Party Of No: Cantor Hints At Opposing Obama’s Housing Plan Before It Is Even Released
Party Of No: Cantor Hints At Opposing Obama’s Housing Plan Before It Is Even Released
“With pressure growing for government action to stem foreclosures,” President Obama will travel to Phoenix, AZ tomorrow to formally unveil his housing relief plan. Already, it seems, conservatives are preparing to stage a partisan fight against Obama’s housing legislation, just as they did with the economic recovery package.
Interviewed by CBS yesterday, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), who was instrumental in securing the no-votes against the stimulus, previewed some of the conservative talking points against Obama’s housing package and all but hinted that he would oppose the plan:
CANTOR: When you’re looking at the policy here, you’ve got to start with the fact that 93 percent of America’s families are current on their mortgages and, frankly, are out there wondering, you know, who is going to pay for this continued succession of bailouts? … We just cannot continue to pay for the kind of things that this administration thinks that we can. So, I’m very concerned about the direction I see us going, but I know that this president has continued to say he wants to work with us, and I hope we can get it right.
Harking back to the stimulus, which conservatives view as a winning electoral strategy, Cantor added, “You know, we’re on the heels, right now, of the almost $800 billion stimulus bill, not having any real knowledge of what’s in that 1,100- page bill and, frankly, working to make sure that the public’s right to know is realized.” Watch it:
It is ironic that Cantor may oppose Obama’s housing plan. Several GOP members of Congress, including influentials like Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), spent the last several weeks slamming the stimulus plan for allegedly not addressing the housing crisis. Cantor himself wrote in an op-ed, “Also critical will be addressing the housing crisis.”
Yet Cantor has apparently already decided a day ahead of time that he will oppose the very efforts to tackle housing.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Cantor added, “You know, we’re on the heels, right now, of the almost $800 billion stimulus bill, not having any real knowledge of what’s in that 1,100- page bill and, frankly, working to make sure that the public’s right to know is realized.”
Maybe you should get in the know yourself, Mr. Cantor. You sure spew a lot of blather for someone without any real knowledge of what’s in the bill…
February 17th, 2009 at 11:49 amCantor’s opposed the plan before it has even been unveiled. Hmmm. If that doesn’t smack of obstructionism, what does?
Bottom line is that the GOP is going to fight any and every bill the democrats put forth, simply because the democrats are putting forth the bill.
Jeez. At any rate, I sincerely hope that when the stimulus and housing plans start to show tangible progress, the good people of VA will oust this un-American Gingrich wannabe.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:52 amPresident Obama could say that he needed a poddy break and the rethugs would oppose him on that as well.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:52 amPresident Obama announced today that the sun rises in the East.
The Republicans instantly responded with vehement protests that sun actually rose in the north and that asserting it rose in any other direction showed that Obama was unwilling to work in a bi-partisan fashion.
Rush Limbaugh proclaimed that Obama should fail because all right-thinking Americans should know that the sun rises out of Rush’s derriere….
February 17th, 2009 at 11:56 amraynman Says:
Rush Limbaugh proclaimed that Obama should fail because all right-thinking Americans should know that the sun rises out of Rush’s derriere….
_____________
That’s actually the moon…
February 17th, 2009 at 11:57 amYa gots to love these guys. When everyone else is trying to figure out how to get out of the hole, they are down there just a digging away and not noticing they can’t throw the crap high enough to clear the top.
A suggestion for everyone climbing the walls, make sure you knock plenty of new stuff down on them so they don’t feel their efforts are in vain.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:59 amWhat — he couldn’t wait for his Dear Leader, Limpballs, to issue the talking points before jumping on the “just say no” bandwagon? Sounds like Cantor’s experiencing premature obstructionation again…
February 17th, 2009 at 11:59 amThanks, TRoS. It is almost lunch time, ya know?
February 17th, 2009 at 12:00 pmThe majority of right thinking people are wrong.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:01 pm(Monty Python)
Bi-Partisanship is not and never has been the issue, folks.
Non-partisanship is what’s needed here.
Think about it. Party should have nothing to do with the stimulus or housing bills.
The American Taliban think in terms of ‘bi’, or polar. Polarization is NOT what we need here.
Next time one of the Taliban mention bi-partisanship, please respond by stating non-partisanship is the correct approach.
You’ll find them with their mouth hanging open, trying to process the word non-partisan.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:03 pmHoodathunk Says:
Thanks, TRoS. It is almost lunch time, ya know?
____________
So… what’s on the menu? Pressed ham?
