Proof Republicans don't give a damn about anything but winning

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sexiest_hero**

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101104/ap_on_re_us/us_bipartisan_challenge

WASHINGTON – Barely an hour after President Barack Obama invited congressional Republicans to post-election talks to work together on major issues, the Senate's GOP leader had a blunt message: His party's main goal is denying Obama re-election.

In a sign that combat and the 2012 elections rather than compromise could mark the next two years, Sen. Mitch McConnell on Thursday called for Senate votes to repeal or erode Obama's signature health care law, to cut spending and to shrink government.

[Related: Midterms are over: What happens now?]

"The only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things," McConnell said in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The Senate Republican leader's confrontational tone was in sharp contrast to the posture Obama took Wednesday in the face of a new GOP-controlled House and Republican gains in the Senate. Obama followed up Thursday morning by inviting Republican and Democratic congressional leaders for talks on Nov. 18 and challenging his own Cabinet to make Washington work better.

"I want us to talk substantively about how we can move the American people's agenda forward," Obama said of the upcoming meeting with lawmakers. "It's not just going to be a photo op."

The meeting in two weeks will be watched for any indication of compromise between Obama and Congress' Republican leaders, House Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner and McConnell. They will be joined by the top Democrats in Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Obama said Thursday, "It's clear that the voters sent a message, which is that they want us to focus on the economy and jobs."

Still, there are major differences between the two parties, including the GOP emphasis on tax-cutting, and Obama made that clear on Wednesday.

"From 2001 to 2009, we cut taxes pretty significantly," Obama said, "and we just didn't see the kind of expansion that is going to be necessary" to create jobs.

Obama and, to some degree, Republican leaders did signal they might reach accords on a few issues, such as energy. Obama has abandoned his proposed cap-and-trade system for trying to reduce greenhouse gases, which Republicans sharply opposed. But he said the two parties might reach compromises on other fronts, such as promoting electric cars, nuclear power, energy efficiency and "energy independence."

But McConnell on Thursday indicated that the road to agreements is more like a one-way street.

"If the administration wants cooperation, it will have to begin to move in our direction," McConnell said.

And he spelled out a strategy for undermining Obama's health care law, calling for repeated votes to repeal the measure.

"But we can't expect the president to sign it," he said. "So we'll also have to work, in the House, on denying funds for implementation, and, in the Senate, on votes against its most egregious provisions."

Obama said there should be bipartisan agreement on a plan to give businesses a tax break by letting them accelerate the depreciation of some equipment.

But those are relatively minor issues in the federal universe. The array of Republican and Democratic postelection news conferences Wednesday gave virtually no hint about how Obama and the next Congress might tackle major issues such as immigration or Medicare's long-term viability.

Leaders in both parties talked about cutting spending. But there was barely a word about cutting big programs that consume so much of the federal budget, such as Social Security, Medicare and the military.

Obama hinted that he might be willing to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans for a year or two but not make them permanent, as Republicans have advocated.

Republicans, meanwhile, spoke of working with Democrats only in vague terms. Mostly, they seemed defiant.

McConnell was unapologetic for the unified resistance of the Republican Party to Obama initiatives over the past two years.

"By sticking together in principled opposition to policies we viewed as harmful, we made it perfectly clear to the American people where we stood," he said. "And we gave voters a real choice on Election Day."

He also vowed to continue to keep the administration in check by using congressional hearings to oversee executive branch actions.

"Through oversight we'll also keep a spotlight on the various agencies the administration will now use to advance through regulation what it can't through legislation," he said.

Reid, D-Nev., said that in light of the election, "Republicans must take the responsibility to solve the problems of ordinary Americans," although he added, "people expect us to work together."

Big clashes seem inevitable.

On the health care law, Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters, "We have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill and replace it with commonsense reforms that'll bring down the cost of health insurance."

Obama, whose veto powers would seem to make repeal impossible, defended the law's main provisions at length.

"When I talk to a woman from New Hampshire who doesn't have to mortgage her house because she got cancer and is seeking treatment, but now is able to get health insurance; when I talk to parents who are relieved that their child with a preexisting condition can now stay on their policy" until age 26, "or the small businesses that are now taking advantage of the tax credits that are provided, then I say to myself, this was the right thing to do," Obama said.

He also rejected claims that he spent too much money to stimulate the economy, bail out banks and shore up automakers at the recession's height. Republicans hammered all those programs in the elections.

