Mitch McConnel wants to surrender Congressional authority

[IDBillzFan]

You certainly have to wonder about Republican leadership...and don't give me the Obama "scare tactics" argument...

I always wonder about the Republican leadership. And it's not always what they're saying, but unfortunately how they look when they say it. As I dig slightly deeper into what McConnell is suggesting, it's pretty clear that his plan is to let this debt ceiling topic carry its way into the 2012 election, where Obama would likely have to raise the debt limit a third time. I don't profess to be a political junkie to the extent that I can predict if that would be a good or bad idea. Ont the surface, the idea of giving Obama his own power to raise the debt seems like one of the more moronic ideas since the guy getting thinks the money he is spending is actually HIS money because of his position.

 

On the other hand, the idea would probably increase in credibility by about 20% it wasn't being presented by a guy who looks like every goofy neighbor cast in "Green Acres" or "Petticoat Junction." I still maintain that the 2008 presidential race would have been closer if Obama wasn't running against a guy who looked, acted and moved around like a Tim Conway character on the Carol Burnett Show.

 

Both sides scare. Both sides demagogue. The low hanging fruit for me is that this president rested the bulk of his 2008 campaign on the fact that he was different, transparent, post-partisan, a uniter and a person ready to change the way DC operates. It turns out he's not only NONE of that, but he's the complete OPPOSITE of that. You don't need to be a right-wing partisan hack like myself to see that he is, without question, about as embarrassing a president as could possibly be imagined. I know you lefties keep thinking that at any moment things will turn around, but it's clear you're all starting to realize he is no longer part of the solution, but part of the problem.

[Magox]

The criticisms of McConnell in this thread are pretty much all way off base and really dont have an idea of what it is that he is doing. Not that I agree with his approach, but I totally get what he is doing, and most of you don't.

[Buftex]

I always wonder about the Republican leadership. And it's not always what they're saying, but unfortunately how they look when they say it. As I dig slightly deeper into what McConnell is suggesting, it's pretty clear that his plan is to let this debt ceiling topic carry its way into the 2012 election, where Obama would likely have to raise the debt limit a third time. I don't profess to be a political junkie to the extent that I can predict if that would be a good or bad idea. Ont the surface, the idea of giving Obama his own power to raise the debt seems like one of the more moronic ideas since the guy getting thinks the money he is spending is actually HIS money because of his position.

 

On the other hand, the idea would probably increase in credibility by about 20% it wasn't being presented by a guy who looks like every goofy neighbor cast in "Green Acres" or "Petticoat Junction." I still maintain that the 2008 presidential race would have been closer if Obama wasn't running against a guy who looked, acted and moved around like a Tim Conway character on the Carol Burnett Show.

 

Both sides scare. Both sides demagogue. The low hanging fruit for me is that this president rested the bulk of his 2008 campaign on the fact that he was different, transparent, post-partisan, a uniter and a person ready to change the way DC operates. It turns out he's not only NONE of that, but he's the complete OPPOSITE of that. You don't need to be a right-wing partisan hack like myself to see that he is, without question, about as embarrassing a president as could possibly be imagined. I know you lefties keep thinking that at any moment things will turn around, but it's clear you're all starting to realize he is no longer part of the solution, but part of the problem.

 

Great response, and I am not being sarcastic.

 

All points are taken. I am not a huge Obama supporter (I was all for Hilary), but I also don't think he is nearly as embarassing as you, GG, Rob etc make him out to be. I think he has been far more concilatory than you give him credit for, and he has backed down to Republican pressure (real or imagined) far more than I would like. To me, I see him as someone who tries to unite, but, Republicans have to disagree, even when they get what they want. They seem to have lost sight of the fact that this game is a little give and take. And, I blame the Tea Party influence for that. IMO, they helped transform a "basically" principled guy(as far as politicians go)like John McCain into a blitehring idiot.

 

What we are seeing now, is just political poker. That is what it is coming down to...McConnel wants to "give in" so that he can continue to use the budget issue as a political chess piece until the next election...because, as bad as you think Obama is, so far, the Republicans have nothing to offer that is any better. People like Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry once they become more well known, are going to scare people off...so, crap like this, "kicking the can down the road" (what they are calling McConnels plan), look to me, like desperate attempts to try to keep the economy as an issue, for as long as they can. These people are (gasp!) "rooting for the president to fail", just like they cried about Democrats with George W Bush. To come out and say "my first priority is to make sure that Barack Obama is not re-elected" is about as un-patriotic a thing as any politician could say, in my book.