Ka-bang… ***rim shot***
Perhaps what you meant it say was, “It WAS almost lunch time…”
February 17th, 2009 at 12:03 pmopposes housing bill before it is even released ?
SO do you think the facts would make any difference if he waited till he read it before opposing it?
February 17th, 2009 at 12:05 pmNevar:
February 17th, 2009 at 12:05 pmYou are freaking me out. That was my undergraduate tagline!
Its “shits” benmaller. “Shiites” isn’t the word you are looking for
February 17th, 2009 at 12:07 pmI flagged benmaller for irrelevant bigotry.
dbadass… I just got back from the Everglades, saw lots of wood storks, alligators, and blue-gray gnatcatchers…
February 17th, 2009 at 12:10 pmMapleStreet Says:
opposes housing bill before it is even released ?
It’s sort of like the Xmas wars. Shop early and avoid the rush.
Oh, wait…Repugs don’t avoid the Rush.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:11 pmThe GOP just keeps getting stranger and stranger. They allowed shrubie stomp all over the Constitution, they allowed their friends to destroy our financial system and now all of a sudden they are the party of NO.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:12 pmYes they are the party of NO. NO more republicans, no more killing the Constitution, NO more money for your friends. NO more BS. We are back to being America again, instead of a dictatorship.
I can’t decide if their strategy is to send Cantor out at every possible moment because they respect him so much or because he’s such a smug, stupid little shit that he’s being set up to take the fall.
Could be they just don’t have a strategy except Cantor’s willing to make an ass of himself, asking nothing in return.
PEACE
February 17th, 2009 at 12:12 pmThere are several stories flying around about Republicans becoming delusional and “unhinged”. Cantor seems to be proving the point. The growing conservative irrationality seems completely counter-productive to the needs of the country. Are they smoking the very weeds they would like to keep illegal or just completely locked into a state of juvenile behavior?
February 17th, 2009 at 12:12 pmNevar:
February 17th, 2009 at 12:14 pmThat’s sweet. I lived in the glades for about a month sometime back but it has been some years since I have had the chance to return. Can you imagine how happening that area was before we screwed it up?
Maplestreet: “don’t avoid the RUSH”. Very clever. Got any O’Reilly jokes?
February 17th, 2009 at 12:14 pmCantor added, “You know, we’re on the heels, right now, of the almost $800 billion stimulus bill, not having any real knowledge of what’s in that 1,100- page bill
Can anyone recall a time when Republicans at least to align their talking points with objective reality?
Trying to claim that “we don’t really know what’s in the bill” is so lazy and nonsensical. It’s not String Theory, for chrissakes. Do your fu(king homework. Read the fu(king bill. It’s all available online.
Idiots.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:16 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Trying to claim that “we don’t really know what’s in the bill” is so lazy and nonsensical. It’s not String Theory, for chrissakes. Do your fu(king homework. Read the fu(king bill. It’s all available online.
Cantor’s too busy getting face time on the tube. Besides, reading is for elitists.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:18 pmThe good news for the Everglades is the faltering economy. The massive development of SW Florida has come to a screeching halt.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:19 pmEmpty malls everywhere, new subdivisions almost non-existent.
Such a fragile ecosystem.
hivanh Says:
The growing conservative irrationality seems completely counter-productive to the needs of the country.
And just what area would their irrationality to productive in? Gleaning votes in future elections (their rallying cry)? The “Vote for me, I hate everything” war cry seems productive. ???
“Are they smoking the very weeds they would like to keep illegal”
Nope, too much aggression in their behavior. I’d guess acid or speed myself.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:21 pmCantor is minority whip.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:24 pmm i n o r i t y ….. meaning NOT majority, NOT part of the “mainstream” flow of America.
He’s soooooooooooo out of touch!! When will we start ignoring him?
ralph the wonder llama Says: Trying to claim that “we don’t really know what’s in the bill” is so lazy and nonsensical.
At least he has been man enough to admit he either can’t read, do his job or can’t be bothered with the whining of his own staff.
With luck, his constituents can read.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:24 pm‘”Cantor Hints”?’ I think the biggest hint is that he has an (R) before his name. It’s not surprising to me, after all conservatives at their very essence are not progressive to change.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:25 pmcitizen_pain Says:
——————————————————————————–
Cantor’s opposed the plan before it has even been unveiled. Hmmm. If that doesn’t smack of obstructionism, what does?
Bottom line is that the GOP is going to fight any and every bill the democrats put forth, simply because the democrats are putting forth the bill.
