List reasons why Obongo was the worst president ever and a racist?
lowest GDP in modern era, 4th worse GDP ever in american history; police violence against blacks rose very high under the 2nd term of racist obama, who also hated those of middle east decent as he bombed many of them, women, children, those who were not jihadists or insurgents..so sad many defend his racist ways
Were Democrats obstructionist during George W. Bush's presidency?
Not even a little.The GOP controlled the House of Representatives for the first 6 of Bush's 8 years in office. Under the rules of the House, things a pretty much straight forwardly democratic. The GOP controlled the house for 6 years and nothing anti-Bush ever saw the light of day.In the Senate, it was a little more nuanced. The GOP controlled that house most of the time Bush was in office, but they never had a 60-seat super-majority necessary to overcome a filibuster.But it really didn't matter. It wasn't until Obama took office and the Democrats controlled the Senate for his first two years in office did the GOP break with 200-odd years of tradition and filibuster literally everything. As the Democrats had a majority, but not 60-seats, they controlled all the committees, but it only takes a minority of Senators to require a bill to get 60 seats.As they never had 60 seats, absolutely nothing got done from the minute Obama took office.Before the Democrats lost control of the Senate, they used their majority to change the rules such that routine legislation would not be subject to filibuster (60 votes instead of simply 51). The GOP mocked them, saying they might come to regret surrendering that control, but it really hasn't mattered. Because they know anything reactionary the GOP passes would be vetoed by Obama and they don't have enough votes to override a veto, they have simply done nothing to avoid appearing ineffectual.So the Democrats haven't been obstructive in the Senate like the GOP did because the GOP constrained itself.
Why aren't the Democrats aggressive like Republicans?
I agree somewhat. They need to take the playbook of the Republicans and become just as low down and evil as they are. The Democrats in Congress must become the Obstructionists just like the Republicans did to President Obama. They must vote NO to everything, even if they don't have enough votes. And they must let their members know that should they vote with the Republicans on anything, they will get no funding--just like the GOP do their members.
How successful has the Obama administration been at depicting the Republicans as being obstructionist when it comes to making adjustments to the budget?
UPDATED ANSWERMy original position on the direct question was "Not very." As John DeMarchi has responsibly gone and pulled some actual polling data to substantiate his position, I will revise my reply to the stated question to, "Job approval data may suggest that the White House is effectively painting Republicans as obstructionist." (Being receptive to evidence and reasonable argument can be such work sometimes!)I however interpret the overall approval ratings differently. Here are some polls on public perception of the parties within Congress:Dems are 29/68 in the CNN poll. The rest of the results are comparable. http://www.pollingreport.com/con...GOP is 21/77 in the CNN poll. The rest of the results are comparable. http://www.pollingreport.com/con...Yes -- the GOP is worse off, but both parties are pretty bad. Also, here's an 11/22 report from Gallup on the failure of the Supercommittee:http://www.gallup.com/poll/15093...Most people are blaming EVERYONE.I don't think that poor Congressional approval ratings are reflective of a perception of Republican obstruction; I think they reflect a belief that the institution of Congress is broken.....and that's a fine place for me to pick up my original answer, because....I don't think that getting everyone to think of Republicans as obstructionist is what President Obama actually wants to do.Consider the three following grossly oversimplified political messages:Government must do the most good for the most people.Government must be effective.Government is a threat and must be stopped.By painting Republicans as obstructionist, he tells their supporters (who believe #3) that they are succeeding. He also tells his supporters and potential supporters (who are a mix of #2 and #1) that he is not able to be effective and that the US Federal Government isn't currently capable of doing any good for anyone.Tactically, the only angles that are valuable are the ones that increase his polling numbers and the polling numbers of Democratic candidates who might unseat Republicans in upcoming elections. Crying "obstruction" doesn't accomplish that.
Does anyone think that there will ever be another minority president after Obama'?
Most definitely. Win or lose, Obama has been a trailblazer. His first campaign was one of the smoothest run, most profitable in US political history. He has crashed barriers that we all once thought would never be broken down. It proves that our system works, our democracy works. Slowly but surely, we will look at candidates of color or with other qualities and make judgments for their credibility, character, talent and integrity. Washington, DC, the White House, and Congress will no longer be just a White Mans' Country Club. Obama was the first of those who will follow. Very soon, I feel as though women will reach the pinnacle of national power as well. In my view, it's about time.
Should Republican leadership risk losing the Senate by holding up a new justice or giving the court another liberal?
Why do you assume Republicans risk losing the Senate majority by delaying a confirmation? Aren't Republicans already viewed as unprecedented obstructionists by pretty much everyone?Macro-level observation: Republicans in Congress have been fighting against President Obama's policies for the entirety of his Administration, and have been especially effective at it since they won back the majority in the House. Democrats have railed against obstruction from Congressional Republicans since Speaker Boehner took the gavel in early 2011 - but ask yourself, how effective has that attack line been? Sure, Democrats kept the Presidency in 2012, but they couldn't win the House back. And they lost the Senate majority two years later! If labeling one's opponents as "obstructionist" was politically effective, don't you think Democrats would have done better at the ballot box in recent years, particularly given how much obstruction Republicans have thrown up? Democrats love to claim that this is the most obstructionist Congress in history, that Republicans have fought against President Obama's policies since before he even took office - but even if you assume all of that is true, why haven't the President and his Party benefitted more from pointing it out?One possibility: voters aren't quite as on board with the Democratic policies that are being obstructed as Democrats would have you believe!Moreover, I suspect that if the President nominates an avowed liberal, Republicans won't be penalized for voting down the nominee: they'd sound from the rooftops that the President would be trying to reshape the court, to push it left, and rally their base against the nominee! And that's precisely why the President won't nominate a strongly liberal judge. He'll choose someone reasonable-sounding, probably an appellate judge confirmed by a strong majority in the Senate, and ask why Republican Senators liked this judge a few years ago, but not now.Bottom line: it's not quite as simple as "confirm the nominee or lose the Senate." Not by a longshot.