If Romney wins should the Dems be as obstructive towards him as the GOP is towards Obama?

[WI_DEM]

or are we bigger than that and would put America first? Of course, I think to obstruct much of what Romney wants to do is putting America first.

What do you think? Should dems pull the same tactics? would they?

[rfranklin]

1. They won't but they should...Romney will take this country further down than Bush did...

He wants the same policies only on steroids.

[Swede Atlanta]

2. YES.....

If we were dealing with a different Republican party I would say we should "turn the other cheek" and try to move toward bi-partisan solutions. But I don't believe that is possible anymore. The Republicans have poisoned the well.

So if the Rs take back the Senate, the Democrats need to filibuster even a vote on whether a fart smells bad. They must obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. Not because I like the idea of obstruction but because their plans to dismantle our country, rob the poor, further enrich the wealthy and pack the supreme court with Scalia robots is too fucking scary.

We must engage in all manner of defiance.

[gopiscrap]

49. I agree whole heartedly!!!

[FarLeftFist]

3. THIS GOP NEEDS TO BE OBSTRUCTED. I've never seen such Theocratic Corpo Fascists.

[lumpy]

4. If by some fluke or dirty deed BB eyes wins, it certainly should depend on what

kind of proposals he comes up with.

[brettdale]

5. Damn straight

Theyn should heckled, they should ask for birth certificates, they should fund mass protests outside the white house, they should vote down everything he does they should take any law to the supreme court, etc etc etc.

[DCKit]

47. Mitt Romney - anchor baby.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[Lawlbringer]

6. Should and will are two different animals.

Sadly, I think we'd just lay down like we did with Bush. I googled usage of filibuster by party but didn't get anything except rants and defenses. It feels like all they do is dig their heels in, but I need a number to wave in some right wing friends' faces.

I would absolutely love to see a Democratic congress completely cockblock (for lack of a better term) Romney at every step, even half as often as the Republicans have done to President Obama would be such a sweet fruit.


All in all, it really is a moot point. Obama's going to get reelected. I'm not even afraid to jinx it. It's fact.

[SoutherDem]

7. Our problem is every time we are in control

We act like we are still the minority party.

If we are not obstructive then America will be lost. Romney replacing a few SCOTUS justices, passing the Cantor give to the rich take from the poor budget, every rich person insurance plan will be the end of our society. I don't see much hope.

I for one hope 12/21/12 is real if Romney would be in office on 1/20/13. No Joke!

[pnwmom]

17. What if Romney proposed something like a Conservation Corps?

Putting people to work on environmental projects?

Would we have to obstruct that, just to keep him from accomplishing anything?

I don't think he will do that, but he could propose something that is actually good for people. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[SoutherDem]

22. I think we both know Romney won't do that because it won't help the rich.

But, if by some odd reason, maybe Joseph Smith appears to him or something, Romney did do something which would be good for America of course we should support it.
I pointed out what I think Romney would want to do and unless he surprised me completely stopping him would be protecting America.

But, I do think we are too willing to compromise while the Republicans won't compromise at all. I would love to put away the partisan attitude and move forward. I was taught compromise was about a 50/50 issue not a 99/1 issue. To me each time we compromise with the Republicans we get 1% they get 99%, then we act like we have gained so much and they act as if they gave so much.

[dionysus]

23. good theoretical question but you know a repuke wouldn't propose anything like that...

[rocktivity]

8. If the Repubs hold on to the house, they won't be allowed to

A Dem-controlled house couldn't stop Bush The Second, as I recall.


rocktivity

[Lionessa]

14. Couldn't or wouldn't. I think this goes back to Bluedogs, not a matter of weakness, but a matter

of infiltration. Nancy really gave it all she had. BlueDogs in the Senate and Obama just waylayed her but good. IIRC, though she passed a comprehensive public option style ACA with similar success on others just to have Obama and a handful of Senate Dems undermine her.

[dionysus]

24. that mean 'ol obama again.. waylaying poor nancy but good.....

[Lionessa]

27. Yep, better than Rmoney, but a DLC Blue Dog, catering to date to

big business and banksters.

[dionysus]

31. yes, yes of course. bless your little heart for trying so hard.

[Lionessa]

36. Idolize him all you want.

It's not something I want to see when I look into the mirror, though. I deal in reality. If you have some valid refutation, I'll consider it, as there is ample proof on this site. But if you're just annoyed because I don't drink the blue koolaid,.... sucks to be you.

[dionysus]

38. there we go with the tired old "idolize" crap again... why don't you throw out a "cult" or "messiah"

c'mon.... you know you want to.

[Lionessa]

39. You color yourself, my dear.

You come in and throw stupid on-liners with no real comment, no back up for the insinuation that I'm misrepresenting anything, and continue in the same fashion over and over.

