General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPresident Obama is destroying the Republican Party
The Republicans are helping, but the President's moves are keeping them locked into a destructive path. Republicans spend all their time trying to show how mean the President is to them, but most people see the President as bending over backward to compromise with them. It has to be really frustrating for Republicans. Their desperation is manifesting in embarrassing episodes like Benghazigate and the Hagel confirmation hearings.
Still, the fact that the President has Republicans against the ropes isn't sitting well with some people: anti-Obama forces, centrists and the media.
They focus their criticism almost entirely on the President and the Democratic Party.
by ProgressiveLiberal
For too long many have allowed the Right Wing Echo Chamber that includes Rush Limbaugh, the talking heads at Fox News, and others to lay the false foundation that the media was somehow a shill for President Obama and his administration. It is unlikely that the Obama administration ever thought that.
After all, this supposedly Liberal media was the media that allowed Republicans to almost sink the Affordable Care Act, by so misinforming the American citizens, that it almost went down in flames. This supposedly Liberal media allowed birthers to have the semblance of plausibility. This supposedly Liberal media provided a false equivalence to Republicans holding the entire country hostage to get their will because of the Presidents refusal of draconian cuts to the social safety net.
NBCs David Gregory throughout the Presidents administration have allowed John McCain, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and other Republicans to come on his show and make false assertions that went unchallenged. Paul Ryan was never challenged for his budget that provably ballooned the budget. Last week David Gregory had a few minutes of good journalism when he compared the ideology effected failure of Louisiana at all social and educational levels relative to Massachusetts. Of course his panel went back to corporatist shills that would have the president compromise the American social safety net.
In yet another slip of honesty, David Gregory said the following on NBCs Today on Friday.
Huffington Post
"The President does not particularly like the Washington press corps," Gregory said. "And I think that feeling is mutual in a lot of respects. And so there's not a great relationship between that Washington establishment and the President."
- more -
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/03/1191171/-NBC-David-Gregory-Admits-Washington-Press-Does-Not-Like-President-Obama-VIDEO
KRUGMAN: Centrist Pundits "Will Always Invent Some Reason Why Obama Just Isn't Doing It Right"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022453130
Krugman: Not With A Bang But With A Whimper
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022215606
Obituary (Hastert Rule)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022201871
Eugene Robinson: Obama, winning the argument
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022381931
love_katz
(2,608 posts)with sugar-honey on top?
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Trying to compromise is one thing, but to use the fallacious arguments that the GOP uses is another.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)fuck him. he's one reason I got rid of cable tv.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Moderate Democrats in primaries will suddenly have pools of potential new voters. Moderate Republicans and libertarians for example.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)between a centrist party and a center-left party.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Then why are they still calling most of the shots?"
...I don't think they are "calling most of the shots." I think they're squealing like pigs. They're loud, but that's about it.
It's all bluster and caving.
GOP challenges Chuck Hagel one last time
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022434621
LGBT People Will Receive First-Ever Domestic Violence Protections Under VAWA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022443504
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Chuck Hagel's confirmation and LGBT being protected under VAWA are hardly going to be the ruination of the Repug party.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Chuck Hagel's confirmation and LGBT being protected under VAWA are hardly going to be the ruination of the Repug party."
...examples of bluster and caving. Republicans are flailing.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Just because they are not getting their way 100% on everything, just because they are having internal struggles, does NOT mean Obama is destroying them. If he was destroying them, why are we having sequestration? Obama would have won THAT round if Repugs were going down, right? Instead Obama is trying to win their favor by offering them chained CPI.
Bottom line, there are a hell of a lot of Repugs in the House, of which they will be in charge for the next two years, not to mention having Reid roll over for them in the Senate.
Dream on, it beats facing up to the nightmare, but I don't think it's very productive in the long run.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Just because they are not getting their way 100% on everything, just because they are having internal struggles, does NOT mean Obama is destroying them. "
...not getting their way on anything. It's all bluster. I mean, you blew off the examples of them not getting their way, and now you say they are. Boehner doesn't have shit to show for his more than two years as Speaker.