[Rob's House]

Great response, and I am not being sarcastic.

 

All points are taken. I am not a huge Obama supporter (I was all for Hilary), but I also don't think he is nearly as embarassing as you, GG, Rob etc make him out to be. I think he has been far more concilatory than you give him credit for, and he has backed down to Republican pressure (real or imagined) far more than I would like. To me, I see him as someone who tries to unite, but, Republicans have to disagree, even when they get what they want. They seem to have lost sight of the fact that this game is a little give and take. And, I blame the Tea Party influence for that. IMO, they helped transform a "basically" principled guy(as far as politicians go)like John McCain into a blitehring idiot.

 

What we are seeing now, is just political poker. That is what it is coming down to...McConnel wants to "give in" so that he can continue to use the budget issue as a political chess piece until the next election...because, as bad as you think Obama is, so far, the Republicans have nothing to offer that is any better. People like Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry once they become more well known, are going to scare people off...so, crap like this, "kicking the can down the road" (what they are calling McConnels plan), look to me, like desperate attempts to try to keep the economy as an issue, for as long as they can. These people are (gasp!) "rooting for the president to fail", just like they cried about Democrats with George W Bush. To come out and say "my first priority is to make sure that Barack Obama is not re-elected" is about as un-patriotic a thing as any politician could say, in my book.

Although I agree he has softened on some of his hard left stances (out of necessity, i would say), I don't agree that he's been conciliatory or tried to unite anyone. From the word go he had the attitude that he won, it's his way or the highway, and you guys can come along for the ride, but you're riding in the back.

 

A lot of his legislation, like the "stimulus" and especially Obamacare, were not opposed merely for being his pet projects, but run directly counter to the economic philosophy of those on the right. In his move to unite, he and the Dems forced hotly contested and highly controversial entitlement bills down our throats strictly across party lines, and yet the Republicans are labeled "the party of no" because they don't shut up and get in line.

 

Bush tried to be a uniter via triangulation a la Clinton, but failed miserably because the press wasn't interested in seeing a Republican adopt issues of the left, and true fiscal conservatives weren't crazy about it either. But he tried awful hard to be respectful of and cater to the left as often as he could. I didn't appreciate him doing so, but he did. All I hear out of Obama is incindiary rhetoric and demonization of his political opponents unlike anything I've heard out of a President in my lifetime.

 

To come out and say "my first priority is to make sure that Barack Obama is not re-elected" is about as un-patriotic a thing as any politician could say, in my book.

It depends on how you interpret it. If you take that to mean he'd prefer to see more damage done to the country to get power for his party, then yes, that's bad. If you interpret that to mean the way to minimize long term damage is to get Obama out of office, because otherwise he will gum up the works even worse for four more years, then it's not all that offensive.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Rob's House

[GG]

Although I agree he has softened on some of his hard left stances (out of necessity, i would say), I don't agree that he's been conciliatory or tried to unite anyone. From the word go he had the attitude that he won, it's his way or the highway, and you guys can come along for the ride, but you're riding in the back.

 

A lot of his legislation, like the "stimulus" and especially Obamacare, were not opposed merely for being his pet projects, but run directly counter to the economic philosophy of those on the right. In his move to unite, he and the Dems forced hotly contested and highly controversial entitlement bills down our throats strictly across party lines, and yet the Republicans are labeled "the party of no" because they don't shut up and get in line.

 

Bush tried to be a uniter via triangulation a la Clinton, but failed miserably because the press wasn't interested in seeing a Republican adopt issues of the left, and true fiscal conservatives weren't crazy about it either. But he tried awful hard to be respectful of and cater to the left as often as he could. I didn't appreciate him doing so, but he did. All I hear out of Obama is incindiary rhetoric and demonization of his political opponents unlike anything I've heard out of a President in my lifetime.

