Obama and the Republican Party

[fallingblood]

In a recent interview, Obama had this to say: “The problem we have is we have a faction of the Republican Party, in the House of Representatives in particular, that view “compromise” as a dirty word, and anything that is even remotely associated with me, they feel obliged to oppose.”

Seeing some posts on this forum, if they are any representation at all, it is clear that what Obama is saying is true. Agree or disagree?

 

[LuisDantas]

Agree. It is not only from the forum that I get this idea, either.

Several GOP and Tea Party members and sympathizers (to say nothing of Fox News) have consistently been saying things that reinforce that impression all the while leading one to suspect that they haven't quite thought their stances all the way.

In and of themselves, those visceral reactions and fears are worrisome and difficult to explain except as a manifestation of political immaturity.

 

[Tarheeler]

I'd agree, but I think it's important to acknowledged that there is a similar faction in the Democratic Party as well. The last several decades have seen less compromise and more rule by majority; filibusters and needing a super majority were once very rare things. But I do think that the Republican faction is larger, louder, and plays a much more powerful role in decision-making than it's Democratic counterpart.

But maybe it's just the nature of change. I was reading political speeches the other day and was amazed at how Eisenhower and the Republicans of his day sounded so much like the Democrats of ours.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have come to suspect that such radicalization is an unconscious (and unhealthy) attempt at dealing with well-founded feelings of powerlessness when faced with the sheer scale of political and economical realities these days.

 

[esmith]

In a recent interview, Obama had this to say: “The problem we have is we have a faction of the Republican Party, in the House of Representatives in particular, that view “compromise” as a dirty word, and anything that is even remotely associated with me, they feel obliged to oppose.”

Seeing some posts on this forum, if they are any representation at all, it is clear that what Obama is saying is true. Agree or disagree?

Let me ask you a very simple question. If the White House was occupied by a President that was not a Democrat and the Senate majority was not of the Democrat Party yet the House had a Democrat majority and the Democrats in the House were constantly opposed to the philosophy of the President and Senate would you say that the Democrats in the House were opposing the Senate and the President because they viewed "compromising" as a dirty word. Or would you say they were disagreeing because they felt what the President and Senate were doing was bad for America and they had the responsibility to represent the people who elected them?
Maybe you and others should take a long hard look at why the Republicans are opposing Obama. I think if you really put your philosophy aside you would see that when there is opposition to a economic and or foreign policy it is because the opposition really thinks that it is harmful to the country. So, what Obama is saying is neither true or false. He is not being disagreed with because he is a Democrat but because his policies both foreign and domestic are what they consider bad for the country and it is their responsibility to try and oppose it. Can you not also say that the Senate and the President will not compromise with the Republican majority in the House because it goes completely against their philosophy. There is compromise but only when it does not totally go against the others economic and foreign philosophy.

 

[fallingblood]

Let me ask you a very simple question. If the White House was occupied by a President that was not a Democrat and the Senate majority was not of the Democrat Party yet the House had a Democrat majority and the Democrats in the House were constantly opposed to the philosophy of the President and Senate would you say that the Democrats in the House were opposing the Senate and the President because they viewed "compromising" as a dirty word. Or would you say they were disagreeing because they felt what the President and Senate were doing was bad for America and they had the responsibility to represent the people who elected them?
Maybe you and others should take a long hard look at why the Republicans are opposing Obama. I think if you really put your philosophy aside you would see that when there is opposition to a economic and or foreign policy it is because the opposition really thinks that it is harmful to the country. So, what Obama is saying is neither true or false. He is not being disagreed with because he is a Democrat but because his policies both foreign and domestic are what they consider bad for the country and it is their responsibility to try and oppose it. Can you not also say that the Senate and the President will not compromise with the Republican majority in the House because it goes completely against their philosophy. There is compromise but only when it does not totally go against the others economic and foreign philosophy.

First, that wasn't a simple question. Mainly because it was hard to follow. To answer your question, I don't know. It isn't a simple yes or no, as the context would matter. When certain members in the House either block votes, or vote against ideas that would help the U.S., and that most voters approve of, and are in fact, were Republican ideas, then yes, I would say they are just objecting to anything the President is saying. If the opposite was true, then I would see it as them having a good point.

When members of the House are voting against their own ideas, it has nothing to do with differing philosophies. It as to do with a hate of the President, and a refusal to compromise. They aren't helping anything.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let me ask you a very simple question. If the White House was occupied by a President that was not a Democrat and the Senate majority was not of the Democrat Party yet the House had a Democrat majority and the Democrats in the House were constantly opposed to the philosophy of the President and Senate would you say that the Democrats in the House were opposing the Senate and the President because they viewed "compromising" as a dirty word.