Pelosi isn't speaker now, but Republicans were supposed to gain, not lose Senate seats in 2012. Remember when they were going to make Obama a one-termer: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022455098
Fact is that all Republicans have on their side is bluster and obstruction, not a damn thing else.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)saying that the President is destroying the Republican Party. You don't have to believe it.
theKed
(1,235 posts)of gerrymandered districts and state legislatures.
GoCubsGo
(32,139 posts)But unfortunately, you can't kill the undead.
Warpy
(111,745 posts)and the Nixon coalition of the rich plus the southern bigots is showing signs of deep cracks along predictably north-south lines over Hurricane Sandy relief.
These people were told to sit down and shut up and do as they were told at the 2012 RNC, resulting in the most dispirited convention I've ever seen. Since the "electable" guy the rich picked didn't get defeated, he got shellacked, the crazies are not going to be quite so obedient the next time. 2016 will be barely civil or it will be an outright brawl.
It will not be a convention that enthusiastically picks a winner.
Cha
(299,037 posts)because they're Water Toters for the Plutocracy as per their corporatemasters.
Notice how they liked that puppet decider bush.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 4, 2013, 01:38 AM - Edit history (1)
Just as Rome destroyed Greece
Or a macrophage destroys a pathogen.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)upi402
(16,854 posts)...and the law of unintended consequences rolls on.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,506 posts)Zax2me
(2,515 posts)Which is a good thing.
Assists in exposing the rogue fox-news types.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,506 posts)The coverage of him seems hardly complimentary and during his press conferences a lot of them persist in asking him a bunch of snarky questions. But then again, to be honest, I don't have cable and don't listen to many news broadcasts but it just seems like since he became POTUS, they finally got the balls to ask him the kind of questions and hold him accountable in ways that they seemed to have forgotten with Bush/Cheney- not to say the press shouldn't hold Presidents (all of them) accountable. It just seems like Dems are always held to a ridiculously high standard, esp. in terms of promoting unrequited "bipartisanship" with the Republicans. Seems like he is drawing out a lot of the obvious hacks, though, as you said.
Marr
(20,317 posts)why you'd praise it.
Yes, by moving so far to the right, the Democratic Party has forced the Republicans into the lunatic far-right.
I don't see how that helps anyone besides Democratic politicians, who can now court corporate dollars more easily. It certainly doesn't help me, or anyone interested in rational policies.
"Well, at least you're admitting what the party establishment is doing-- though I don't see why you'd praise it.
Yes, by moving so far to the right, the Democratic Party has forced the Republicans into the lunatic far-right."
...if that's the way you see it, who am I to argue? Still, that wasn't my point.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)that will put the GOP in a real pickle
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"wait til he approves Keystone that will put the GOP in a real pickle"
...destroying the GOP doesn't mean Democrats are perfect, and we can still hope that Keystone is rejected.
Here are the Senators pushing Kerry to approve the Keystone pipeline
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022451210
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)And further corporatizes our schools.
They will have to come up with something completely new!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Can't see how that's a win, honestly.
No, the Republican Party is not dying. It is merely dramatically "wounded," (while the Corporate Democrats carefully continue and protect the corporate/neocon agenda)..so that we continue to focus on "us" versus "them" and rally into our two teams for its inevitable resurgence.
The two parties, and the constant exciting battle between them, are essential for the one percent to continue doing what they are doing to all of us. They need to depend that, no matter which party is in power, we hate each other and are so threatened by each other that we will continue to rally in defense of everything our team does...even when the two teams are taking turns enacting the same predatory agenda.
