Are Republicans Purposely Sabotaging The U.S.?
Republicans pulled a nifty trick in November. Despite the fact that it was Republican policies that broke the economy and Republicans have opposed every effort to fix the economy, Republicans benefited in the election because Democrats are the majority party and got the blame for the bad economy. Republicans seem to have gone collectively crazy – calling Obama both a fascist and a communist and saying that he’s the most left-wing president EVER!!!!! Pundits are starting to ask the question – do Republicans care if the country fails as long as it hurts Obama?
On Monday, Matt Yglesias chimed in, suggesting that the White House needed to be prepared for “deliberate economic sabotage” from Republicans. On Friday, after taking note of recent Republican attacks on the Fed’s quantitative easing program, Paul Krugman agreed:
The core reason for the attack on the Fed is self-interest, pure and simple. China and Germany want America to stay uncompetitive; Republicans want the economy to stay weak as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House.
Steve Benen collected these quotes today and added his concurrence: “We’re talking about a major political party,” he said, “possibly undermining the strength of the country — on purpose, in public, without apology or shame — for no other reason than to give themselves a campaign advantage in 2012.”
Strong statements! But here’s what’s really remarkable: virtually no one in any position of authority has picked up on this since Collender first suggested it. On the Republican side, practically everyone from the party leaders on down is thoroughly convinced that Barack Obama is one or more of: a socialist, an appeaser, a Chicago thug, a racist, a would-be killer of grandmas, and a president who wants to undermine everything that makes America great because he’s ashamed of his country. This is just standard rhetoric from Fox News pundits, radio show hosts, rank-and-file members of Congress, and party poobahs. It’s hardly even noteworthy anymore.
Just look at the new START treaty. Despite the fact that Reagan signed the first START treaty and previous treaties have been approved easily. Despite being begged by the military and former Republican leaders, approval of the treaty is uncertain at best.
Last week I Matt Yglesias called our system a “reverse parliamentary democracy” because we are run by the minority and not the majority. Mitch McConnell has admitted that his top priority is not the economy or jobs, it’s denying President Obama a second term. Republicans have benefitted by not getting much of the blame for the poor economy. Now that they control one branch of Congress, this should change.
Yes. Republicans are purposefully damaging our country for political and personal gain.
They did it before with Clinton but we didn’t know their intention was to destroy his presidency until, in the aftermath, participants came forward and told-all.
Republicans have no power to damage the economy that Obama and Reid do not hand them.
In the new Congress they will have more ability to damage the economy, depending on whether Obama and Reid stand up and fight them, or not.
See Krugman’s column today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/opinion/22krugman.html?_r=1&hp
Do people still not understand that Obama is still limited by what can get through Congress? And that Senate rule abuse by Republicans is a big part of the problem? I still don’t understand why everything is Obama’s fault and Republicans get a pass.
“I still don’t understand why people are expected to be good and Satan gets a pass.”
Harry Reid has done nothing to fight the rule abuse. And I see no evidence Obama has done anything to encourage or pressure Reid to fight Republicans in the Senate.
The GOP wish to revoke the New Deal used to be whispered; now it is out in the open. The mask is off. Republicans now have their hands clenched around every third rail in politics, and Obama and Reid refuse to turn on the electricity.
Why will Democrats not stand up and reclaim the kitchen-table issues?
Buck up, Mr. President. Stand up and fight the Republicans.
Comment by Unstable Isotope @ 8:41 am:
“Do people still not understand that Obama is still limited by what can get through Congress? And that Senate rule abuse by Republicans is a big part of the problem? I still don’t understand why everything is Obama’s fault and Republicans get a pass.”
There seems to be no difficulty passing legislation his base does not want, like war funding and bank bailouts, even though his party has more than enough votes in both chambers to defeat such legislation.
Progressives don’t hold a majority in Congress.
Progressives don’t hold a majority in Congress.
The House is plenty progressive enough until January. The House delivered a public option, and is on track to deliver a clean middle class tax cut bill. The public option was defeated by Democrats, not Republicans. I can’t wait to hear what the excuse will be for signing tax cuts for the rich.