I would need to know whether they were, I suppose. The factors that you describe are not really related to that judgement.

That said, I have come to see Dems as more reasonable than GOPers. Perhaps a bit too feeble even.

Or would you say they were disagreeing because they felt what the President and Senate were doing was bad for America and they had the responsibility to represent the people who elected them?

Again, it depends on how sane their objections turned out to be, both in form and purpose.

Maybe you and others should take a long hard look at why the Republicans are opposing Obama. I think if you really put your philosophy aside you would see that when there is opposition to a economic and or foreign policy it is because the opposition really thinks that it is harmful to the country.

That is probably true, which leads to the question of how legitimate, sane and healthy that stance is. There is legitimate opposition and then there is something else.

I guess it comes down to how representative of the GOP the perceived movers and shakers truly are.

So, what Obama is saying is neither true or false. He is not being disagreed with because he is a Democrat but because his policies both foreign and domestic are what they consider bad for the country and it is their responsibility to try and oppose it.

If and after they consider whether their own impression and its expression are both reasonable and sane, that is.

Can you not also say that the Senate and the President will not compromise with the Republican majority in the House because it goes completely against their philosophy.

Apparently not, going by what I can gather of the news.

There is compromise but only when it does not totally go against the others economic and foreign philosophy.

Or, most telling of all, the short-term political advantage. I have a hard time believing even, say, Newt Gingrich truly believes what he defends. But Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin are something else entirely. Those are quite simply nuts.

 

[tytlyf]

I'd agree. It's not a secret. They wanted him to fail since his first day. And things only got worse for America after the 2010 elections. They think they did good, oh are they mistaken! Democrats and republicans can't get rid of them quick enough.

 

[tytlyf]

Maybe you and others should take a long hard look at why the Republicans are opposing Obama. I think if you really put your philosophy aside you would see that when there is opposition to a economic and or foreign policy it is because the opposition really thinks that it is harmful to the country.

Republicans aren't opposing Obama, it's that tea party type republican that is. The only reason they think his policies are harmful to the country is because of their media choices. These people are paranoid, miserable and fearful of everything and have ZERO place in our government.
It's one thing to not like a policy based on facts, it's another if you're basing it on what you hear on TV and Media outlets.
I've always said that public employees should be banned from watching fox etc.

 

[freethinker44]

Let me ask you a very simple question. If the White House was occupied by a President that was not a Democrat and the Senate majority was not of the Democrat Party yet the House had a Democrat majority and the Democrats in the House were constantly opposed to the philosophy of the President and Senate would you say that the Democrats in the House were opposing the Senate and the President because they viewed "compromising" as a dirty word. Or would you say they were disagreeing because they felt what the President and Senate were doing was bad for America and they had the responsibility to represent the people who elected them?
Maybe you and others should take a long hard look at why the Republicans are opposing Obama. I think if you really put your philosophy aside you would see that when there is opposition to a economic and or foreign policy it is because the opposition really thinks that it is harmful to the country. So, what Obama is saying is neither true or false. He is not being disagreed with because he is a Democrat but because his policies both foreign and domestic are what they consider bad for the country and it is their responsibility to try and oppose it. Can you not also say that the Senate and the President will not compromise with the Republican majority in the House because it goes completely against their philosophy. There is compromise but only when it does not totally go against the others economic and foreign philosophy.

Its no secret that the gop wants to do everything in their power to oppose Obama. They haven't tried to hide this. Mitch Mcconnel has publically said his mission was to make Obama a one term president.

 

[Mister_T]

Its no secret that the gop wants to do everything in their power to oppose Obama. They haven't tried to hide this. Mitch Mcconnel has publically said his mission was to make Obama a one term president.

And now that they've failed at that, they're going to oppose and try to kill anything positive (not much) he's put forth or is trying to put forth...even if it takes the country down with them in the process and even if the were for it when Obama wasn't throwing support behind it.

 

[freethinker44]

And now that they've failed at that, they're going to oppose and try to kill anything positive (not much) he's put forth or is trying to put forth...even if it takes the country down with them in the process and even if the were for it when Obama wasn't throwing support behind it.

Since their completely devasting and unexpected loss in the recent election, I've noticed a definite shift towards more moderate policies. They know that will never win an election again if they don't lighten up a little. So I don't think they are as bad as they wede a year ago but there is still a lot of room for improvement.

 

[Mister_T]

Since their completely devasting and unexpected loss in the recent election, I've noticed a definite shift towards more moderate policies. They know that will never win an election again if they don't lighten up a little. So I don't think they are as bad as they wede a year ago but there is still a lot of room for improvement.

