
doug: Two things: It is my understanding that the intent of the OP is to show frustration with the dems and the MSM as painting the GOP as having not voted on specific bills in an attempt to have Obama fail - and thus cause the failure of the economy.
Pretty close, sure.
Whether it qualifies as opposition to legislation to hurt Obama or not is a point of view.
Well, that isn't what I asked for. I asked for opposition to something that the Republicans thought was a GOOD IDEA. As we all know, the Republicans -- and the Democrats -- though that bill was a bad idea. So therefore it is not relevant to the question.
it is clear that the way they did it was to hurt Obama.
I happen to think that it is dishonest to believe the GOP didn't do what they did to hurt Obama
I never said they didn't. I just said it doesn't qualify as what the left keeps talking about: that the GOP is trying to hurt the country to beat Obama, opposing things they would otherwise support just so Obama loses. There simply is NO evidence of that happening, ever, at all. Nor is there any evidence of them ever saying they would ever do such a thing.
This relates to voter fraud or as progressives call it; voter suppression. This should be on an earlier post, but its not too late. I found an article the details 7 instances of voter fraud on a large scale;
Voter fraud is a huge problem and is not to be scoffed at in this election as is shown by John Hawkins
It has been demonstrated that Photo ID will decrease the possibility of this occurrence - its a slam dunk. Voter suppression is a very small portion of voters and its a lame excuse only by progressives because they know the number of illegal votes for their side will be cut. Legislators are responsible also for keeping elections clean as they must be.