52% Say GOP Agenda In Congress Is Extreme

[JJ Husker]

Why is it considered obstructionist just because the republicans and their constituents don't like or want any part of most of the dems plans? I've never figured out this viewpoint of them just being obstructionist. Have you ever considered that maybe they think those dem plans would be bad for the country? I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the pubs on every item (I don't) but, as per one of your examples; more stimulus spending. I think it is a quite logical and rational position to not want to spend money you don't have. Characterizing them as the party of "No" only ignores the deep philosophical differences between the parties. In my mind, if the other guys are proposing something you don't like, the correct action is to block it, stall it, defeat it. that's not obstructionist, it's called representing your constituents.

The most glaring example of Republican obstructionism is their unprecedented number of filibusters against Obama's judicial appointees. Through the first two years of Obama's presidency he lagged far behind both Bush II and Clinton in appointments - not because he wasn't making any appointments, and not because there weren't any appointments to make, but because the Republican party simply blocked the appointments. At one point they had blocked nearly half, and I don't know where we sit today. Obama is being painted by the Republicans as some radical president, but the reality is that his views are largely moderate, and even Reagan-esque. It's just that the GOP has skewed so crazily to the right, and the Tea Party has tipped it even farther, that anything left of their position seems, to them, radically liberal. So they block it. Over and over and over and over.

Their stated top priority is to not let Obama win a second term. They are so full of themselves that they don't even see how selfish that is. They are a desperate party that knows they are losing their influence in the country and one day will be on the outside looking in. So they go even further right and cling on harder and harder. I see the only way they win again is after the economy is good again..they settle down a bit...and people forget how crazy they are and how bad things get as a result of them being in power.

 

I won't argue that some of it isn't childish and counterproductive obstructionism but, that doesn't mean all of it is. It just doesn't seem like there is any room anymore for the parties to have policy differences without the other side claiming any attempt to stop their plans is obstructionism. My original point was that, stating in a blanket fashion, all attempts to stop dem plans are not merely obstructionist. Some of the "No" answers are simply the result of very real differences of vision. Part, if not most, of our current problems are attributable to this mentality of not working together. But, it is not all coming from one side of the aisle. Fact is, if a plan (or judicial appointment) is bad, it should not be allowed to advance. I'm not claiming the repubs are any better than the dems but it seems some of you are trying to claim the opposite and I just don't see it. For every claim of the right getting further right it could be said the left is getting further left. I guess it just depends which way person tends to lean to begin with.

[Cactusboy]

Why is it considered obstructionist just because the republicans and their constituents don't like or want any part of most of the dems plans? I've never figured out this viewpoint of them just being obstructionist. Have you ever considered that maybe they think those dem plans would be bad for the country? I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the pubs on every item (I don't) but, as per one of your examples; more stimulus spending. I think it is a quite logical and rational position to not want to spend money you don't have. Characterizing them as the party of "No" only ignores the deep philosophical differences between the parties. In my mind, if the other guys are proposing something you don't like, the correct action is to block it, stall it, defeat it. that's not obstructionist, it's called representing your constituents.

The most glaring example of Republican obstructionism is their unprecedented number of filibusters against Obama's judicial appointees. Through the first two years of Obama's presidency he lagged far behind both Bush II and Clinton in appointments - not because he wasn't making any appointments, and not because there weren't any appointments to make, but because the Republican party simply blocked the appointments. At one point they had blocked nearly half, and I don't know where we sit today. Obama is being painted by the Republicans as some radical president, but the reality is that his views are largely moderate, and even Reagan-esque. It's just that the GOP has skewed so crazily to the right, and the Tea Party has tipped it even farther, that anything left of their position seems, to them, radically liberal. So they block it. Over and over and over and over.

Their stated top priority is to not let Obama win a second term. They are so full of themselves that they don't even see how selfish that is. They are a desperate party that knows they are losing their influence in the country and one day will be on the outside looking in. So they go even further right and cling on harder and harder. I see the only way they win again is after the economy is good again..they settle down a bit...and people forget how crazy they are and how bad things get as a result of them being in power.