Without defending the GOP obstructionism, can I simply point out that this is exactly what the Dems did in 2004 when they had just lost the Presidency and were in the minority in both houses of Congress? Both parties are hypocrites when they decry the obstructionism of the minority opposition because as soon as they are in the minority they obstruct themselves and call it principle. It has been the pattern for at least 20 years.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:33 pmNevar Says:
A bit of a Python Purist here. The actual quote is “I think that the majority of wrong thinking people are right.”
This was in answer to the question “What would the panel do if they were Hitler?”
All very a propos.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:35 pmNannie Raygun’s just say no is bakc-with a vengeance.
No to any new taxes
No to economic stimulus
No to Obama’s cabinet nominations(at the very least, delay)
No to single payer health care
No to housing plan
No to________________(fill in the blank)
The party of NO!
February 17th, 2009 at 12:37 pmbenmaller Says:
But we are expected to bail out the deadbeats who aren’t because 7% of the families are dumb Shiites.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
_________
Why not? We bailed out the deadbeats who created the bad loans and then used them as the basis for securities.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:38 pmbenmaller is flagged as a bottom feeding troll.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:39 pmThe actual quote is “I think that the majority of wrong thinking people are right.”
Yes, well, it says exactly the same thing.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:39 pm;)
These guys don’t read the bills, even if they have time. They divide it up and give it to their staffers, who build them a Power Point of talking points. How stupid do they think we are.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:43 pmYes, Keltoi, you can point that out without defending GOP obstructionism, but if you think the Democrats did exactly the same thing, your recall is faulty.
Democrats have never been able to muster anything close to the unanimity that we see among Republicans regularly. It’s one of the weaknesses and strengths of the Democratic Party.
What’s more, when the nation was truly in crisis — after 9/11, for instance, Democrats stood with President Bush (some would say for far too log after 9/11).
Whatwe’re seeing out of this Republican caucus is way beyond simply opposing the president. We’re seeing a conscious and publicly acknowledged strategy to regain some of their lost power by pushing back against everything this president does, regardless of its efficacy for the nation.
Your argument is built on a false equivalence and does not hold water.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:45 pmdbadass Says:
Its “shits” benmaller. “Shiites” isn’t the word you are looking for
like most cons, bowelmovement does not know or care what a Shiite is.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:46 pmNow that is the Keltoi I remember. Dims obstructed in 2004 when they had just lost the Presidency and were in the minority in both houses of Congress? . Webbe see, Repugs took back control of Congress in 1996 and the White House in 2000.
Obviously history isn’t your best subject.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:47 pm37 – Nice work ralph, keltoi thrives on false equivalency.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:47 pmMath seems sort of weak as well.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:48 pmKeltoi at Night Says:
Without defending the GOP obstructionism, can I simply point out that this is exactly what the Dems did in 2004 when they had just lost the Presidency and were in the minority in both houses of Congress? Both parties are hypocrites when they decry the obstructionism of the minority opposition because as soon as they are in the minority they obstruct themselves and call it principle. It has been the pattern for at least 20 years.
Bull. The Democrats threatened blocked the nominations of a few judicial appointments — nothing even close to the number the Republicans had blocked under Clinton (leaving unfilled seats on the courts through his presidency). The so-called Democratic obstructionism of 2005 is a load of Republican propaganda. In other words: bullsh!t.
The current GOPers have made it clear they’re obstructing purely for political purposes, with no concern at all for the result. You are wrong on this one, completely wrong.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:49 pmA Python purist should know that the full quote in question, “I meet a lot of people, and I’m convinced that the vast majority of wrong-thinking people are right”" was NOT in response to the question, “I’d like to ask the panel what they would do if they were Hitler”.
The quote preceded the question, which generated such responses as “Speaking personally, I’d annex the Sudetenland.” and “I think I’d pay some Dutchman to set fire to Lord Snowdon”.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:50 pmAnd Keltoi, what about that whole impeachment thing? Those darn Democrats just obstructed the whole process of impeaching a President for a personal indiscretion and a fib.
I hate it when Dims are in control, they are just so rabid. /snark
February 17th, 2009 at 12:52 pmThanks ralph!
:)
You win the lounge suite!
February 17th, 2009 at 12:54 pmRalph, can we go with…the Inquisition…duh, duh duhn. Can we please?
February 17th, 2009 at 12:56 pmAnd yes, I realize how insufferably snobbish my Python diatribe was.
But c’mon, I’m ralph the wonder llama, fer chrissakes.