Sucks to be you, exposing your apparently un-considered dedication to Obama. At least some of those whose dedication to Obama seems intense have a real education and consideration behind their support. I may disagree with their assessments, but at least they have something concrete to add to the discussion.

[dionysus]

40. oh, my dedication is so deep, i have obama bedsheets and matching underoos. you may now continue to

whine about how awful he is unabated. that nasty waylayer that he is.

[Lionessa]

42. Trust me,

dealing with the likes of your never slows me down. Hope you didn't think I was actually awaiting your approval to continue focusing on reality and commenting thereon.

[MrSlayer]

53. Too true.

The President, as much as he's better than the other side, is either the worst negotiator in the history of politics or he's as complicit in the corporate control of the country as any blue dog or republican.

I know people hate to hear it but it is one corporate party with two heads.

[Lionessa]

9. I think it would depend entirely on what each thing is. They should obstruct on some and not others

and I hope our side is smart enough recognize both this, and when it's called for, and when it's not. The worse obstructionists in Obama's first two years were Blue Dogs. And I don't think we need to show the same single-minded immaturity that they do. When we obstruct it needs to be because "it" is wrong for the average American, and don't obstruct when it isn't and doesn't step on civil rights. Now granted that probably means a lot of obstruction. Just calling for obstruction, or hoping for obstruction, without careful review of each bill, amendment, etc, seems as dysfunctional as they are.

[doc03]

10. The best way to beat the Rethugs is let them do whatever they want and they will

hang themselves. A perfect example of that was the last Bush administra tion. The problem is the American people have a short memory. After Bush I thought the Democrats would be in control for decades.

[Politicalboi]

11. IMO If we lose this time

The Dem party will be so weak and not have a say in ANYTHING. And with the Supreme Court in the balance, we are screwed.

[russspeakeasy]

18. If that happens, I'm going to copyright "SHUT IT DOWN"

[jaysunb]

12. He's not going to win...

next question.

[kentuck]

13. Only in the areas that Republicans love....

such as defense spending and taxcuts.

[meow2u3]

15. I say the Dems should retaliate. Question is, will they?

If the repukes want to obstruct Obama at every turn, two can play that game, only Democratic obstruction will be motivated by saving the country from certain theocratic totalitarianism.

Never mind taking a page out of the rethug playbook. Take the whole book and do exactly to Robbedme what the racist teanuts are doing to Obama. First rule of thumb: use Robbedme's Mormonism against him.

I'd go as far as using his Mormon faith against him by 1) charging him with abuse of office by trying to establish his religion as the official church of the United States; 2) signing executive orders replacing the Constitution of the United States with his word alone; 3) issuing a decree forcing women to marry or go to his corporate concentration camps; etc. The more visceral and lurid the accusation, the better.

In other words, if the tea party wants to act like escaped mental patients, two can play that game.

[Logical]

16. YYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[Raine]

19. They should but they never have before so they won't. nt

[magnifisense]

20. Absolutely!

Especially if obstructing Romney means preventing the end of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And if it means stopping the assault on our civil liberties.

[dogman]

21. They wont and the GOP know it.

In reality they can't unless they are ready to be labeled obstructionist, a term the M$M reserves for Democrats. This why rmoney says he can work with the Democrat Party.

[SteveG]

25. absodamnlutly! (nt)

nt

[Citizen Worker]

26. It won't happen because far too many dems agree with the cons. Just look at the voting in the house

and senate on the Reagan tax cuts, Bush tax cuts, repeal of Glass-Steagall, bankruptcy "reform," etc. Besides the dems are looking for lifetime jobs in congress and if they vote the "wrong" way their re-election coffers will run dry.

[LonePirate]

28. We won't be able to obstruct if the Rs control both houses of Congress

If they do, you can bet the Senate filibuster will be history. The Rs will not tolerate the sort of intransigence they have perpetrated.

[Liberal_in_LA]

29. don't talk about Romney winning.

[Shankapotomus]

30. More (nt)

[tritsofme]

32. Much of their agenda centers on spending and taxes

and would largely be eligible for reconciliation, which would require only 50+1 votes in the Senate for passage.

Just based on where their priorities are, it would be more difficult for Democrats to obstruct in the same manner we have seen from the GOP over the past four years.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

33. Obviously.

Because everything they try to do will be regressive.

[alphafemale]

34. The things Romney would try to do would be disasterous for generations of not just Americans...

...but for every living thing on the face of the earth.

[AJTheMan]

35. One step at a time. Let's get Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid back in leadership.

Even if it means electing Blue Dogs, that's better than a Republican who would put Boehner back in the Speakers office. If we had more Blue Dogs instead of Republicans, the whole Eric Holder thing would have never come up...because Nancy Pelosi would have been speaker.

