Re: I'm sorry, did I mention Boehner in my message somewhere? Or the deal? - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 29/07/2011 08:42:27 AM
The stampede of Congressmen from both parties leaving DC because they can't stand the downright vicious bickering and hatred argues that the environment you speak of no longer exists. As does a leading candidate for the GOP Presidential nomination demanding Congressional investigation into Obama for un-American activities just a few years ago. Beating "them" is now officially more important than the countrys well being; that's why Boehner couldn't get a spending cut/tax hike deal that balanced the budget and reduced our debt: Cantor and Co. wouldn't let him. It's also why the only way Obama can get Republicans to agree to any "deal" is to grant all their concessions while getting none in return.
The 'stampede' wasn't particularly big, people do decide from time to time for normal reasons to leave office and you make it sounds like a couple percent of them retiring represents a mass exodus. Of those that did retire, some did for age or health as the primary reason, and mumble on about their golden years and how things used to be with the exact same accuracy as anyone else. A lot of them got out because they knew they had little chance of being re-elected and campaigning is exhausting, particularly if you've an uphill battle, but they'll also be happy to mumble on about 'the way it was' particularly since it gives them an excuse not to admit to themselves and others that they got out before they got kicked out. Times do change though, and I think most of it is simply what I said, spotlight and observer effect.
Now, to the rest, spare me, you just get done talking about how vicious politics has become then launch into a vicious and utterly partisan rant, which is like 90% of your posts. You didn't criticize any Dem up there and when you do criticize one you hammer at them for not being partisan enough, so pot meet kettle.
Likewise, how many bills has Obama passed without giving into all Republican demands in exchange for nothing?
Name one
Yes, that was the invitation. I guess he didn't give up the mandated purchases to pass the healthcare bill, but he gave up everything else.
The TARP that they helped him pass then lambasted him for signing?
TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program was signed by Bush about a month before Obama was elected, are you referring to Jan 2009 when a whopping 6 GOP senators voted to grant him access to the 350 bn then remaining in the TARP fund? I'm not sure how voting against giving him that access then criticizing his use of it would be hypocritical.
OK, my bad; Republicans didn't exactly all jump on board for Bush either.
The carbon copy of the Bush stimulus bill they passed unanimously but pilloried when Obama duplicated it?
Which bill would that be? Because if you're talking about HR1424, 108 GOP voted for it and 91 against in the house, and 15 of the 25 Nay Votes in the senate were from the GOP vs 34 of them for it. That's not exactly unanimous. Now if you're talking about the 'Stimulus', or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, that was basically the firs tpiece of legislation the new Dem super-majority under Obama went for and 11 Dems and all the GOP voted against it, though three GOP senators voted for it, Snowe, Collins, and Specter right before he jumped ship. Again, I'd really like to know what bill you're talking about.
Calling it "unanimous" was hyperbolic, and intended as such, but a majority of House Republicans and 2 to 1 margin among Senate Republicans is pretty emphatic support; where did 139 Republicans go when Obama decided to sing the second verse of the same song? Other than the White House letterhead, what changed?
Do you contend I'm misrepresenting the facts?
Yes, very much so.
OK, I can't dispute that; I was perhaps too colorful on the first stimulus bill and flat out wrong on TARP. You have my sincere apologies.
That Bachman wanted to investigate Obama for anti-American associations when he was a Senator, or that she's only running 2 or 3 points behind Romney in most GOP presidential polls?
Not that I'm a very big Bachmann fan but I don't see how saying that newspapers should investigate Obama is particularly scandalous, and she has apologized for calling him un-American. I'm not really sure how that stacks up against people calling Bush Hitler all the time but it doesn't strike me as a particularly big deal. How is it relevant to things, unless you're saying that in the good old days no politician ever referred to another as Un-American?
Her "apology" (she said she'd like to take back the statement) is worthless since she retracted it. I don't recall anyone who called Bush Hitler running for President, let alone running neck and neck for the lead in the Democratic primary. It's relevant to things because I'm saying that in the (comparatively) good old days, when Joe McCarthy led "un-American" Congressional investigations of everyone he could, a Senator from his own party opposed him. It's a shame there aren't many Republican Senators around today for me to respect as much as I've always respected Margaret Chase Smith (one exception being the woman who holds her seat now, Olympia Snowe), but there's not much I can do about it without lowering my standards. A LOT.