"We've stabilized the economy," Obama said. "We've got job growth in the private sectors. But people all across America aren't feeling that progress. They don't see it.

So what will they do about fixing the Economy? Nothing just harp about the health care bill. and whine about putting in a Republican president. They don't have any ideas about fixing things, just how to win. Dear Mr President you can't work with people that hate you. Republicans don't want comprimise, or progression, they want a fight. With only one single goal, to stop anything that the president does. They don't wand political discourse but a political war.

The main GOP agenda: (as stated above) stop President Obama. NOT lower unemployment, NOT do anything to balance the budget, NOTHING to do with the fiscal responsibility they talked about during the campaign season.

**Frazzled**

You're right. The President needs to take control of the situation. If the needs of the people are not being met then the President must act for their benefit. It doesn't matter if they were elected, the President must act, and act now. Our Leader knows whats best for us.

**MadEdric**

They were already back pedaling even in their victory speeches. Claiming President Obama was "Still in charge" and "Still in control". Basically saying he's to blame for the next two years of them doing jack and stalling things.
I'm usually a middle of the roader type, not a fan of either side but the cowardice the Republicans show has generated a lot of bile in me right now

**Frazzled**

MadEdric wrote:They were already back pedaling even in their victory speeches. Claiming President Obama was "Still in charge" and "Still in control". Basically saying he's to blame for the next two years of them doing jack and stalling things.
I'm usually a middle of the roader type, not a fan of either side but the cowardice the Republicans show has generated a lot of bile in me right now

Yes, its all their fault. Burn them !

**sexiest_hero**

Frazz that's not fair. I don't have an issue with Conservative views, but they gave not one word about anything there were elected to do. Wasting the next year trying to stop healthcare won't lower ONE tax or fix the economy, OR create one job. That's what people voted for the health care bill was waay down on the list.

**Frazzled**

If they take no votes at all then the government will shut down the budget will improve, so yea, they technically don't have to do anything...

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:
MadEdric wrote:They were already back pedaling even in their victory speeches. Claiming President Obama was "Still in charge" and "Still in control". Basically saying he's to blame for the next two years of them doing jack and stalling things.
I'm usually a middle of the roader type, not a fan of either side but the cowardice the Republicans show has generated a lot of bile in me right now

Yes, its all their fault. Burn them !

Well yeah, it will be their fault that nothing gets done.

Their whole "Obama is still in charge/control" stance is just so that when it comes 2012 Presidential Elections the Republican Party can claim that "Nothing got done during Obama's 4 years of Presidency!".

**SilverMK2**

Yay for only having two parties and for some reason having an election in the middle of the presidents term!

**sexiest_hero**

The government...shut down...and the budget will improve? I honestly hope you are joking. Do you know what a government shutdown would do or cost? Is a country wide gridlock and anarchy worth saving a buck. Don't you know just bow much states (poor southern red state included) depend on these funds for things like law enforcement?

**Devilsquid**

Meh, I'll say it: Yes, it's the Republicans fault.

I'll also say that the Democrats are not faultless either.

If you look at the Voting the Republicans have done the past two years, they've fillibustered just about everything from passing. And now, when the elections came around, they shouted and screamed about how nothing got accomplished.

The sad truth is that we, the People, will continue to suffer because politics is now about Republican vs Democrat, not taking care of the country. Republicans block and blame Democrats, and Democrats block and blame Republicans. Meanwhile, nothing gets done, we as a country continue to dwindle, and my children have to learn Chinese as a second language in order to have a change in the future.

Our political system sucks ass.

**Frazzled**

You asked a technical question. I gave you a technical answer. I didn't say it was right or wrong. Jeez ratchet down a notch.

sexiest_hero wrote:The government...shut down...and the budget will improve? I honestly hope you are joking. Do you know what a government shutdown would do or cost? Is a country wide gridlock and anarchy worth saving a buck. Don't you know just bow much states (poor southern red state included) depend on these funds for things like law enforcement?

**gorgon**

This is all just part of the show. The GOP can only be so combative. Waste two years screwing around and their butts will get voted right back out again. Forget ideology...that's mostly a show. Politicians' primary focus is keeping their job, i.e. getting re-elected.

Note that the articles states how neither side is talking about the elephants in the room...entitlements like Medicare, SS, etc. Because both sides know that if you monkey with those -- even though it's needed -- you're out on your a$$.