[Lionessa]

43. I was going to agree with you, but not if it takes Blue Dogs like the ones that have held

ACA hostage till Repub ideals were inserted, public option removed, and similar. They were the problem in the first two years, it'd be foolish to think anything better would occur if we repeat the past.

[LynneSin]

37. Only if he's about to stiff anyone who makes less than $1mil a year

I mean Romney is president and he offers up legislation that would help create job and build up the middle class again, then I would be pissed if the Dems were obstructionists. Just because the GOP did it to Obama doesn't make it right.

[BlueCheese]

41. Honestly, I have no idea what Romney will do.

He's been through so many policy positions in his time who knows anymore who he is?

Is he the liberal Republican who challenged Ted Kennedy in 1994, or the moderate Republican who signed "Romneycare" as governor, or the self-contradictory mashup of new and old that he was during the primaries? I'd like to think if he's elected (which I doubt will happen), he'd be more comfortable being his real self, assuming that was the more centrist version.

Thought experiment: What would have happened if it had been President Romney, not President Obama, who suggested something like the ACA, which is essentially a 50-state version of Massachusetts' health plan? Would Democrats have worked with a Republican president on that? I wonder.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. Of course we should but we won't.

And we will be sternly lectured here every time our party bends its knee.

[Motown_Johnny]

45. Not on things like the highway bill or raising the debt ceiling

but on anything that is political they can suck it.

[Iris]

46. Hell to the yes.

[LWolf]

48. Answer: Regardless of party,

Congress should obstruct legislation and policy harmful to the people and nation, and support beneficial legislation and policy.

It shouldn't be about the person, or the party, but the issues.

Neither of the two major parties has the high ground.

[emilyg]

59. Good for you. Was

reading all the comments and I thought - don't we want what's best for the country. Why be vindictive?

[LWolf]

61. Keeping politics framed

in the "us" vs "them" mode means that none of them ever have to actually work for the good of all; they just have to keep "us" convinced that "they" are the enemy.

[emilyg]

63. I'm tired of

that. This year I switched from Dem to Indep. - will vote for the person - rather than party.

[LWolf]

64. Yes.

I didn't switch registration, but I've been voting that way for a long time now. If enough people did, we might see some of the changes we work for.

[GarroHorus]

50. They need to be even more obstructive.

The GOP made the rules.

If the Dems cannot play by them, they should die as a party.

[elleng]

51. Have to think about it.

We don't tend to do that stuff, and 'obstructing,' as we know, has MANY more victims than merely a POTUS.
We really want to get even with Congressional repugs, NOT with the entire populace.

[MrSlayer]

52. Yes. What's sauce for the goose.......…

But they won't do it. The pukes will do the common sense, traditionally bipartisan stimulus things they've been blocking and take all the credit. But they'll also do all the horrible things they've been threatening and the Dems won't stop it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. No! The Republicans in Congress have obstructed legislation that Republicans would normally support

I think they should support legisltion that they would normally support and block legislation that they would normally oppose. And do both with all the gusto they can muster.

[xfundy]

55. Only obstruct the reprehensible.

Should the democratic majority make them meet in the basement, as the repigs did to us? Only after showing the precedents the repigs created. Cut their microphones? Only after showing the precedent. Walk off? Only after showing the precedents set by the repigs.

They acted, as is their way, brutally, bullying, stifling, destroying. We ARE better than that. But the precedence they set should be held up, to show that dems are not as evil, stupid, and bullying as them. Treat them with due respect, but highlight and remind about their evil tactics.

Maybe I'm being milqetoast here, but turning their own tactics back on them would be just, but perceived as childish.

[TheKentuckian]

57. No, they should make the present seem like cake and ice cream.

Starting with getting off the toxic bipartisan shit that the old TeaPubliKlans are not obstructing like "free trade", the security state, corporate communism, and military adventures. All appointments had better be M O D E R A T E, particularly judges.

Sure if they want to lower the retirement age, increase food stamps, or even name shit after FDR then we can be "bipartisan" but in general they can go to hell and when they get there they can sit and fucking spin.

[mick063]

58. Not for hate of Romney

But, for the good of the country.


That is what separates us from them.

[Ship of Fools]

62. They should, but they should

make DAMNED sure that everyone is united on the REASON.
The reason should be clear, concise, and shouted all over the
lousy teevee, letters to editor, etc.

[Zoeisright]

60. Fuckin' A YES

[AsahinaKimi]

65. I hope WE NEVER EVER see that day but...

You can bet it will be difficult, and remember how Democratic Representatives were during the Bush Administration. The "OFF the TABLE" option, still disturbs me greatly.

[Spirochete]

66. Of course!

The impeachment proceedings begin the 21st of January.

[demwing]

67. Even should Romney lose

Dems should be obstructionists against the Republican agenda. Obama has already tried cooperation, and with this crowd, it fails.