(Holy shit! Upon googling my screen name, I discovered an entire page in the Uncyclopedia devoted to my namesake. I swear I had nothing to do with it.)
February 17th, 2009 at 12:56 pmEric Cantor is an example of the republican party today – just when Dems think they have chased them away, and begin to clean up the mess they left, another bag of slime and sh!t like Cantor is found.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:57 pmHooda: I wasn’t expecting the Spanish Inquisition…
February 17th, 2009 at 1:03 pmNo one does…
February 17th, 2009 at 1:04 pmCantor gives a new face to moonbats.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:17 pmMr. Cantor, do you deny being an obstructionist prig with delusions of becoming a rock star with groupies?
Yes?
The boot, yes the boot…
February 17th, 2009 at 1:18 pmWant to know what’s incredibly stupid about this strategy? Republican congressional districts have the highest rate of foreclosures!
Republican districts have an average foreclosure rate of 0.506 percent, whereas Democratic districts have a rate of 0.47 percent.
Of the top ten districts hardest hit by foreclosure, five are Republican and five are Democrat. Of the top ten districts with the lowest rate of foreclosure, four are Republican and six are Democrat.
http://hotpads.com/pages/election-2008/congressional-rankings.htm
I guess this spoils the old Republican “fiscal responsibility” claim, eh?
February 17th, 2009 at 1:19 pmSize 11, steel toe. Where is Ryan Longwell? He has a good leg.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:20 pmYes, Keltoi, you can point that out without defending GOP obstructionism, but if you think the Democrats did exactly the same thing, your recall is faulty.
Democrats have never been able to muster anything close to the unanimity that we see among Republicans regularly. It’s one of the weaknesses and strengths of the Democratic Party.
Your argument is built on a false equivalence and does not hold water.
Ralph, Gummitch, Tweedster, Hooda – how many Democrats supported Bush’s effort to reform Social Security? That was the signature proposal he made right after winning re-election, and the Dems were virtually unanimous in obstructing it. And don’t tell me that was different because you didn’t like the policy, obstruction is obstruction, the equivalence is political and not substantive in both cases.
BTW Hooda at 39, History is my subject and you are just deliberately spinning my phrasing. Obviously Bush was Prez 00-04, but there had just been an election that the Dems had just lost. Gimme a break.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:24 pmHoodathunk Says:
——————————————————————————–
And Keltoi, what about that whole impeachment thing? Those darn Democrats just obstructed the whole process of impeaching a President for a personal indiscretion and a fib.
As I recall (without Googling it) it was a party line vote in both the issuing of the Articles in the House (though a few Dems might have voted yes to having the Trial) and some Repub Senators voted innocent. I’ll check, but if you want to talk about false equivalence, comparing impeachment to the stimulus bill is tough to beat.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:28 pmKeltoi says: BTW Hooda at 39, History is my subject and you are just deliberately spinning my phrasing. Obviously Bush was Prez 00-04, but there had just been an election that the Dems had just lost. Gimme a break.
Not even on a good day. The Dims had just gone through an election cycle where they hadn’t made much progress. Enough that they were able to block the privatization of Social Security, the one thing in 8 years of Bushite control they were able to preserve and protect. If they had gotten their way, we would have nothing left that the oligarchs hadn’t raided and destroyed.
There is a huge difference between obstruction and protection.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:30 pmYep. No Democratic Senators voted guilty, 5 Democratic Reps voted to impeach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
Since the Senate was in Republican control, it seems to me there was more aisle crossing on the Right than on the Left vis the Clinton impeachment. Is history not your subject, perhaps?
February 17th, 2009 at 1:32 pmKeltoi, I wasn’t comparing. The Repug controlled Congress forced the impeachment proceedings on specious grounds. The Dims voted for impeachment because they held a lie to the Congress was wrong. They didn’t vote to remove.
So how come no call for impeachment for Bush’s lying never got off the floor? The Dims blocked it?
February 17th, 2009 at 1:33 pmEric Cantor must have been the only rethug who would take this job. He seems to be a little naive and stupid. I don’t expect him to be in congress after the 2010 election.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:34 pmHoodathunk Says:
There is a huge difference between obstruction and protection.
Right. The first is what those rotten Republicans do and the second is what those pure minded Democrats do.
I know it is hard to see things from a different political perspective when you are committed to the opposite view, but can you see how conservatives might feel the same way about a Trillion dollars of deficit spending passed in a rush as you do about Bush’s privitization? I suspect I know the answer, but think about it.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:36 pmHoodathunk Says:
So how come no call for impeachment for Bush’s lying never got off the floor? The Dims blocked it?