Corporate and bank-cozy appointments, over and over again
Bailouts and settlements for corrupt banks (with personal pressure from Obama to attorneys general to approve them),
Refusal to prosecute even huge, egregious examples of bank fraud (i.e, HSBC)
NDAA to allow indefinite detention,
"Kill lists" and claiming of the right to assassinate even American citizens without trial
Maintaining Guantanamo Bay and the Patriot Act,
Expansion of wars into several new countries
A renewed public support for the concept of preemptive war
Drone campaigns in multiple countries with whom we are not at war
Proliferation of military drones in our skies
Federal targeting of Occupy for surveillance and militarized response to peaceful protesters
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for warrantless surveillance
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for strip searches for any arrestee
Increase of media consolidation into the hands of corporate giants
Internet-censoring and privacy-violating measures like ACTA and the new CISPA-like executive order
Support for corporate groping and naked scanning of Americans seeking to travel
A new, massive spy center for warrantless access to Americans' phone calls, emails, and internet use
Support of legislation to legalize such spying
Militarized police departments, through federal grants
Marijuana users and medical marijuana clinics under assault,
Skyrocketing of the budget for prisons.
Supporting a bipartisan vote in Congress to gut more financial regulations.
Passionate speeches and press conferences promoting austerity for Americans, while the
Bush tax cuts were extended for billionaires.
Support for the payroll tax holiday, tying SS to the general fund
Support for the vicious chained CPI cut in Social Security and benefits for the disabled
Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid offered up as bargaining chips in budget negotiations, with no mention of cutting corporate welfare or the military budget
Multiple new free trade agreements, including The Trans-Pacific, otherwise known as "NAFTA on steroids."
Growth of the power of lobbyists to prevent government regulation of corporations.
Support of drilling, pipelines, and selling off portions of the Gulf of Mexico
Expansion of military support into Mali
Corporate education policy including high stakes corporate testing and closures of public schools.
In every major policy area that interests the one percent (i.e., that can be translated into profits), this administration has fought aggressively for an agenda that would make George W. Bush proud.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"No, the Republican Party is not dying. It is merely dramatically 'wounded...'"
...sweet. I see your list, and raise you facts:
Capital Gains Tax Cuts By Far The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022407211
President Obama actually did something to address the inequality, raising taxes on the top one percent (higher than the Clinton rate with the health care tax included) and increasing capital gains to its highest level since the mid 90s. The total effect is significant.
Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to create bottom-up economic growth and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits fully refundable, so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/opinion/kurgman-battles-of-the-budget.html
That also doesn't take the additional health care tax into account.
Krugman: Obama and Redistribution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022224304
Obama's Deal From a poor Person's Perspective
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022111266
The deal was a coup because it extended benefits and aid to low-income and unemployed Americans with no spending cuts, and it neutered Republicans.
Not With A Bang But With A Whimper
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022215606
Still, remember that while Republicans are whining, the President has already cut $2.5 trillion over the next decade.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a graph:
The vertical axis measures the projected ratio of federal debt to GDP. The blue line at the top represents the projected path of that ratio as of early 2011 that is, before recent agreements on spending cuts and tax increases. This projection showed a rising path for debt as far as the eye could see.
And just about all budget discussion in Washington and the news media is laid out as if that were still the case. But a lot has happened since then. The orange line shows the effects of those spending cuts and tax hikes: As long as the economy recovers, which is an assumption built into all these projections, the debt ratio will more or less stabilize soon.
CBPP goes on to advocate another $1.4 trillion in revenue and/or spending cuts, which would bring the debt ratio at the end of the decade back down to around its current level. But the larger message here is surely that for the next decade, the debt outlook actually doesnt look all that bad.
<...>
So you heard it here first: while you werent looking, and the deficit scolds were doing their scolding, the deficit problem (such as it was) was being mostly solved. Can we now start talking about unemployment?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/the-mostly-solved-deficit-problem/
For the record, last year, over President Obama's first four years, the deficit shrunk by about $300 billion. This year, the deficit is projected to be about $600 billion smaller than when the president took office. We are, in reality, currently seeing the fastest deficit reduction in several generations.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/22/17056939-a-well-kept-fiscal-secret
Then there are the health care savings.
