What do right wingers think of Republicans putting their power above the nation's welfare?

Mitch McConnell [washingtonmonthly.com]

Quote : The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.... Our single biggest political goal is to give our nominee for president the maximum opportunity to be successful."

I thought their primary goal was creating jobs and reducing the deficit (spending).

Loaded question. It's not either/or. They consider getting rid of him an essential step in improving the nation's welfare.

Most Democrats have the same stated goal to remove Republicans from office. What else is new?

Is this any different than human nature? Do you ever put your own desires above the welfare of others in the world?

Nic- If you see any difference between the behavior of Democrats and Republicans with regard to attacking each other, then this is an interesting topic. In fact though, there is no difference.

Quote from 124nic8 : I thought their primary goal was creating jobs and reducing the deficit (spending).

How has job creation been in the private sector since Obama took office? How about the deficit? If you answer those honestly, there is your answer for the desire of him being a one term POTUS. He has two more years to reverse course and to create jobs and reduce the deficit. So far, he has failed miserably on both.

Quote from Libertarian : Loaded question. It's not either/or. They consider getting rid of him an essential step in improving the nation's welfare.

I agree with this. Though Republicans can't really cry "Where's the bipartisanship?", if there saying they have no intention of working with the president.

Politics involves the belief that ones own side, people, and ideas are better for the nation than the opposition.

Politics should also hold those that (a) either fail to solve problems or (b) fail to deliver on promises accountable.

Thats why things are changing. Those in power are not doing it for a majority of the electorate.

Change is coming because most don't agree with the power that these politicians have garnered.

McConnell was referring to the fact that our current President does not allow for progress of conservative agenda. Therefore, if conservative agenda is going to succeed, he needs to go...

Quote from Doctor_Wu : Politics involves the belief that ones own side, people, and ideas are better for the nation than the opposition.

But the idea being expressed by McConnell doesn't purport to show that their ideas are better than those of Obama and the Democrats. He specifically states that their goal is to use their power of majority, if they earn it, to win the Presidency in 2 years.

If this is supposed to be some kind of roundabout argument that they will win the Presidency by passing legislation in the next 2 years to prove their policies on jobs and the economy are superior to Obama's, why would he make the argument in such a combative and, frankly, childish way as this?

Furthermore, how can he expect to do anything in the realm of actually creating new law without the votes of the (likely Democratically-controlled) Senate or the President? The only way McConnell and his caucus can enact anything new (or repeal anything old) is with the votes/signature of at least one Democrat, (excepting the entirely unlikely 2/3 majority control of both the House and the Senate for a veto override).

Thus, to me, McConnell is saying here that, if Republicans gain control of the House, they're going to obstruct for the next 2 years and then claim everything was Obama's fault. Which is much like what they've done for the past 2 years, they'll just have more ability to do so if they are in the majority.

Quote from Doctor_Wu : Politics involves the belief that ones own side, people, and ideas are better for the nation than the opposition.

Another question here. If there was a bill brought forth by Obama and supported by the full Democratic caucus (a miracle in itself) that could somehow be proven, with 100% certainty, to be 'good for America' (either economically or in some other way), would McConnell's statement above not state in plain terms that he (and likely his caucus) would vote against it, because their primary goal is stopping Obama, not what is 'good for America'?

He is stating he is putting politics above all else. Those are his words. His goal is more power for his party first and foremost, and while that may coincide with (or could be argued to coincide with) what is good for America, they are not the same thing in all cases.

Quote from 124nic8 : What do right wingers think of Republicans putting their power above the nation's welfare?

56% of the U.S. population is right wingers???? That must have changed in the past two years then!

Poll finds 56 percent of likely voters want the president fired [usnews.com]

Quote from Hurricane : 56% of the U.S. population is right wingers???? That must have changed in the past two years then! Poll finds 56 percent of likely voters want the president fired [usnews.com]

Maybe they should try phrasing their headline a bit better.... 'fired' rarely means 'continue in one's current job for a period of 2 years'. I suppose a snappy headline is more important though....

Your comparison (and the poll) doesn't quite paint the whole picture though... if a raving lunatic was put up as the Republican party's nominee in 2012, far fewer people would vote to replace Obama with him. It's easy to claim that Obama shouldn't be re-elected when we don't know who might replace him.

Quote from rhoerus : But the idea being expressed by McConnell doesn't purport to show that their ideas are better than those of Obama and the Democrats. He specifically states that their goal is to use their power of majority, if they earn it, to win the Presidency in 2 years. If this is supposed to be some kind of roundabout argument that they will win the Presidency by passing legislation in the next 2 years to prove their policies on jobs and the economy are superior to Obama's, why would he make the argument in such a combative and, frankly, childish way as this? Furthermore, how can he expect to do anything in the realm of actually creating new law without the votes of the (likely Democratically-controlled) Senate or the President? The only way McConnell and his caucus can enact anything new (or repeal anything old) is with the votes/signature of at least one Democrat, (excepting the entirely unlikely 2/3 majority control of both the House and the Senate for a veto override). Thus, to me, McConnell is saying here that, if Republicans gain control of the House, they're going to obstruct for the next 2 years and then claim everything was Obama's fault. Which is much like what they've done for the past 2 years, they'll just have more ability to do so if they are in the majority.

Being able to block legislation - throwing a wrench in the gears - is nearly as effective as being able to override one entire branch. For example, they cannot *repeal* the healthcare law - they could bring it to a vote and even perhaps pass it to Barry (who would veto it), and that would mostly be a token measure, but they can certainly cut the legs out from under it, refuse to fund major portions of it, etc.

Quote from rhoerus : Maybe they should try phrasing their headline a bit better.... 'fired' rarely means 'continue in one's current job for a period of 2 years'. I suppose a snappy headline is more important though.... Your comparison (and the poll) doesn't quite paint the whole picture though... if a raving lunatic was put up as the Republican party's nominee in 2012, far fewer people would vote to replace Obama with him. It's easy to claim that Obama shouldn't be re-elected when we don't know who might replace him.

While true, "not-Bush" or even "not Republican" was one major reason why Barry was elected. He didn't have much of a record of doing anything. He was new (not some old guy) and not Republican; that was probably enough for the election right there.

Quote from Hurricane : 56% of the U.S. population is right wingers???? That must have changed in the past two years then! Poll finds 56 percent of likely voters want the president fired [usnews.com]

Where in the poll results does it state that 56% of respondents believe ensuring Obama is a one-term POTUS is the singular most important issue in American politics?

Quote from Dr. J : Being able to block legislation - throwing a wrench in the gears - is nearly as effective as being able to override one entire branch. For example, they cannot *repeal* the healthcare law - they could bring it to a vote and even perhaps pass it to Barry (who would veto it), and that would mostly be a token measure, but they can certainly cut the legs out from under it, refuse to fund major portions of it, etc.

... And then bitch and moan about the lack of Democratic "bipartisanship"...

... And round and round and round the circle we go...