Well, yes! Nancy “impeachment is off the table” Pelosi is a Democrat when last I checked…
February 17th, 2009 at 1:38 pmDid the obstructionist rethugs vote against the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and who did not need stimulus in the amount of $1.3 Trillion or the $1 Trillion price tag for the unnecessary war in Iraq? It think not. Do they accept responsibility for the mess we are in? They are the champions of the deregulation that has led to this cratering of the economy.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:40 pmtroll during the day –
Ralph, Gummitch, Tweedster, Hooda – how many Democrats supported Bush’s effort to reform Social Security? That was the signature proposal he made right after winning re-election, and the Dems were virtually unanimous in obstructing it.
I don’t recall Bush’s plan was ever even submitted as a bill to Congress, keltoi. Can you refresh my memory with a roll call of the vote you are referring to? A link would be great!
February 17th, 2009 at 1:41 pmNope, I don’t when the same clowns voted consistently to send equal amounts of money offshore. Clinton, impeached for a personal indiscretion left office with a surplus and a clear warning to Bush of things to come. Bush ignored his warnings and pissed away the surplus to the point where our economy is on the brink of collapse.
Whine about the ‘necessity’ of deficit spending to repair damage when you can justify the reason we are here. Fact is, I am pretty much apolitical. I look at results. Conservatives have no room to debate after the drunken sailor spree of the past 8 years.
My bottom line is, I was a whole lot better off in 2000 than I am now. Repugs have been in control for those 8 years. Do the math.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:43 pmKeltoi, just when did Pelosi become Speaker?
Again, math isn’t your strong suit.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:44 pmKeltoi – still looking for how those Dems obstructed W’s Bill for Social Security reform, can you help me out here?
February 17th, 2009 at 1:48 pmHoodathunk Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi, just when did Pelosi become Speaker?
Again, math isn’t your strong suit.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
The only “strong suits” that Kelt boy possesses is his delusions of adequacy and constant inane attempts to defend all things GOP …….
He’s as genuine as a $7 bill………
February 17th, 2009 at 1:48 pmTweedster Says:
I don’t recall Bush’s plan was ever even submitted as a bill to Congress, keltoi. Can you refresh my memory with a roll call of the vote you are referring to? A link would be great!
The Dems were so unified in their opposition it never made it that far. But if you can find me a link where any Dems ever said anything good about it ever, that would be great too.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:59 pmAn important difference that you fail to note is that, while the stimulus package remains very popular with voters, Bush’s Social Security reform was a big loser with the populace.
You can’t really make an argument that Democrats unanimously opposing a deeply unpopular proposal demonstrates the equivalence you’re trying to construct. In fact, in both cases, Democrats were on the side of most of the citizens they’re elected to serve.
Again, it fails.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:00 pmHoodathunk Says:
Keltoi, just when did Pelosi become Speaker?
Again, math isn’t your strong suit.
2006, what is your point? Do you think a party is going to impeach its own President? (Andrew Johnson was a Southerner and former Democrat, BTW). She had the majority, she didn’t impeach, case closed.
But this is not an important argument, truthfully. If you believe that only Rs are capable of obstructionism as a political tactic nothing I can say will change your mind. I don’t necessarily disagree with your comments in 65, I am merely saying obstructionism and the hypocrisy of decrying it when you do it yourself cuts both ways.
So much for me being “mellow”, eh Hooda?
February 17th, 2009 at 2:04 pmKeltoi at Night Says:
The Dems were so unified in their opposition it never made it that far. But if you can find me a link where any Dems ever said anything good about it ever, that would be great too.
You stated that their opposition to Bush’s Social Security was obstructed by the Dems much like how the Republicans obstructed Obama’s stimulus bill.
Since one of these things was never even brought to Congress as a coherent plan, how did the Democrats obstruct the passage of the bill? Seems strange to me.
Finding a link about how the Dems praised a bill that never was a bill can’t possibly happen – stop asking silly questions!
February 17th, 2009 at 2:06 pmKeltoi at Night Says:
——————————————————————————–
Tweedster Says:
I don’t recall Bush’s plan was ever even submitted as a bill to Congress, keltoi. Can you refresh my memory with a roll call of the vote you are referring to? A link would be great!
The Dems were so unified in their opposition it never made it that far. But if you can find me a link where any Dems ever said anything good about it ever, that would be great too.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
If you can find us all 1 solitary success Chimpy had in 8 years , it would justify your harping on this particular topic ………..
February 17th, 2009 at 2:07 pmKeltoi – I am merely saying obstructionism and the hypocrisy of decrying it when you do it yourself cuts both ways.
And then you provide false, or at best, extremely poorly worded examples of this. Also, as Ralph again hits right on the head, Bush’s “plan” (which was never realized as a Bill because of the BIG BAD DEMOCRATIC OBSTRUCTIONISTS!!!) was never a hit with the American People as it was presented. Your argument totally sucks.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:09 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
You can’t really make an argument that Democrats unanimously opposing a deeply unpopular proposal demonstrates the equivalence you’re trying to construct. In fact, in both cases, Democrats were on the side of most of the citizens they’re elected to serve.
If so, why had Bush just been re-elected and why were the Dems still in the minority? It isn’t like Bush on November 6th 2004 just said “Surprise! I’d like to explore privitizing a small percent of FICA payments!” It was a campain issue, Bush had won the election…isn’t that what Obama is saying now? I won, elections have consequences?
But I refer you to my comment to Hooda at 71. I have attempted to make my point and now fold my tent for this one, make of the validity of the equivalence what you will.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:09 pmGod, can I tell you all how much Eric Cantor repulses me? and his stupid mugging at the camera! Thank you. I feel much better. Carry on.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:11 pmKeltoi at Night Says:
——————————————————————————–
ralph the wonder llama Says:
You can’t really make an argument that Democrats unanimously opposing a deeply unpopular proposal demonstrates the equivalence you’re trying to construct. In fact, in both cases, Democrats were on the side of most of the citizens they’re elected to serve.
If so, why had Bush just been re-elected and why were the Dems still in the minority? It isn’t like Bush on November 6th 2004 just said “Surprise! I’d like to explore privitizing a small percent of FICA payments!” It was a campain issue, Bush had won the election…isn’t that what Obama is saying now? I won, elections have consequences?
But I refer you to my comment to Hooda at 71. I have attempted to make my point and now fold my tent for this one, make of the validity of the equivalence what you will.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
That’s going on the premise that Chimpy was actually re-elected , when he never was originally elected , and his supposed reinstatement into the same office is dubious at best.
And it is in this country’s entire history that presidents are not changed while our military is seeing action , plain and simple ; it sure as hell had nothing to do with Chimpy’s supposed “campaign platform” of Social Security ‘reform’ ….
February 17th, 2009 at 2:14 pmKeltoi – It isn’t like Bush on November 6th 2004 just said “Surprise! I’d like to explore privitizing a small percent of FICA payments!”
He won the election by 2.4% points, and if this “mandate” was so great, I’m still puzzled how the Democratic minority could obstruct his plan from even becoming a bill to be debated in Congress?
February 17th, 2009 at 2:18 pmMCMetal – it sure as hell had nothing to do with Chimpy’s supposed “campaign platform” of Social Security ‘reform’ ….
You don’t get it! Keltoi is stating that the MASSIVE PARTISAN RESISTANCE by Democrats made it so bad that Bush couldn’t even dare to propose an actual bill concerning his reform. The DEMS Obstructionist ways were SOOOOO STRONG that the COMMANDER IN CHIEF STOOD DOWN!!!!
February 17th, 2009 at 2:20 pmThe sun rising from rush butt, we will support every move president of united states does, who cares those losers who put us in horrible chaos that what they say.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:21 pmAre you frickin’ serious?
You’re trying to make the claim (without actually saying so) that Bush’s Social Security reform was popular with the American people?
And beyond that, that it was a primary reason for his re-election?
Seriously?
Maybe not so much.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:23 pm“Party of No to Country” is more like it.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:24 pm.
WASHINGTON — A bank that employs the wife of Rep. Eric I. Cantor, R-Va., benefited from the $700 billion Wall Street bailout that Cantor helped steer through Congress last fall.
[...]
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/gop-house-whips-wife-didnt-know-her-b
… imagine that…
February 17th, 2009 at 2:25 pm…and yet another republican to put in a wolf suit and send to Alaska.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:31 pmObstructionist activity, Keltoi. Name a period longer than 15 minutes from 1992-2000 when President Clinton (and his wife) were not under constant investigation. Whitewater, something the wife of the President may have been involved in. How many millions were spent investigating something the President was not even vaguely involved in and said investigation came up with…nothing.
2000, A new President who over the course of the next four years lied repeatedly to the public and Congress on matters much more important than a hummer in the closet, and not only lied but admitted to the lies and not one investigation.
Why Pelosi took impeachment off the table in 2006 is a total mystery and one that should be investigated.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:37 pmMore telling is why impeachment was not on the table before 2006.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:40 pmI think it’s ok now to refer to Cantor generically as the punk-ass little b*tch from VA.
How does it feel to have Newtie’s old flabby arm rammed up you rectum making your mouth move, Eric?
And how does it feel to have NO real ideas of your own?
p.s. to the side debate – it was the AARP and 20 million cantankerous senior citizens that shut down the Social Security heist Dubbie and pals wanted to orchestrate. A very Bipartisan grassroots thing.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:49 pmBye bye Keltoi! Come back again, maybe armed with some facts instead of those assertions you love to throw around!
February 17th, 2009 at 2:54 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Are you frickin’ serious?
You’re trying to make the claim (without actually saying so) that Bush’s Social Security reform was popular with the American people?
In deference to your status as Ringmaster and Tamer of Trolls, Ralph, I try to always respond to you if I have the time, even if the topic has gone stale.
No, I never said nor suggested Bush won re-election because of SS reform. I merely said it was a campaign issue, Kerry opposed Bush’s position and Kerry lost.
The central point is that Democrats obstruct when they are in the minority just as the Repubs do now. It all has to do with gamesmanship and political jockeying and very little to do with the public good.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/07/nation/na-social7
From the LA Times article:
Despite Bush’s continual urging for politicians to put ideas on the table, many Democratic strategists say there is no down side to opposing Bush’s plan and offering nothing in its place.
“The public will be satisfied to hear the Democrats just say no,” said Guy Molyneux, a senior vice president of Peter D. Hart Research Associates, a Democratic polling firm. “As far as the public is concerned, Social Security’s financial problem is not urgent, and Congress should take its time.”
The Dems won that battle. They offered nothing as a counter-proposal and Just Said No. And it worked, good for them.
Question: Why is “obstruction” such a dirty word? It is a political tactic. Both parties employ it when it suits them. We are confusing the relative virtues of the Party’s priorities with the morality of a political tactic. And any time you use the words “morality” and “political tactic” in the same sentence you know you have a problem.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:02 pmIs he trying to appeal to people who can’t read a 1000 pages in three weeks? Looks like voting against things you haven’t read is the new Republican machismo. What next? Too hard to count the votes?
February 17th, 2009 at 3:04 pmI really feel that the American people have stopped listening to these guys.
No one wants to listen to “doom and gloom” all the time, especially from people who denounces all the ideas around them, but have no fresh, new ideas of their own to offer.
It’s beginning to look like they are shouting into the wind, or braying at the moon.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:10 pmFollow the money. Abramoff. Lobbyists for the interests that oppose all democratic moves. Cantor will be at that nexus.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:23 pmIt sounded like you were implying causation there. If not, why bring it up the way you did?
The central point was more specific than that. You said that the Democrats did EXACTLY the same thing when they were in the minority. I and others vigorously dispute that.
I pointed out the behavior of the Democrats when the nation truly faced a crisis — 9/11.
Another point worth noting is that you are trying to compare Dem opposition to an unpopular president, pushing an unpopular initiative, in his second term. His patterns had been set, and Democrats recognized that his bipartisan talk was just that — talk. Years of being told that they were “either with me or against me”, a sentiment that was further by such respected right-wing voices as Ann Coulter, who cast opposition to the President as “treason” understandably helped to erode any impulse to work with the President.
But Bush’s first term was marked by a pretty compliant democratic caucus. not as compliant as the Republicans, but still.
Yet here we are, in the first month still of the Obama presidency, and the Republicans march in lockstep to oppose a fairly popular initiative that is widely recognized as a necessary step for a nation facing a crisis.
The two situations you try to present as analogous are far from it.
Your LA Times article makes the point that the public was on the side of the Democrats in the SS battle, something I noted earlier.
You have a good point here. Republicans have a knack for imparting unsavory connotations to otherwise useful words. Perhaps it’s their habit of spitting them out as if they were the salty lumps of orange goo in the bottom of a Cheeto bag. But “obstruction” of a measure to address an immediate crisis while offering nothing in its place (unless you consider the policies that got us to this point) is an abrogation of their duty as legislators. It’s a political calculation, sure, but most Americans I think recognize that our economic woes demand some kind of response other than “business as usual”.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:24 pmyah… meanwhile, Obama is delaying Rove apearence in Congress to testify over the political firings, trying to cut a deal so ‘SECRECY’ not ‘TRANPARENCEY’ becomes what he still calling ‘CHANGE’.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:27 pmSorry folks, since his silence over the US-backed Israeli MASSACRE of Palestinians, since his 3 drone attakcs in Pakistan that killed dozens of inocent civilians, since his ‘moving foward instead looking back’ crap, since his continuation of the Afheganistan occupation, since his order to keep secret the TORTURE OF REDITION CASES, Obama can go to Hell with his empty rethoric of ‘CHANGE’.