I do think it's a bit OTT for the Senate MINORITY leader to be crowing quite that much, though.

**Frazzled**

gorgon wrote:This is all just part of the show. The GOP can only be so combative. Waste two years screwing around and their butts will get voted right back out again. Forget ideology...that's mostly a show. Politicians' primary focus is keeping their job, i.e. getting re-elected.

Note that the articles states how neither side is talking about the elephants in the room...entitlements like Medicare, SS, etc. Because both sides know that if you monkey with those -- even though it's needed -- you're out on your a$$.

I do think it's a bit OTT for the Senate MINORITY leader to be crowing quite that much, though.

Gorgon has the way of it.

**Kilkrazy**

Yep.

The last thing the Republicans need now is two years of continuing decline, following their most significant electoral victory in seven decades. It would just make them look like part of the problem.

Somehow they will have to work with the Democrats to get some stuff done.

**Flashman**

Never thought I'd say this, but I'm more impressed with our political system at the moment. I'm staggered that a coalition government formed of two parties with completely opposite ideals has managed to last over six months with nothing more superficial cracks. Go UK politics!

I think America needs a third party to spice things up a bit. You should expand on this Tea Party thing. I confess I was reading up on it today and the basic ideal of small government is (surprisingly) not total nonsense. Now if they could just get rid of all the nutters they have attracted to the cause...

**BearersOfSalvation**

sexiest_hero wrote:Frazz that's not fair. I don't have an issue with Conservative views, but they gave not one word about anything there were elected to do. Wasting the next year trying to stop healthcare won't lower ONE tax or fix the economy, OR create one job. That's what people voted for the health care bill was waay down on the list.

The republicans control one house but not both, and not enough to override a veto. OF COURSE they're going to pass a house bill to stop Obamacare, they know it's not going to actually get through the senate and president. It's posturing for part of the people who voted for them, and it's hardly going to take all of the next year to do it. It's really predictable.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Devilsquid wrote:If you look at the Voting the Republicans have done the past two years, they've fillibustered just about everything from passing. And now, when the elections came around, they shouted and screamed about how nothing got accomplished.

The republicans have not had one actual filibuster, they just threaten to filibuster and the democrats fold. If the democrats really didn't like the filibusters, they could at least force it to a vote, and modify the procedural rules to require someone to actually do a proper 'stand up and talk for days straight' filibuster, but they don't.

**Kanluwen**

Flashman wrote:
I think America needs a third party to spice things up a bit. You should expand on this Tea Party thing. I confess I was reading up on it today and the basic ideal of small government is (surprisingly) not total nonsense. Now if they could just get rid of all the nutters they have attracted to the cause...

Third parties don't work on their own, simply because they tend to be flying rodent gak insane parties devoted to something stupid.

**Flashman**

Kanluwen wrote:
Flashman wrote:
I think America needs a third party to spice things up a bit. You should expand on this Tea Party thing. I confess I was reading up on it today and the basic ideal of small government is (surprisingly) not total nonsense. Now if they could just get rid of all the nutters they have attracted to the cause...

Third parties don't work on their own, simply because they tend to be flying rodent gak insane parties devoted to something stupid.

Exactly, ours is called the Liberal Democrats and somehow they are now in power (sort of).

**Da Boss**

We've 5 parties in Ireland it doesn't do us any good. More than another party, you need competent politicians and a savvy electorate. Good luck.

**Flashman**

Da Boss wrote:More than another party, you need competent politicians and a savvy electorate

Which is why democracy doesn't really work. Politicians (when they're not being corrupt) are forever trying to appease the public which prevents them from pushing through controversial decisions that are good for the country.

But then again, the Conservatives/Lib Dems have taken a huge axe to public spending and nobody is batting an eye lid (relatively speaking, we're not France after all), so again, go UK politics!

**Da Boss**

Yes, it is heartening. It's something I admire about the british. I find myself liking the Conservative/LD coalition despite myself. Waiting to see how the axe falls on the schools, but hey. everybody's gotta pay.

**MadEdric**

Frazzled wrote:
MadEdric wrote:They were already back pedaling even in their victory speeches. Claiming President Obama was "Still in charge" and "Still in control". Basically saying he's to blame for the next two years of them doing jack and stalling things.
I'm usually a middle of the roader type, not a fan of either side but the cowardice the Republicans show has generated a lot of bile in me right now

Yes, its all their fault. Burn them !