 

Yup. Obama just talks a better game than Bush did, but for actions, Obama is nowhere near the artful leader that the POTUS needs to be to win support from the opposition. Whether it's demonizing business, or stacking his cabinet with leftist idealists and not reigning in their power, or even worse, allowing unconfirmed appointees to establish policies, he's been an awful leader to guide out of a recession.

 

Usually, Presidents get too associated with economic cycles, as they simply happen to land in office in good times or bad. Conversely, this President revels by inserting himself into the sausage making process, and by accident or by design muck up the works.

 

I don't know if it's due to his inability to recognize the difference between campaigning & governing, but to me he is the biggest reason why the private sector is waiting until Nov 2012 to get into gear.

[Buftex]

Although I agree he has softened on some of his hard left stances (out of necessity, i would say), I don't agree that he's been conciliatory or tried to unite anyone. From the word go he had the attitude that he won, it's his way or the highway, and you guys can come along for the ride, but you're riding in the back.

 

A lot of his legislation, like the "stimulus" and especially Obamacare, were not opposed merely for being his pet projects, but run directly counter to the economic philosophy of those on the right. In his move to unite, he and the Dems forced hotly contested and highly controversial entitlement bills down our throats strictly across party lines, and yet the Republicans are labeled "the party of no" because they don't shut up and get in line.

 

Bush tried to be a uniter via triangulation a la Clinton, but failed miserably because the press wasn't interested in seeing a Republican adopt issues of the left, and true fiscal conservatives weren't crazy about it either. But he tried awful hard to be respectful of and cater to the left as often as he could. I didn't appreciate him doing so, but he did. All I hear out of Obama is incindiary rhetoric and demonization of his political opponents unlike anything I've heard out of a President in my lifetime.

It depends on how you interpret it. If you take that to mean he'd prefer to see more damage done to the country to get power for his party, then yes, that's bad. If you interpret that to mean the way to minimize long term damage is to get Obama out of office, because otherwise he will gum up the works even worse for four more years, then it's not all that offensive.

 

I am not laughing at you, but it is amazing how our political allinaces color our intrepretations of things...I don't remember any of this. I do think, George W Bush is probably a decent man (in fact I am sure of it) at heart, if not particularly deep. However, I think he was a puppet of the people around him, whose motivations were less than partisan.

 

It is ironic, to me, that you say Obama came in with this "attitude". Dems don't think hes had enough. To me, that "attitude" that you see as such a weakness for Obama, was GW Bush greatest strength. Of course he is going to push for the issues that are important to his party, all politicans do that, and they should. But, there is a time for compromise, and I think Obama has been pretty receptive to that, and understands that. With this current stalemate, Obama has offered to put everything on the table, for negotiations, but Republicans can't relent anywhere...they seem to be clinging to this "no more taxes for the rich" thing as if it was their god. I just think the Tea Party has painted the Republican party into a corner...and I think McConnel and Boehner see that too.

[Peace]

The criticisms of McConnell in this thread are pretty much all way off base and really dont have an idea of what it is that he is doing. Not that I agree with his approach, but I totally get what he is doing, and most of you don't.

 

OCinBuffalo, is that you?

[DC Tom]

The criticisms of McConnell in this thread are pretty much all way off base and really dont have an idea of what it is that he is doing. Not that I agree with his approach, but I totally get what he is doing, and most of you don't.

 

I kind-of have an idea...my criticism is of his surrendering Constitutional authority, which is pretty much !@#$ing idiotic.

 

But really...if he wants, Obama can simply tell the treasury "Borrow $100B more." It would be a violation of the law, and an impeachable offense. But he can do it, and the 14th Amendment, while it doesn't say we can't default, does say that debt issued under such an order couldn't be questioned.

 

Probably a worse solution than Mitch's, though. And of course, the best solution would be for the Congrasshats to do their jobs...at some point, people are going to start realizing that the "full faith and credit" of the US isn't worth all that much while the government can't get its **** together.

[IDBillzFan]

All points are taken. I am not a huge Obama supporter (I was all for Hilary), but I also don't think he is nearly as embarassing as you, GG, Rob etc make him out to be. I think he has been far more concilatory than you give him credit for, and he has backed down to Republican pressure (real or imagined) far more than I would like. To me, I see him as someone who tries to unite, but, Republicans have to disagree, even when they get what they want.