By Jeff Spross
Medicare will spend $511 billion less between now and 2020 than was predicted two and a half years ago, according to the latest number crunching by the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities. More importantly, this drop occurred completely separate from any changes in government policy rather, it resulted from an overall slowdown in the growth of health care costs.
The last time the Congress and the President actually altered Medicare policy in order to bring down the programs spending was when they passed health reform in March of 2010. By comparing the Congressional Budget Offices projections from August of that year with their projections from earlier this month, and by leaving out the the SGR cuts and the Medicare cuts in sequestration, the CBPP was able to isolate how much Medicares spending is anticipated to drop due purely to changes in the health care markets. And the drop is considerably larger than the proactive cuts in Medicare spending the Simpson-Bowles plan was calling for back in December of 2010:
According to the CBO itself, its projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending between now and 2022 dropped 3.5 percent since its previous projection in August of 2012.
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/21/1623151/medicare-spending-drops/
This helps:
Medicare Fraud: HHS announces record-breaking $4.2 Billion recovered in FY 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022354924
The President's policies also prove that savings do not have to come at the expense of appropriate spending and benefits. The health care law not only expanded benefits for seniors, it's reversing the damage done by Bush, and it strengthened Medicare.
Medicare Improvements
The ACA contains several important improvements to the Medicare program, many of which are already helping seniors today.
1) Closing the donut hole
a. Medicare Part D covers the cost of medications up to a certain point. Between that point, and a catastrophic coverage threshold, the older adult must pay out of pocket for medication (this gap in coverage is often called the Part D donut hole). One in four beneficiaries fall in this gap, and end up paying an average of $3,610 out of pocket on drug expenses.
b. The ACA requires drug manufacturers to reduce prices for Medicare enrollees in the donut hole. Beginning in 2011, brand‐name drug manufacturers must provide a 50% discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for Part D enrollees in the donut hole. By 2013, Medicare will begin to provide an additional discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for enrollees in the donut hole. By 2020, Part D enrollees will be responsible for only 25% of donut hole drug costs.
c. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.
2) Improving seniors access to preventive medical services
a. Prior to the ACA, Medicare beneficiaries were required to pay a deductible and 20% copay for many preventive health services.
b. The ACA eliminated cost‐sharing for many preventive services and introduced an annual wellness visit for beneficiaries.
c. The ACA also eliminated cost‐sharing for screening services, like mammograms, Pap smears, bone mass measurements, depression screening, diabetes screening, HIV screening and obesity screenings.
d. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.
- more -
http://www.ncpssm.org/Portals/0/pdf/aca-analysis.pdf
Medicares financial condition is measured in several ways, including the solvency of the Part A Trust Fund, the annual growth in spending, and growth in spending on a per capita basis. Average annual growth in total Medicare spending is projected to be 6.6% between 2010 and 2019, but 3.5% on a per capita basis (assuming no reduction in physician fees).
The Part A Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2024 eight years longer than in the absence of the health reform lawat which point Medicare would not have sufficient funds to pay full benefits, even though revenue flows into the Trust Fund each year. Part A Trust Fund solvency is affected by growth in the economy, which directly affects revenue from payroll tax contributions, and by demographic trends: an increasing number of beneficiaries, especially between 2010 and 2030 when the baby boom generation reaches Medicare eligibility age, and a declining ratio of workers per beneficiary making payroll contributions (Figure 4).
http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-06.pdf
The law gets better as it nears full implementation in 2014.
New Federal Rule Requires Insurers to Offer Mental Health Coverage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022407451
Heres one way Obamacare changed today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251288922
Rules finalized for the good stuff in Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415967
Kathleen Sebelius: Holding Insurance Companies Accountable for High Premium Increases
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022417762
The health care law is still the biggest expansion of the safety net since Medicare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022159929
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Meanwhile, the record stands.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Might help you get over the spin you keep posting.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Obama taps Walmart Foundation head as budget chief
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014413867
There's a new one every day.