Harry Reid has done nothing to fight the rule abuse. And I see no evidence Obama has done anything to encourage or pressure Reid to fight Republicans in the Senate.
The Senate votes on their rules every 2 years. Watch what happens for the incoming Senate. I also think Obama & the Democrats have been strangely quiet & passive on the filibuster abuse by Republicans. Why aren’t they throwing fits daily on the judge vacancies?
@ delacrat and anonone: More and more liberals are coming around to your point of view — including Paul Krugman:
“More and more, it’s becoming clear that progressives who had their hearts set on Obama were engaged in a huge act of self-delusion. Once you got past the soaring rhetoric you noticed, if you actually paid attention to what he said, that he largely accepted the conservative storyline, a view of the world, including a mythological history, that bears little resemblance to the facts.”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/fdr-reagan-and-obama/
I wasn’t deluded. I had Obama pegged as an accommodationist; that is why I supported Edwards in the early primaries.
But I did hear Obama say he would let the tax cuts for the rich expire, end the carried interest loophole, and that he was for a public option, and against an individual mandate. That is public record, not delusion.
It never occurred to me Obama would be an accommodationist on core Democratic issues.
Thanks for the link, Geezer. Now we need a grassroots effort to primary him – I’d love to see Feingold start taking some trips to Iowa!
You realize, I presume, that a serious primary effort would increase the chances of a Republican winning the election.
Twice I have bought into the idea that the Democratic candidate wasn’t much better than the Republican alternative The first time we got Reagan, the second time W. Just sayin’.
You realize, I presume, that a serious primary effort would increase the chances of a Republican winning the election.
It depends.
You might also conclude that a serious primary effort would be the Dems only chance to win an election, depending on how things are going in the economy.
If Obama remains below 50% approval with high unemployment heading into the election, you might well regret not having a primary.
Or you might conclude that a Republican win is a foregone conclusion, and a primary effort is your only chance to influence policy in a Democratic direction before Republicans take over.
But if Obama seizes the political levers and starts fighting the Republicans with Presidential powers and an engaged Senate, along with all his talents, then yes, a primary would be a bad idea. In fact, the threat of a primary might be just what is needed to kick-start that scenario.
A lot depends on what happens in the lame duck, which is Obama’s last chance to keep some of his most important campaign promises. After the New Year we are going to be held accountable for fighting the deficit with all revenue options off the table, and for restoring growth with all stimulus options off the table.
If what you’re saying is that under certain specific circumstances a primary might be the right course of action, then I agree.
If you’re saying that a primary already is more likely the right course, I’m not yet ready to agree.
A1 should primary Obama. Why should LaRouche have all the fun?
In other news, Santa Claus is really burglarizing homes. In case you didn’t notice, President Obama got everything through that he wanted. Republicans could only delay it for debate not stop anything. Your argument is bogus on its face. The biggest struggle he had was getting Democrats united. The opposition is supposed to oppose.
If you’re saying that a primary already is more likely the right course, I’m not yet ready to agree.
The problem for a challenger is you need to start before you can be really sure.
That said, a few visits to Iowa by Feingold, or perhaps a little organizing activity by Howard Dean, could serve to awaken Obama’s will to fight.
I don’t want a primary challenger; I want Obama to rise to the task.
In case you didn’t notice, President Obama got everything through that he wanted.
David is right, painfully. The key now is to make Obama want different things, Democratic things. A whisper of a primary challenge from the left might help with that, especially if Obama remains below 50% approval.
Actually, I’m starting to wish Howard Dean would do it.
It isn’t just republicans, your question is valid for Obama too: Is Obama Purposely Sabotaging The U.S.?
The answer, regrettably, is yes.
I think that the public voted for the agenda that Obama campaigned on, but we did not get “hope and change;” we got “nope and same.”
Obama is a corporatist who has simply continued the sell-out of our government and our freedoms that the republicans started and accelerated under Bush. We are living in a lawless land where there is one set of rules for the “haves” and another set for the “have-nots.”
I gave up hope that Obama will “rise to the task.” The chance for the REVEAL has come and gone. A Democratic primary challenger is probably the only chance we have to get a non-coporatist President elected.