The biggest thing I dislike about Obama is the same thing I disliked about my last boss (and one of the primary reasons I went out on my own): He spends most of his time speaking straight down the middle of imply and infer. He's never wrong. He's just misunderstood. The reason people don't agree with him is because they simply don't understand. (Great article you'll hate right here.)

 

It's one of the reason I bust his chops so much about "saved or created" jobs. Or the argument about how much worse things might have been if only he hadn't pushed through the stimulus. Nothing concrete. Just statements that must be right because it's impossible to prove them wrong. And to suggest that he tries to unite is completely laughable. His whole "you may not get your social security checks" was about as devisive and mean-spirited as you can get. (Not to mention, completely stupid because if you think about it, what he's saying is that the only way we can pay social security next month is if we borrow the money. Gee, I thought social security was completely solvent.)

 

A big difference between Obama and a real leader is a real leader doesn't spend all their time trying to convince people that what they're doing is trying to lead.

 

They seem to have lost sight of the fact that this game is a little give and take. And, I blame the Tea Party influence for that. IMO, they helped transform a "basically" principled guy(as far as politicians go)like John McCain into a blitehring idiot.

 

What we are seeing now, is just political poker. That is what it is coming down to...McConnel wants to "give in" so that he can continue to use the budget issue as a political chess piece until the next election...because, as bad as you think Obama is, so far, the Republicans have nothing to offer that is any better. People like Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry once they become more well known, are going to scare people off...so, crap like this, "kicking the can down the road" (what they are calling McConnels plan), look to me, like desperate attempts to try to keep the economy as an issue, for as long as they can. These people are (gasp!) "rooting for the president to fail", just like they cried about Democrats with George W Bush. To come out and say "my first priority is to make sure that Barack Obama is not re-elected" is about as un-patriotic a thing as any politician could say, in my book.

First of all, as soon as McCain became the GOP presidential nominee, everyone finally saw him as the blithering idiot he has always been. Lastly, precisely what would you expect a GOP presidential nominee say about a far-left progressive president...we need to keep him in office? Of course they're going to say he needs to be as one-termer. In fact, you can't get any more American than to stand up and remind people that the leader of the country only gets to do their job four years at a time. The fact that the American people actually get to throw him out on his ass is one of the greatest parts of our country.

[GG]

I am not laughing at you, but it is amazing how our political allinaces color our intrepretations of things...I don't remember any of this. I do think, George W Bush is probably a decent man (in fact I am sure of it) at heart, if not particularly deep. However, I think he was a puppet of the people around him, whose motivations were less than partisan.

 

It is ironic, to me, that you say Obama came in with this "attitude". Dems don't think hes had enough. To me, that "attitude" that you see as such a weakness for Obama, was GW Bush greatest strength. Of course he is going to push for the issues that are important to his party, all politicans do that, and they should. But, there is a time for compromise, and I think Obama has been pretty receptive to that, and understands that. With this current stalemate, Obama has offered to put everything on the table, for negotiations, but Republicans can't relent anywhere...they seem to be clinging to this "no more taxes for the rich" thing as if it was their god. I just think the Tea Party has painted the Republican party into a corner...and I think McConnel and Boehner see that too.

 

But that's the whole point. He's pretending to offer a solution, but can't help himself to demonize the one class that will be paying for the excess spending. The problem is what I've been harping on is the math - you can't squeeze enough taxes out of the rich to pay for what he wants and he's not touching the serious parts of government spending that need to be addressed (entitlements), while ignoring the serious ramifications that his policies have on the economic recovery.

 

Meanwhile the press laps up the rallying cry that the rich don't want taxes raised on them as their selfishness is the only roadblock to Obama's nirvana. Yet everyone forgets that Bush's tax cuts affected all income classes, and eliminating the cuts only for the wealthy classes will not be enough to raise the needed revenues.

 

So in reality, his role of Demagogue in Chief is wearing thin on people who make the hiring decisions. Welcome to the capital strike.

[Rob's House]

I am not laughing at you, but it is amazing how our political allinaces color our intrepretations of things...I don't remember any of this.

You remember GWB talking about Democrats like they were the scum of the Earth who were hell bent determined on hurting innocent people to further their own political agendas?