Wednesdays
(17,691 posts)Walmart Foundation? What, was everyone at the CATO Institute too busy?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)From your post:
"Internet-censoring and privacy-violating measures like ACTA and the new CISPA-like executive order "
Fact:
By Michelle Richardson
Last night the President signed an executive order (EO) aimed at ramping up the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure. Overwhelmingly, the EO focuses on privacy-neutral coordination between the government and the owners and operators of critical infrastructure (CI)such as the banking, communication, power, and transportation sectorswhich have long been regulated because of their fundamental role in the smooth operation of society. Now that these important entities are all connected to the internet, the administration insists that their cybersecurity be on par with their physical security.
There are two important information sharing advancements in the EO, and this time they are good for privacy. They do not include the many problems of legislation like the Cyber Intelligence and Sharing Protection Act (CISPA) because an executive order by definition cannot take away the privacy protections granted by current statutes. In other words, the EO cannot exempt companies from privacy statutes, or let the government collect new information. It can only act within its existing power to change policies and practices.
Two cheers for cybersecurity programs that can do something besides spy on Americans.
The first information sharing advancement greases the wheels of information from the government to the private sector. Section 4 lights a fire under agencies and directs them to share more information with companiesinformation they already have and can legally collect under current law. Information flowing in this direction is nowhere as near as problematic as the opposite direction. To the extent that corporate and congressional advocates claim that CISPA is needed for this purpose, the administration beat them to the punch. The EO directs the attorney general, the director of national intelligence and the secretary of homeland security to set up a system to get threat information to critical infrastructure owners and operators. They have four months to pull it together.
The second information sharing provision is a net positive for civil liberties. Section 5 directs the Department of Homeland Security, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) and the Office of Management and Budget to evaluate current interagency information sharing. There is plenty of cyber information floating around the executive branch and across different agencies. There doesn't appear to be any publicly available regulation of how that information is protected for privacy purposes, and it may very well be that it is protected by a mish-mash of originating statutes that treat different types of information with varying protections. By holding the agencies accountable to the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs)transparency, choice, minimization and morewe may see a government-wide cybersecurity privacy regime evolve. To get it done right, PCLOB will need to be funded and staffed up, and advocacy will be needed to keep the agencies true to the FIPPs, but the President has now declared them the bellwether for cybersecurity information.
Overall, the EO is a win for privacy and civil liberties. It's a good reminder that while some are focused like a laser on turning our internet records over to the National Security Agency, there are a lot of other things that government can do to advance cybersecurity instead. Now it's up to all of us to make sure Congress follows the President's lead.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/president-obama-shows-no-cispa-invasion-privacy-needed
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Hockey puck!
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)They're still getting all that they want. They have the house with increasingly crazed members and will gain seats next year and they'll probably get the senate as well. If this is destroying them I'd hate to see what losing to them is like.
The right gets more extreme, "our" party becomes more like Reagan's party every day and the people lose everything. Yay!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Right, and yet, somehow, we're getting austerity instead of stimulus. They're still getting all that they want. "
...fiscal deal extended the EITC and unemployment benefits. The current fight is ongoing, but again, Republicans are simply obstructing. That's all they've got. It's their entire game plan.
Good read, here:
Eugene Robinson: Obama, winning the argument
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022381931
Hekate
(91,555 posts)You're doing great in this rather contentious thread.
indivisibleman
(482 posts)Could it be that Obama's number one target is to destroy the Republican Party? It is the greatest threat to our Democratic Republic. So while the media focuses on all the drama Obama slowly day by day chips away at the one great GOP.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)And then Obama brought them back to life with bipartisanship.
"They were dead in 2008. And then Obama brought them back to life with bipartisanship."
...they were on the verge, and then 2010 happened. Elections have consequences.
We just came off a solid election, but it's important to not have a repeat of 2010 in 2014.
Skittles
(153,740 posts)you do know that inaction or poor action lead TO the poor election results, do you not? gawd
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"you do know that inaction or poor action lead TO the poor election results, do you not? gawd"
See Scott Walker and Rick Scott.