 

I won't argue that some of it isn't childish and counterproductive obstructionism but, that doesn't mean all of it is. It just doesn't seem like there is any room anymore for the parties to have policy differences without the other side claiming any attempt to stop their plans is obstructionism. My original point was that, stating in a blanket fashion, all attempts to stop dem plans are not merely obstructionist. Some of the "No" answers are simply the result of very real differences of vision. Part, if not most, of our current problems are attributable to this mentality of not working together. But, it is not all coming from one side of the aisle. Fact is, if a plan (or judicial appointment) is bad, it should not be allowed to advance. I'm not claiming the repubs are any better than the dems but it seems some of you are trying to claim the opposite and I just don't see it. For every claim of the right getting further right it could be said the left is getting further left. I guess it just depends which way person tends to lean to begin with.

 

I agree every time pubs say no doesn't mean they are just trying to be obstructionists.

 

As far as compromise and who's moving farther to the left or right. Consider that Obama comprised and extended the Bush tax cuts when he had a majority in the house and senate. He didn't even mention single payer when doing HC reform and barely pushed for the public option....even though the majority of americans wanted BOTH over what he compromised with(Obama care). For many years the majority of americans have wanted single payer. The reason we don't have it is simply because of the power of the HC insurance industry....it sure isn't because of a love for democracy.

 

These are just examples off the top of my head...I'm sure there are many other examples of Obama and the Dems compromising.

 

Have there been any significant compromised from the Pubs since Obama became POTUS?

[knapplc]

Not all objection is obstructionism. But this is an obstructionist Republican congress, without question.

[strigori]

Not all objection is obstructionism. But this is an obstructionist Republican congress, without question.

They have even objected to some ideas that they had suggested a couple years back. I really feel that there is a faction of Republicans who would disagree with Obama if he were to comment on the weather.

[Husker John]

[huKSer]

Their stated top priority is to not let Obama win a second term. They are so full of themselves that they don't even see how selfish that is. They are a desperate party that knows they are losing their influence in the country and one day will be on the outside looking in. So they go even further right and cling on harder and harder. I see the only way they win again is after the economy is good again..they settle down a bit...and people forget how crazy they are and how bad things get as a result of them being in power.

So you are saying the top priority of the Republicans should be to re-elect Obama?

 

The top priority of any political party in an election is to elect their guy. In 2004 I guarantee you that the dems top priority was to not let Bush win steal a second term.

 

Now after the election is over - GET STUFF DONE - BOTH PARTIES

 

EDIT: In the early '60s (the dems had been in control of congress for 30 - 40 years) the parties would bash each other on the floor then Rayburn (?) senate majority leader would host both parties at cocktail parties and share photos of families and such. Professionally enemies but social friends. This is what is missing - mutual respect for the persons but battle for your political beliefs.

[Yossarian]

How long has it been since Congress passed a budget? Three years? Unfortunately, the budget was blocked every time during the first two years of Obama's term when the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. I blame Bush.

[rawhide]

what about them tax cuts? had to throw that out there now that it's safe to bah humbug it.

[zoogs]

yeah, I wonder how it's possible to go three years without passing a budget. I understand the budget process is long and arduous, but doesn't there practically need to be a budget every year? How does this work?

 

I don't think I really have much of a problem with the Bush tax cuts actually. Not a really qualified opinion, mind you.

['SkersRule]

The answer is, "The Dems have no agenda."

 

Isn't it? What the heck have they done the last several years?

 

Shove an incredibly flawed, montrous, and worthless piece of crap healthcare "reform" down our throats?

[zoogs]

I wonder what qualifies as "a legally passed law or act as one of the functions of Congress" and at what point it ceases to be that and becomes instead, "something shoved down our collective throats."

['SkersRule]

I wonder what qualifies as "a legally passed law or act as one of the functions of Congress" and at what point it ceases to be that and becomes instead, "something shoved down our collective throats."

 

I guess the difference is when a majority of Americans oppose legislation and yet it stands....to wit obamacare.

[zoogs]

Oh, I did not realize we were ruled by Gallup polls and majority will.

['SkersRule]

But somehow "majority will" is perfectly fine and acceptable when talking about how Al Gore "won" the 2000 election?

 

Point: Lefties love to point to "majority" when it favors them and then ridicule and down play it when it goes against them.

[strigori]

I wonder what qualifies as "a legally passed law or act as one of the functions of Congress" and at what point it ceases to be that and becomes instead, "something shoved down our collective throats."

 

I guess the difference is when a majority of Americans oppose legislation and yet it stands....to wit obamacare.

Most Americans are not qualified to have a real opinion on ACA as they have no Fin idea what is in it. Remember, many of these same people do not believe Medicare, social security, or military pensions are government programs either.