January 28th, 2010

Obama and those mean old Republicans who refuse to be bipartisan

One of Obama’s favorite ploys—and one prominently displayed last night in his SOTU speech—is to imply that Republicans are obstructionists who are blocking his agenda merely through desire to thwart the bipartisanship he so magnanimously offers. Of course, to Obama, “bipartisanship” means “my way or the highway.”

I thought this comment on the subject, by “foxmark,” worth highlighting:

Of course the righties oppose Barry’s (and Congress’s) initiatives. That’s what I expect from a deliberative process between camps that have different perspectives and philosophies. Is it somehow implied that to advocate against the majority view is obstructive?

And this claim of obstruction ignores the Congressional majority Barry had to work with for his first year. Again, yes, the righties can contest, but they could not block or prevent the lefties from doing anything.

How is the opposition-party “obstruction” Barry faces any different from any other President? It seems it must be less given the (super)majority in Congress.

Ultimately the claim of obstruction is an attack on the character of the opponents: They’re behaving badly, like petty spoilsports in time of genuine suffering.

It’s ad hominem wrapped in nationalism to advance a socialist agenda.

20 Responses to “Obama and those mean old Republicans who refuse to be bipartisan”

  1. Tom Says:

    “…wrapped in nationalism to advance a socialist agenda” is spot on. And the German abbreviation is Nazi (National Sozialismus).
    If the shoe fits….we gotta use the right name for it.

  2. Barb the Evil Genius Says:

    Bipartisan always means Republicans giving in to Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans are saying that the president is not listening to them. Here’s what I think is the money quote:

  3. Barb the Evil Genius Says:

    Dang, I need to learn how to work the quote html. Anyway, here it is:

    House Minority Leader John Boehner said Wednesday that he hadn’t spoken with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in a year.

    “I have not had any contact with Obama folks, none. They do not reach out to us at all,” the Ohio Republican said.

  4. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Republicans NEED to work up some good talking points so as to compellingly rebut the “obstructionist” meme.

    It’s clear that this will be the primary strategy of Obama and his democrat supporters.

    Nothing republicans say will convince liberals, nothing is needed to reassure those on the right. It’s the independents who need to know that there’s another side to the ‘obstructionist’ meme and that, that meme doesn’t withstand the scrutiny of examination.

    How can republicans obstruct when they’re prevented from even entering the room where secret deals are being discussed?

    As for the economy: Obama and many Democrats insist that he inherited massive budgetary problems from George Bush, but Congress passes budgets, not the President, and the last three budgets came from a Democrat controlled congress. The last budget, from a Congress with total power over the budget. 

    Obama served in the Senate that passed those bills, and he voted for every Democratic budget put in front of him.

    In the last three years, Democrat controlled Congresses have increased annual federal spending by $900 billion. The admittedly profligate and irresponsible Republican Congresses under George Bush increased annual federal spending by $800 billion — in six years. 

    Doing the math makes the issue clear; Democrats have increased spending by 300 billion per year, Republicans increased spending by 133 billion per year.

  5. huxley Says:

    It’s the independents who need to know that there’s another side to the ‘obstructionist’ meme and that, that meme doesn’t withstand the scrutiny of examination.

    Fortunately, a large portion of independents have concluded that they want Obama’s agenda to be obstructed.

  6. Thomas Says:

    Its misdirection to account for fact he can not work with the republicans. If he were to actually try to compromise… he couldn’t do what he wanted.

    Example… what if republicans gave in on all the stuff he claims he wanted for healthcare (universal coverage + legit cost savings [but just for medicare instead of everyone])? Then he couldn’t try to take over the healthcare system (what he really wants)….

  7. expat Says:

    I loved hearing him recite the strengths and virtues of the American people. It sounded so sincere after the boring, clinging, cowardly, and mean descriptions we’ve heard from from him and his friends. The man is so convinced he is the way, the truth, and the light that there can be no other way of thinking. Listening to Republicans would only take up time that could be spent golfing.

    Did you hear that Lech Walesa is visiting Illinois to support Adam Andrzejewski in his bid for governor? (Instapundit has the link.) He will also be attending a Tea Party. Do you think anyone will dare call him a teabagger? And how will the unions treat him?

  8. Christian Says:

    Pres O: You don’t need 60 votes in the Senate to ‘get anything done in this town.’ You just need to craft bills that both sides can support.

    For example, if you’d put tort reform and the ability to buy insurance across state lines in the HC bill and cut the spending down, you’d have received a lot more GOP support. Your refusal to do so means you care less about getting stuff done and more about ideology.

    If you put GOP-loved things in the bill and we still don’t vote for it, we can more deservingly be called obstructionist, even though we still can’t technically obstruct anything.

    But because there’s absolutely nothing we want in this bill, you have only yourself to blame for lack of bipartisan support. You can’t literally lock the GOP out of the negotiation process and then complain when we don’t vote for the bill that we had no input in creating.

  9. Simon Says:

    Obama has no socialist agenda, he is a centrist. Everything he has ever said has been centrist and everything action he has taken since he got into office has been centrist. In most countries he would be seen as right of center.

    Which is why this blog is so very odd to me. How can intelligent people (which you obviously are) despise someone who agrees with nearly everything you believe?

    He believes in free markets, capitalism, American exceptionalism and god. He believes in so much of what conservatives cherish I just don’t get it. Reading this blog, you’d think he was Stalin or Hitler. You’re all bonkers.