I gave up hope that Obama will “rise to the task.”
A1 is probably right. but I am not willing to admit it yet.
The time for a primary challenger to get moving was back during Obama’s torpor during the Summer of Spittle, when Ted Kennedy was still in the Senate and Harry Reid was holding up HCR like a pinata for the Tea Party to field-test its slogans on and build their teabagger organizations.
Comment by anon @ 12:49 pm:
‘I gave up hope that Obama will “rise to the task.”
“A1 is probably right. but I am not willing to admit it yet.
The time for a primary challenger to get moving was back ….”
What would it take to get you to “admit it and get moving”? When the FBI knocks on your door, it will be too late to admit it and get moving.
Anonone,
just out of curiosity, what would have “rising to the task” looked like to you?
Interesting how The right blames obama for all the ills caused by Bush and the left blames obama for the tea party, joe wilson, fox news… etc.
Hey delacrat, your fear fo the FBI makes it look like you have something to hide.
just out of curiosity, what would have “rising to the task” looked like to you?
I’m not anonone but I’ll give my answer. I don’t even hold Obama to the same standard as A1. All I want is the core Democratic economic agenda brought on the floor with passion, pride, and energy, with rewards given to friends, and vengeance wreaked upon enemies. In a word, political competence.
A vote on a public option, even if it did not pass.
A vote on a clean middle class tax cut BEFORE the election.
Scorched-earth politics against Republican filibusters.
Scorched-earth politics against Democrats who support Republican filibusters. (Obama and Blanche, WTF?)
Party discipline on the core issues. Where is our Tom Delay?
And those filibusters include things that would advance the economy and Democrats, including EFCA, the carried interest loophole, and more.
Wouldn’t it be “bully” if there were some kind of “pulpit” Democrats could use to get the message out.
That would have been great. You would have lost Murray, Boxer, and Bennett too. The only reason Democrats saved those seats (besides a complete meltdown of the GOP in Colorado) was being able to shield these “progressives” from certain votes in the Senate. The Pelosi regime did not give that option and she lost 60 seats. The vast majoriy are in Republican leaning districts and with reapportionment, the GOP would really need to mess up to give anymore than a dozen of them away. It is another decade of a GOP house.
No David, the reason they held onto those seats was due to the fact that youz guys ran unelectable candidates.
Y’all had more distillation this year than the state of Kentucky. Good luck selling that shit when the amount of voters double in two years time.
No, Buck was quite electable. Carly is a rising star and Dino Rossi is just the type of candidate you say we should run. The fact is that Ried tried to avoid a complete meltdown by not letting his caucus commit sucide like Pelosi demanded. The fact that we are talking about Washington state and California being competitive says more than enough.
Would Norton had won? I think so, but the polls always showed Buck and Norton’s numbers interchangable. It had more to do with the complete civil war and meltdown within the CO GOP complete with a third party candidate for Governor destroying the GOP candidate 3 to 1. Buck didn’t help himself by not clarifying the distortion of his record prosecuting rape in a compelling way. I have to believe that Norton would have held those suburban women and won by a point. Still the reason was simple, like Delaware, the Colorado GOP sucks. It happens to be weak in CA and WA state as well. News flash GOP loses in states where it has very weak organizations.
Full disclosure, I always thought Norton should be the candidate. She was a solid conservative. Too bad she didn’t go for governor.
Holy Christ Almighty = the Troll from under the bridge is back
let me see – why should folks in Colorado vote for Buck – Umm coz according to him it is because “I don’t wear high heels”
if that is your standadrd of electable, no wonder you supported Urkie and the (B)Witch in Delaware – Buck was just as electable as they were.
So far, on this blog, you have supported genocide and full scale murder by a dictator and a prosecutor that further victimized a rape victim.
Yup, you are a solid american citizen. BTW, have you told the DE GOP that you think “they suck?” annoyed you didn’t get to choose the NCCCR candidate?
So how’s that workin’ for ya? not so well, last I heard………..
@von – don’t think is was “distillation” the Repubs suffer from – more like Oxycontin, Viagra and crack