Yeah, I think Republicans are mostly (though not exclusively) in the wrong here, but you tell me:
Your welcome to your opinion, though I do wish you'd save it for when it was actually relevant to the post your replying to.
1) Am I accusing anyone of anything they didn't do?
Well, you seem to have your TARP facts wrong, and I don't really see what Bachmann had to do with anything, so pretty much yes.
Yeah, I was wrong on TARP, but right on Bachmann. So I guess I should listen to you about votes on past legislation and you should listen to me about Tea Party Congressman accusing the President of treason. Gee, I can't IMAGINE why he can't negotiate a deal with them....
2) Am I misrepresenting their actions as anything save what they were?
Clearly you just did... mind you, this would seem rather redundant anyway since it has jack to do with either my original post or the follow up. The first being that hyper-partisanship as a new and excessive thing is not really accurate, and the second being that you were off-topic and very hyper-partisan yourself.
Actually, I just didn't. I was wrong on TARP before, for which I apologize (and won't even take it back) but right (if too figurative) on the stimulus bills. I was entirely accurate on Bachmanns accusation against then Senator and, when she repeated it, President Obama, which is about the most partisan thing I can imagine a Congressman saying about a colleague (though calling a triple amputee veteran a traitor a few years ago was classy, too). I think Congressmen repeatedly accusing the President of treason is pretty hyper-partisan, and noting that she did so isn't partisan at all; it's a well documented fact she proudly admits.
If the shoe fits, wear it, and if you don't like how it chafes that's your fault and not the cobblers for picking the wrong one.
I'm pretty happy with everyone I've voted for, if that's what you're trying to say. And the rest of your commentary is more of the same. If you want to say congress bickers more than they do in the past, go ahead, I've already said I think that's true if exaggerated and why I think that's so... you didn't seem to actually dispute that reasoning though I may have missed it somewhere in your hyper-partisan rant about how hyper-partisan the evil GOP is... which is what the remainder of your post here was so I'll pass on commentary.
You may be happy with everyone you voted for, but I hear your Governor's even happier he doesn't face re-election until 2014, and ecstatic Ohio doesn't have a recall law (WI Republicans, of course, are not so fortunate). To the pertinent matter of Congressional politics, the House has become so partisanly divided that it won't even pass a debt ceiling bill the Speaker wrote BY HIMSELF, because Dems won't touch it and all but one of the 60 member Tea Party caucus has signed a pledge to reject ANY debt ceiling increase. The kicker is that Boehners bill has HALF the spending cuts the White House has been offering for over a month, but even when Obama threw in a 6% tax cut for wealthy individuals AND corporations, something Republicans never even asked for, Boehner STILL walked away. I haven't heard why, but my guess is for the same reason he SAID he walked away from a $4 trillion debt reduction deal he said he liked weeks ago: He can't get enough of his fellow Republicans to vote for it.
Between this and... certain other things the far right is saying, Republicans both in Congress and the electorate may start bolting for the Democrats the way Progressive Republicans did a century ago. If you can't even make a deal with your own Speaker it's kinda hard to say it's all Obamas fault you can't make a deal with him. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking; my bet is we get what everyone dreads: No deal, the government runs out of money, and the combination of a stock crash and seniors wondering how they'll pay this months rent forces non-Tea Party (i.e. sane) House Republicans to take whatever Reid and Obama put in front of them. Of course, since that's been whittled down to simply raising the debt ceiling until 2013, it still won't be much; we need to get a tax hike/spending cut deal at that point to balance the budget, reduce debt and restore economic confidence in America at home and abroad. Instead we're likely to get a deal that just puts this argument off until after the next election while increasing our debt with a stupefying ADDITIONAL tax cut. Too bad the REAL untouchable entitlement is the tax breaks millionaires and corporate America think they deserve for the humdinger of an economy they've created.