  10. Thomass Says:

    Simon Says:

    “He believes in free markets, capitalism, American exceptionalism and god”

    Ummm, no.

    We’ve actually got some good quotes from him regarding American exceptionalism and someone should explain black liberation theology to you…

    I’m not buying the free market or capitalism stuff either…

  11. neo-neocon Says:

    Thomass: I don’t think Simon is buying it either. He appears to be an astroturfer.

  12. Beverly Says:

    “Mike in Corvallis” left this very funny comment on Don Surber’s Daily Mail blog. I just had to share it with y’all.

    I suppose in 2011 and 2012 he could whine about the Party of No.

    ” The Republicans are the Party of No for a good reason.

    When the six-year-old boy ties a cape around his neck and wants to jump off the roof of the garage because he thinks he can fly like Superman … his parents say “No!”

    When the eleven-year-old girl wants to get a permanent tattoo of some vampire from Twilight … her parents say “No!”

    When the kids come home from an evening of trick-or-treating and want to eat their entire haul of candy in one sitting … their parents say “No!”

    The Republicans are the Party of No because they are the Party of Adult Supervision.

  13. NeoConScum Says:

    The Bamma’s Vast Self-Regard+ Megalomania+Deceit+Pomposity+Clueless, Feckless,Senseless+Delusion=SHIPWRECK.

  14. Shouting Thomas Says:

    I am completely against bipartisanship.

    I want the parties to oppose each other. This is one way to stop them from doing stupid things.

    “Government is the problem,” said President Reagan.

    I don’t want government to get things done. Every time government gets things done, disaster follows. (See the subprime mortgage fiasco.)

    The best government is divided government. Let’s hope the Republicans win the Senate or the House next fall. This might be the best way to keep Obama from doing anything at all.

  15. Dave F Says:

    Thomass: I don’t think Simon is buying it either. He appears to be an astroturfer.

    Astroturfer. Do Democrats astroturf? I really really didn’t know that. In all my reading of the Washington Pravda and the Communist News Network, I had only heard of Republicans doing that. What is this world comming to?

    You mean that all those emails I get from Obama.org telling me to get out there and call my congressman and tell them “XXX”. Is that Astroturfing. Who knew. I guess Astroturfing is good. The One does it.

  16. Jamie Says:

    Shouting Thomas, if only both Congress and Executive had (and kept!) the courage of their convictions, I could get a lot more excited about divided government. In practice, I agree that it tends to accomplish less and therefore to do less harm. But there’s always the possibility of a fairly squishy Republican president (such as President Bush, of whom I was and am a strong supporter for his foreign policy – and his respect for his office, and his gentlemanly behavior – though his domestic policy didn’t do it for me) and a not-at-all-squishy Democratic Congress (such as the 2006-2008 Congress), which can lead to trouble. It can be a crapshoot, that’s all I’m saying…

  17. Artfldgr Says:

    its not the republicans
    its that all democrats are not progressives
    and so the progressives dont have the majority that we think is there when we look at it as democrats vs republicans

    the reason thy are saying that its the republicans is that if any of the republicans were progressive enough to do what the progressives want, then they could end aroudn the dems who are not progressive.

    like feminism being an umbrella over others using the power of the contradictory groups (which is impossible in true representation)

    like the catholic church being seen as a country with no boarders on another axis with real countries. a nation pattern that overlays the physical nation pattern.

    the progressives are a meta party
    and so are the one party above the parties that presume to be able to sum up the power the way these other ones can do.

    its quite clever, but if you dont see the others doing this you cant see them doing this.

    in this way, they play both ends against the middle (us).

    doesnt matter what kind of thing you want, its always under feminism (for porno, against porno, for marraige, against marriage, for abortion against abortion) dont matter.

    doesnt matter what kind of thing you want, its always under progressivism/socialism/communism (for big state, against big state, republican or democrat, for abortion against abortion) dont matter.

    of course if they label it diferent and such, we are too stupid to see it. just watch the discussino if any.

  18. I R A Darth Aggie Says:

    Republicans NEED to work up some good talking points so as to compellingly rebut the “obstructionist” meme.

    You mean like

    We could all vote no and still not stop legislation

    or

    We could all go home and Harry and Nancy would still be able field a quorum.

    The Senate can’t get a cloture vote since Brown was elected (but I’ll note that he’s still not seated and sworn in…talk about obstructionism!)

  19. Paul_In_Houston Says:

    I R A Darth Aggie Says:
    January 29th, 2010 at 10:45 am

    The Senate can’t get a cloture vote since Brown was elected (but I’ll note that he’s still not seated and sworn in…talk about obstructionism!)

    I see that they just had senate votes on the debt limit, and all 60 democrats voted to raise it.

    That implies that Paul Kirk (Massachusetts) voted with them.

    WHAT THE HELL IS DOING STILL VOTING?!!!.

    I understood that his term ENDED when the special election was over.

    -

  20. Obloodyhell Says:

    After the Brown win, Charles Krauthammer noted something similarly absurdist in the rhetoric being spouted:

    =================================
    After Coakley’s defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration “not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”
    Let’s get this straight:
    The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that . . .
    it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts?

    =================================

    ROTLMAO.

    The gerble’s running full tilt but the wheel’s off the spindle.

    .

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge