Do Republicans Want To Repeal The Obama Presidency?

[babylonsister]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/do-republicans-want-to-repeal-the-obama-presidency.php

Do Republicans Want To Repeal The Obama Presidency?
Brian Beutler | February 10, 2011, 10:17AM


We all know that the Republican party wants to repeal the health care law. And the financial reform law. And roll back spending to the levels they were at during the Bush administration. And tie Obama's hands so he can't issue new regulations, or has to undo old ones.

When you add it all up, what you get is a huge chunk of the entire Obama presidency that Republicans apparently simply want to erase. The Obama administration has done more than just the above, but, if you eliminate those things, suddenly his first two years look pretty unremarkable.

Sure, we all had a good laugh when Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) called for "repeal{ing} this president." What's interesting, though, is that if you put this question to other Republicans -- are you trying to repeal the entire Obama presidency? -- they ignore his popularity and incumbency and basically admit, 'yes, that's the goal.'

snip//

It's not just the House either. Here's what Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) told a conservative crowd at CPAC Thursday morning: To fix the economy, he said, Republicans should "wipe the entire Obama agenda off the table and start from scratch."

[jillan]

1. So much for democracy - and the fact that Obama won this election fair and square.

Hypocrites!

[CitizenLeft]

3. ...and by a large margin.

I can't stand it.

[RedCloud]

15. A huge mandate squandered.

[GSLevel9]

4. to be fair...

this is the way it's SUPPOSED to be.

Let's just say that Shrub privatized Social Security in 2007. I would be ALL FOR repealing the privatization in 2008, how about you?

Democracy is a fluid process. The citizens can have input at any time on any topic provided they flex their political muscle. The Repubs took the House. They took the House by telling their constituents they'd repeal HC.

Didn't someone say "Elections have consequences."?

They can starve HC because that's what their constituents tell them to do. They WILL break HC Reform version 1.0

So... we need to mobilize the citizenry to PUSH for something like a Public Option. If we can get enough Dems elected to pass that legislationwe get what we want.

This IS the way it works.

[CBHagman]

8. I appreciate your fair-mindedness.

Yes, elections do have consequences, and you can bet your boots I'd be fighting if the GOP had managed to pass Social Security privatization.

That said, they didn't have the votes for it, and the public option didn't have the votes either. You have to shift public opinion in a big way (for starters, get past the sheer ignorance) in order to pull off a public option.

A lot of people just don't understand the health care system or what was passed last year, let alone the process that preceded it.

Anyway, the Republican Party only won control of the House, though they (and the media) act as though they won the Senate too.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. Good point

So, if the election was a "mandate", it's kind of hard to tell what exactly it was for IMHO. Divided government maybe so that Republicans and Democrats can actually engage in the oft-mentioned but rarely practiced (by the Republicans) art of bipartisanship? :shrug: I mean, if the voters wanted to really "repeal" the Obama Presidency (so far), shouldn't they've have voted in a Republican Senate and doesn't the fact that they didn't mean that maybe they really don't want that? Of course, the Republicans might've pulled out a Senate win had they not nominated such extreme candidates for some races but then again that just proves that the tea party agenda, which is about nothing more than "repealing" the Obama Presidency is really too extreme for most people and to the extent that Tea Party candidates were elected, it worked mostly in the House and in districts that were already fairly conservative and anti-Obama to begin with.

[CBHagman]

14. I've seldom heard that mentioned...

...that is, this particular point:

...to the extent that Tea Party candidates were elected, it worked mostly in the House and in districts that were already fairly conservative and anti-Obama to begin with.

The media made a tremendous fuss about Christine O'Donnell, but if Mike Castle had been the candidate, you would have been able to hear the crickets chirping. Yet it likely would have been a truly competitive race!

[okieinpain]

16. thank you. that's what I keep thinking. repugs are the ones who

should be worried about 2012 not the dems.

[CBHagman]

17. I hope you're right, and in the meantime...

...I want to see some MAJOR recruiting, some candidates who can absolutely hit one out of the park, and of course on-the-ground work in all the districts.

I'm in a safe Democratic district myself but did some swing state work volunteering in 2004 (which doesn't feel as long ago as it is...).:-(

[okieinpain]

18. the reason I think that way is because no one has shown me where

their was a large turnout during the midterms. most of the turnouts were below average, they were in oklahoma and I bet they were everywhere else. so much for the tea party bringing in large turnouts.

[CBHagman]

19. Then there were the close races.

The Pennsylvania Senate race, for instance. And turnout is famously poor at midterms.

Polls suggest that the tea party faction is still quite the minority, but the media has given them lavish attention, I suppose because they're loud and angry and provocative. Besides, the media wants a narrative theme, and voter anger is something they can latch on to.

[okieinpain]

23. that appears to be true. everytime you turn around there's a repug

on tv.

[MadMaddie]

22. That's the lie isn't it

The mid-term was nothing but average. The leading party usually loses either the House or the Senate. However; in the past Faux was not there to lie to the people. The talking points. There is also the Gun Lobby, the Koch Brothers and their anti-American billions, Corporations etc....the Supreme Court......no wonder the simple minded are confused..

[okieinpain]

24. and it's really sad that they are simple minded. I might could

understand their anger if they actually made sense and could actually argue with truthful facts.

[Cleita]

2. Of course they do. I hope they don't find a reason

to get him out of office like they did to Governor Grey Davis in California to replace him with a puppet more to their liking, like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Darryl Issa was behind Davis's fall. Darryl Issa has said he's going after Obama. I frankly am very concerned about this.

[CBHagman]

5. The rules of the road are different here.

You have a presidential election in 2012, not a California-style recall movement.

Republicans could try to impeach Obama, as they did to Clinton, but remember that even with control of both the House and the Senate, the GOP couldn't convict Clinton.

The Dems control the Senate in the 112th Congress.

As for Issa and his plans, have a look-see at this profile from The New Yorker. The man has a few skeletons in his own closet.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/24/110124fa_fact_lizza

[Cleita]

7. Oh you'd better believe he has a few skeletons not

to mention he should be investigated about the recall. It was not above board and anecdotal evidence out there suggests mucho cheating on the petitions. I wish a prosecutor or Atty Gen. would get those paid petition gatherers under oath to tell the truth about how those signatures were obtained.

[GSLevel9]

6. nah... 2012 Election is less than 2 years away.

there's NO WAY the Pubs would impeach. They will investigate for POLITICAL VALUE sake. They want a bag of crap to hang around Obama's neck in 2012.

[MadMaddie]

26. If they attempt to do that it will boomerang right back at Junior

and his henchman. President Obama inherited the mistakes that started with Junior....any investigation will open a can of worms that won't be closed. Issa is a fool.....

[quaker bill]

10. precisely

There is little evidence that they harbor any other thoughts, about pretty much anything.

[Honeycombe8]

11. Some Tea Partiers have said or implied they'll use 2nd Am Rights to take the country...

if they don't get their way. It couldn't be clearer than that. I'm sure they're watching Egypt with interest.

[rucky]

12. I wanted to repeal the Bush presidency.

Then again, I didn't have to dig too deep to find good reasons.

[BklnDem75]

13. Besides birthers?

They're trying to go the extra step beyond kicking Obama out of office. They're trying to erase him from the history books altogether.

[tledford]

20. Of course they do -- he's black, so he was never legitimately President anyway...

in their sad, confused, angry minds.

[JoePhilly]

21. No ... the want to repeal everythng since roughly 1830.

[CakeGrrl]

25. That's why they're not out-and-out slapping down the birthers.

You think they had it bad to impeach Clinton? IMAGINE how badly they want to de-legitimize this president.

And the more he accomplishes, the more they must hate it. Sick stuff.

[Irishonly]

27. I think if it hurts people, repubs are for it

If it helps then they are against it. Probably too simplistic but it sure seems that way.

[davidpdx]

28. I'm sure that was the secret code

for the kooky people with guns.