It seemed that way for a while, but this is just one example they're back to doubling up on their obstructionism, America and it's citizens be damned.

AP sources: A revised GOP attack on 'Obamacare'

 

[esmith]

First, that wasn't a simple question. Mainly because it was hard to follow. To answer your question, I don't know. It isn't a simple yes or no, as the context would matter. When certain members in the House either block votes, or vote against ideas that would help the U.S., and that most voters approve of, and are in fact, were Republican ideas, then yes, I would say they are just objecting to anything the President is saying. If the opposite was true, then I would see it as them having a good point.

So you are basically saying the those that are disagreeing with the President are right to do so if it goes against what their constituents want and expect of them. That it doesn't matter if it was a previous Republican policy or not it is what their constituents now want. You say that "most voters agree with", my question to you is it right for a representative of the people who put that person in that position to go along with "the majority" even if it goes against the majority of the people who voted him or her into office?

When members of the House are voting against their own ideas, it has nothing to do with differing philosophies. It as to do with a hate of the President, and a refusal to compromise. They aren't helping anything.

Again back to my previous comment above. Even though it may have been the consensuses of past Republican lawmakers it may not be what that the Senator or Representative current constituents now want.

 

[esmith]

Again, it depends on how sane their objections turned out to be, both in form and purpose.

That is probably true, which leads to the question of how legitimate, sane and healthy that stance is. There is legitimate opposition and then there is something else.

I guess it comes down to how representative of the GOP the perceived movers and shakers truly are.

If and after they consider whether their own impression and its expression are both reasonable and sane, that is.

Now you say it depends on how "sane" their objections are. Now are you not saying that it depends on how "sane" it is in your opinion?

Or, most telling of all, the short-term political advantage. I have a hard time believing even, say, Newt Gingrich truly believes what he defends. But Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin are something else entirely. Those are quite simply nuts.

Again you are basing this on "your opinion".

 

[esmith]

And now that they've failed at that, they're going to oppose and try to kill anything positive (not much) he's put forth or is trying to put forth...even if it takes the country down with them in the process and even if the were for it when Obama wasn't throwing support behind it.

Again most or all of you are basing your thoughts on "your opinion's" Which obviously are not the opinions of all of us.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

In a recent interview, Obama had this to say: “The problem we have is we have a faction of the Republican Party, in the House of Representatives in particular, that view “compromise” as a dirty word, and anything that is even remotely associated with me, they feel obliged to oppose.”

Seeing some posts on this forum, if they are any representation at all, it is clear that what Obama is saying is true. Agree or disagree?

The POTUS was spot on......

[youtube]MUJgX9SBow8[/youtube]
Boehner Rejects The Word Compromise - YouTube

Boehner "I reject the word"

 

[fallingblood]

So you are basically saying the those that are disagreeing with the President are right to do so if it goes against what their constituents want and expect of them. That it doesn't matter if it was a previous Republican policy or not it is what their constituents now want. You say that "most voters agree with", my question to you is it right for a representative of the people who put that person in that position to go along with "the majority" even if it goes against the majority of the people who voted him or her into office?

What I'm saying is that they should be voting the way their constituents want, because they are elected by then and are suppose to represent them. Sure, there can be some exceptions, but that doesn't change how they should be voting regularly. The fact is, this section of Republicans are voting against what their constituents want, they are voting against ideas they held, and are doing so to simply oppose Obama. It's wrong.

Again back to my previous comment above. Even though it may have been the consensuses of past Republican lawmakers it may not be what that the Senator or Representative current constituents now want.

Except that for the most part, they only vote against what Obama wants, regardless of whether or not the views are what Republicans generally stand for, and what their constituents actually want.

 

[esmith]

It seemed that way for a while, but this is just one example they're back to doubling up on their obstructionism, America and it's citizens be damned.

AP sources: A revised GOP attack on 'Obamacare'

No this is based on what their constituents expect of them not whether they agree with your opinion. How about the following ARTICLE that finds 35 percent of those surveyed in the new poll said they believed the law will benefit “people like you or your family,” while 46 percent expected it would make things worse for them.

 

[esmith]

What I'm saying is that they should be voting the way their constituents want, because they are elected by then and are suppose to represent them. Sure, there can be some exceptions, but that doesn't change how they should be voting regularly. The fact is, this section of Republicans are voting against what their constituents want, they are voting against ideas they held, and are doing so to simply oppose Obama. It's wrong.
Except that for the most part, they only vote against what Obama wants, regardless of whether or not the views are what Republicans generally stand for, and what their constituents actually want.

It appears that you are making an assumption that "they" are voting against what their constituents want? Do you have any data that supports that assumption?