Not all their fault and I'd prefer we burn both sides and start anew.
My point being is the Republicans have pretty much set a tone that they will do nothing and prevent anything from happening for the next two years and then they will blame President Obama for it. I'll call the same BS if the Democrats came out with the same attitude.
There's a reason I call the parties the Demoncrats and Republican'ts.

**olympia**

Here's the relevant video

Mitch...your gooey quadruple chin disgusts me. Everything about you is flacid.

**micahaphone**

Because ALL republicans are like that and ALL democrats are the same. (Sarcasm hand raised high)

**dogma**

gorgon wrote:This is all just part of the show. The GOP can only be so combative. Waste two years screwing around and their butts will get voted right back out again. Forget ideology...that's mostly a show. Politicians' primary focus is keeping their job, i.e. getting re-elected.

See, I don't agree with that. I think that the primary goal of any politician is ensuring his political well-being. This doesn't necessarily mean getting re-elected. In fact, it can mean something as simple as voting a given way often enough to ensure a cushy lobbyist position where you don't have to worry about the capriciousness of the mob. Or it can mean stepping out of the way of a younger candidate so you can tour the lecture circuit, or accept a cushy partisan job, or even cushy office at a lower level of government.

Politicians that only want to win re-election are probably better, on the whole, for democracy than the sort of politicians we have now. Unfortunately for, that sort of politician has only existed in a couple places throughout history, and most of them have been military juntas.

**Connor McKane**

olympia wrote:Here's the relevant video

Mitch...your gooey quadruple chin disgusts me. Everything about you is flacid.

Yup! Cuz thats what is important! How you look.... bless your heart.

**sexiest_hero**

Well on top of 4 chins he is an ass hat. Obama saying lets work together is not a "Libral onslaught". God he said is like it's a 1950's slur. Seems like they are sore winners as well as losers.

**Whatever1**

MadEdric wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
MadEdric wrote:They were already back pedaling even in their victory speeches. Claiming President Obama was "Still in charge" and "Still in control". Basically saying he's to blame for the next two years of them doing jack and stalling things.
I'm usually a middle of the roader type, not a fan of either side but the cowardice the Republicans show has generated a lot of bile in me right now

Yes, its all their fault. Burn them !

Not all their fault and I'd prefer we burn both sides and start anew.
My point being is the Republicans have pretty much set a tone that they will do nothing and prevent anything from happening for the next two years and then they will blame President Obama for it. I'll call the same BS if the Democrats came out with the same attitude.
There's a reason I call the parties the Demoncrats and Republican'ts.

Well,there's plenty of BS on both sides of the party lines. In this case,though,I would rather see the Republicans block everything they can for the simple reason that Obama's ideas are pretty ridiculous and completely unrealistic. Everybody thought Obama had great ideas during the '08 election,and during his first two years,they started to see the price tag of those ideas. Stuff like free national health care sounds great...until you see what it costs. However,a huge problem with democracy in the US right now is that too much off the voting population simply doesn't understand the issues enough to make informed decisions,and get manipulated easily. Our biggest problem,though,is that our society lacks long term thinking. We want what we want now,and we don't think of the impact on the future.

**avantgarde**

Several of Obama's policies don't get reported or get very much coverage.

-The $120 billion stealth tax cut.
-Reversing some executive privilege policies
-Drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan
-The State Department's continued hiring of PMCs to shore up troop numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan

Americans are just too engrossed by whatever hot button issue or "he said-she said" games the media pushes to notice.

**Phryxis**

It's important to understand that McConnell is describing political reality, but doing it rather tactlessly.

He said it in such a way that it's fairly reasonable (especially when the most sensationalistic sound bytes are stripped out and that's all you hear) to hear it as him saying "YEAH! MORE POWER FOR US! EVEN MORE!"

So it was a bit of a gaffe speechifying-wise...

But he also explains a political truth. Obama has the veto. Even if the Republican House comes up with some totally WONDERFUL idea, they can't make it law without Obama's signature. So, the only real way to get done what they think is best for the nation, is to get rid of Obama.

That's not power grabbing or gloating, that's just reality.

Of course, yes, they are power grabbing and gloating, but I'm just saying, in order to "do good things" you have to have the power to "do good things."

It's impossible to ever PROVE that somebody doesn't give a damn about anything but winning. You can only point to things that imply it.