 

 

Meanwhile the press laps up the rallying cry that the rich don't want taxes raised on them as their selfishness is the only roadblock to Obama's nirvana. Yet everyone forgets that Bush's tax cuts affected all income classes, and eliminating the cuts only for the wealthy classes will not be enough to raise the needed revenues.

 

And this is the really frustrating point, and it's an indisputable fact, but just like pointing out that you can't cut $1.4 trillion from a $600 billion defense budget, everytime you bring it up it goes in one ear and out the other. They can't let the facts get in the way of their idealogical views.

[Magox]

OCinBuffalo, is that you?

Is that you, Peace?

Edited July 14, 2011 by Magox

[Buftex]

The criticisms of McConnell in this thread are pretty much all way off base and really dont have an idea of what it is that he is doing. Not that I agree with his approach, but I totally get what he is doing, and most of you don't.

 

 

I think I know, but I am sure you will fill me in if (when) I am wrong:

 

McConnel is deferring to Obama, because he believes, ultimately, Obama will have to have another debt ceiling increase next year, so the Republicans can keep the issue fresh on everyones mind, for the next presidential election. I know, he doesn't perceive his move as "throwing in the towel" at all...but his strategy gives his party of "no you can't" more fuel to distract from everything else, and at the same time, emboldens the Tea Party. It is a calculated move by McConnel...he wants to distract the American voting public from the fact that his party has no viable candidates (maybe Mitt?). They don't want to negotiate anything with the president, and want to pretend that the Republican party played no role in the current economic crisis...right?

[Peace]

I think I know, but I am sure you will fill me in if (when) I am wrong:

 

McConnel is deferring to Obama, because he believes, ultimately, Obama will have to have another debt ceiling increase next year, so the Republicans can keep the issue fresh on everyones mind, for the next presidential election. I know, he doesn't perceive his move as "throwing in the towel" at all...but his strategy gives his party of "no you can't" more fuel to distract from everything else, and at the same time, emboldens the Tea Party. It is a calculated move by McConnel...he wants to distract the American voting public from the fact that his party has no viable candidates (maybe Mitt?). They don't want to negotiate anything with the president, and want to pretend that the Republican party played no role in the current economic crisis...right?

 

Only Magox really knows.

[Buftex]

Oh yeah, Magox...McConnel also knows, full well, this will never fly...

[Magox]

Only Magox really knows.

I guess Most means Only?

 

And yeah Buftex, something along those lines.

[Buftex]

You remember GWB talking about Democrats like they were the scum of the Earth who were hell bent determined on hurting innocent people to further their own political agendas?

 

And this is the really frustrating point, and it's an indisputable fact, but just like pointing out that you can't cut $1.4 trillion from a $600 billion defense budget, everytime you bring it up it goes in one ear and out the other. They can't let the facts get in the way of their idealogical views.

 

Yes, I do. You can't seperate Bush from the people who surrounded him. Don't forget too, the first part of GWB's first term, at least, he enjoyed a certain amount of good will from the other side of the aisle, not because everyone thought he was doing a wonderful job, but because they ran the risk, post 9/11, of being characterized as un-patriotic. I think Bush did a horrendous job, overall, in his first term, and his incompetence bled through everything. During his second term, he took on a much more arrogant, and cocky persona, toward his detractors, who were growing (with good reason) in legions.

 

The use of scare tactics is nothing new, and to pretend Obama devised this concept is silly. Remember during the Bush years, when the terror threat levels went up, every time Bush was suffering from some malady?

Edited July 14, 2011 by Buftex

[Rob's House]

http://www.nationalreview.com/author/56454/latest

... On July 5, he [Obama] said of the debt-ceiling negotiations, “It’s my hope . . . that we’ll all leave our political rhetoric at the door.” The next day he insisted that “the debt ceiling should not be . . . used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate-jet owners, for oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars because the price of gasoline has gone up so high.”

 

When Obama says people should drop their political rhetoric, he means everyone else.

[EC-Bills]

Why? Because he wants the Dems to take full responsibility for their actions?

 

How about something novel like both parties taking responsibility for their actions? So much time and money are wasted on fixing the blame as opposed to fixing the problems.

Edited July 14, 2011 by EC-Bills