Bravo 93 — I could not have said it better myself. Hardly, obstructionists which is precisely why many liberals berated the Dems as a minority party — see the Gang of 14 which ALLOWED Bush’s wingnut Supreme Court nominees not to be fillibustered to death — uh, there were Dems in that gang. Does Keltoi think for one nano second that any Republicans would join such a Gang of 14 under Obama. Frankly, I wished Obama had called the gutless, potato-chipped lipped Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn on their fillibuster threats. Let them spew all night while Rome burns and FOREVER brand the gNOp as the party of Hoover.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:32 pmNo-one has pushed the idea that if the 2004 elections had been held a mere month later than they were, our dear W would have lost in a landslide to a flat worm.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:17 pmseriously. what about this is surprising? if the repugnicans are going to oppose bills before they have even been written, then why give them a copy? i say only give copies to the dems; making copies for reps wouldn’t be a prudent or useful expenditure of taxpayer money, would it?
and set boehner’s copy inside a lucite bowling ball so he can break his foot when he drops it.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:07 pmraynman Says:
President Obama announced today that the sun rises in the East.
The Republicans instantly responded with vehement protests that sun actually rose in the north and that asserting it rose in any other direction showed that Obama was unwilling to work in a bi-partisan fashion.
—
you give them too much credit; they wouldn’t take a principled stand like choosing a direction whence the sun rises.
more likely, they’d just argue that it’s unamerican to claim that the sun rises in the east, that that’s where the commies live and we’ll be damned if we’ll lose the sunlight race to those pinkos, that the east and the sun are both loaded with pork, and that even discussing which direction the sun rises contributes to our moral decay and puts american lives at risk. and the terrorists are gonna attack us any minute now and we’ll all die.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:13 pmAnyone besides me having “meanwhile, back at the ranch” flashes of Richard Gere’s “Razzle Dazzle” routine from “Chicago”? At one point in Roxie’s trial, Billy yells “I object!” before the prosecutor has said a word.
Only THAT scene was INTENTIONALLY funny. . .
February 18th, 2009 at 1:01 amraynman Says:
President Obama announced today that the sun rises in the East.
The Republicans instantly responded with vehement protests that sun actually rose in the north and that asserting it rose in any other direction showed that Obama was unwilling to work in a bi-partisan fashion.
Rush Limbaugh proclaimed that Obama should fail because all right-thinking Americans should know that the sun rises out of Rush’s derriere….
My neighbors hate me, and it’s YOUR fault! I laugh so heartily at some of your posts that I wake them up.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:04 amZimzone Says:
Bi-Partisanship is not and never has been the issue, folks.
Good point, Zim. But the rethugs believe in BUY-partisanship.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:07 amlvdragonlady Says:
NO more republicans, no more killing the Constitution, NO more money for your friends. NO more BS. We are back to being America again, instead of a dictatorship.
And THAT’S what I call par-TAAAAAY!
February 18th, 2009 at 1:09 amThe Dogfather Says:
Hooda: I wasn’t expecting the Spanish Inquisition…
Makes me think of the Inquisition in “History of the World, Part I”:
Friars: “Hey, Torquemada, what do you say?”
T: “I just got back from the auto-de-fe.”
F: “Auto-de-fe? What’s an auto-de-fe?”
t: “It’s what you oughtn’t to do, but you do anyway!”
And that kinda makes me think of rethugs who obstruct EVERYTHING that President Obama is doing– which they “oughtn’t to do [if they gave a DAMN about the US] but [they] do anyway.”
Only it was FUNNY when Mel Brooks did it.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:19 amMCMetal Says:
If you can find us all 1 solitary success Chimpy had in 8 years , it would justify your harping on this particular topic ………..
Well, he DID succeed in becoming a “war president.”
February 18th, 2009 at 1:23 amWaltTheMan Says:
No-one has pushed the idea that if the 2004 elections had been held a mere month later than they were, our dear W would have lost in a landslide to a flat worm.
No need to insult platyhelminthes!
February 18th, 2009 at 1:27 amCantor is a flippin @$$.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:32 pmAmerica should send their mortgage bills to bush and cheney, since cantor thinks they are the answer to the problem.