BTW, Obama won those two states. Voting works.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)lpbk2713
(42,836 posts)But if O wants to help them along I'm all for it.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)someone predicted the demise of the Republican party I'd be a rich rich woman. Nixon's resignation in 1974 -- Ronald Reagan 6 years later. There's too much gravy to be made by keeping both major political parties at each other's throats. It keeps the unwashed masses believing we still have a Democracy.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If I had a dollar for every time someone predicted the demise of the Republican party I'd be a rich rich woman. Nixon's resignation in 1974 -- Ronald Reagan 6 years later. There's too much gravy to be made by keeping both major political parties at each other's throats. It keeps the unwashed masses believing we still have a Democracy."
"If I had a dollar for every time someone" declared this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022453600
...I'd be rich too. The fact is extremism is tearing apart the Republican Party, and President Obama's ability to stay focused is keeping them boxed in.
The Democratic Party is stronger than ever. Oh, there will be those fanning the anti-Democratic flames, but they're mostly gunning for the President, and he isn't running again. He will however be using his coattails to strengthen the party. There will not be a repeat of 2010 in 2014...lessons learned and all.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)They can only vote up or down on things.
All this blame for sequestration and fiscal cliff is meaningless. Even if the GOP gets blame, Nate Silver still says the GOP will likely PICK UP seats in the Senate and hold the House in 2014.
People who think the GOP is going to implode are dreaming. It isn't going to happen. People thought that the Democrats were on the ropes too in 2004. The common enemy will hold the status quo.
Obama did not win a massive landslide. He won 51% of the vote against a shitty candidate....possibly one of the worst candidates we have ever seen in modern times. The United States is a politically divided nation. And that's not going to change any time soon. I understand we are excited that women and hispanics are voting for Democrats in large numbers. But that can change. The GOP is in a civil war that the extremists will eventually lose. It is inevitable. The old, rich, religious-right, white guys are a dying breed and are losing influence. They can't even get their man nominated anymore. The future GOP will be more moderate and more libertarian. More than half of Republicans under age 45 voted for Ron Paul. More than 2/3rds of Republicans over age 65 voted for either Gingrich or Santorum. In a decade or so, political animals like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock will be extinct.
History proves the political winds can shift rapidly in this country. Just be aware of that.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Boxed in for what? The GOP controlls only 1/3rd of the government. They can only vote up or down on things."
...at least you admit that they're powerless.
"Obama did not win a massive landslide. He won 51% of the vote against a shitty candidate....possibly one of the worst candidates we have ever seen in modern times."
I didn't say "massive" (as in 2008), I said he won by a landslide. If you need a reality check: 332 to 206 electoral votes is a landslide, and so is this:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/04/16348268-obama-agenda-first-since-ike-to-win-51-back-to-back
"The GOP is in a civil war that the extremists will eventually lose. It is inevitable. The old, rich, religious-right, white guys are a dying breed and are losing influence. They can't even get their man nominated anymore. The future GOP will be more moderate and more libertarian. More than half of Republicans under age 45 voted for Ron Paul. More than 2/3rds of Republicans over age 65 voted for either Gingrich or Santorum. In a decade or so, political animals like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock will be extinct. "
It appears you agree they're being destroyed.
riqster
(13,986 posts)"Sir, while you have the Reeps on the ropes, it would please me to no end if you'd kick their wedding tackle in. Repeatedly. Thank you in advance."
Gobama!
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Sorry but IMO Obama can't hold a candle to Shrub when it comes to destroying the GOP.
discharge
(41 posts)I knew some clown would post something like this. People are going to suffer horribly and you're worried about defending Obama's reputation. You're a double talking used-car salesman. Bullshit and more bullshit.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)They are like Saddam at the end of Gulf War #1.
Their end is approaching, and they know it.
So they are torching the oil fields. Metaphorically speaking.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)The Republicans are as strong as they have ever been. They are blocking everything that Obama puts forward and they run most of the state governments.
And, the winds change quickly in politics. It's about 50/50 that we have a Republican President in less than four years.