Barack Obama

The GOP will do anything to defeat Obama.

Ever wonder why the Republicans have spent the last four years doing everything they can to handicap President Obama, even at the risk of throwing us into a full-scale Depression, as when the ultra-right Republicans did their best to sabotage compromises that were needed to save the country from bankruptcy? It isn’t just cause they want to win an election. It’s because that whole Tea Party-Republican alliance is threatened.

Gene Lyons writes a column for the Arkansas Times, which occasionally gets picked up by one of the Chicago papers. Listen to the story of a longtime Republican Congressional aide, Mike Lofgren, who recently quit his job, as Lyons told it in a recent column:

In his farewell message, Lofgren explained, “The Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult,” and added, “For Obama to succeed where Bush had failed had the power to reduce the GOP to a powerless bloc of neo-Conservative whiners for a generation. So Obama had to fail at all costs.”

9 Comments

  1. Shakatany says:

    If they win we’ll be ruled by an idiocracy espousing Rommunism – that is taking from the poor to give to the rich. I don’t see how any sane intelligent person can vote for them particularly women as they truly seem to be targeting us, wanting us to be housebound, barefoot and pregnant. Hasn’t anyone told them this is no longer the 1950s but the 21st century?

  2. H. E. Parmer says:

    The thing which continues to amaze me is that anyone — and I especially include candidate Obama — expected the Republicans to behave one whit differently. Well before Obama took the oath of office, even a distant bystander like me knew they’d be dusting off their Clinton-era “Rule or Ruin” playbook.

    Like the scorpion in the fable, they just can’t help themselves: It’s their nature. The fact that they lost to a dusky-hued individual with a name only a single consonant removed from that of America’s Greatest Boogeyman at the time just cranked the crazy to 11. Is there really all that much difference between the militias of the 90s and the Tea Partiers, except that the latter like to play dress-up in even sillier costumes and are more likely to be sporting a hip replacement or two, thanks to Medicare?

    This time around, though, they’re better funded. The Noise Machine that keeps them in a perpetual paranoid froth is louder, more facile and diversified. Times are harder; people are looking for scapegoats, so naturally the party whose electoral clout comes mainly from the putrifying remnants of the old Confederacy goes after the usual suspects.

    Plus after two terms of Dubya, their should-be opponents — the hapless Democrats — are just that much more spineless and deeply compromised, if not actively complicit, in the disasters of the last decade.

    I agree that “apocalyptic cult” perfectly captures the essence of the modern Republican, but what does that imply then about the utility of compromising with them? If the GOP want to destroy Social Security and Medicare, then — what? — you agree to half-destroy them?

    As for the budget games which strangely seem to coincide with the election of a Democratic president, the last time we attempted to placate the deficit hawks, as soon as they had the reins again they racked up another four-or-five trillion in debt. Did we hear one single peep then about the impending bankruptcy of the country? Remember “Deficits don’t matter”? This is nothing less than a sick game whose ultimate objective is to turn us into a super-sized banana republic.

    These people don’t need to be compromised with, they need to be utterly discredited. Along, it should be said, with Third Way Democrats, whose core belief is apparently that the 99% have it way too cushy in this country.

  3. Nate Whilk says:

    Apocalyptic? Can you say global warming? Peak oil? And correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t there massive protests during all 8 years of Bush? They weren’t trying to make HIM fail at all costs? And weren’t those protests just a teensy bit bigger and offensive than anything the TEA Party has done? And for some reason, even though Obama hasn’t closed Gitmo, there have been NO protests from the left.

    It’s easy to prove something if you don’t consider any contrary evidence.

  4. Howard Brazee says:

    I wonder about trade offs between short term and long term. If the world economy stays the way it is (which has virtually nothing to do with the American president) – would the voters blame the administration’s party? Would they be smart enough to figure policies that they want changed are Congressional, not administrative?

    Would we be willing to make things worse in the short run, allowing the *other* party to get the blame and hang itself?

  5. Robert Nowall says:

    Since Democrats have long seen “compromise” as meaning “doing what Democrats want,” and since a new group of Republicans has come in that will not see compromise as having that meaning, it’s up to the Democrats to bend.

    Obama hasn’t failed because the Republicans opposed him—he failed on his own.

  6. H. E. Parmer says:

    Democrats have long seen “compromise” as meaning “doing what Democrats want,”

    Yes, we all remember how the Democrats steamrollered welfare “reform”, NAFTA and financial deregulation through Congress over the objections of the poor, helpless Republicans. How under Bush II Republican priorities were constantly thwarted: No Democrats voted for tax breaks, or giveaways to Big Pharma aka Medicare Part D, or No Child Left Behind, or the PATRIOT Act or Homeland Security (I still think it sounds better in the original German).

    And just look at how those intransigent jerks have been abusing the filibuster lately to block any bill that can’t scrape up a 60-vote majority! They’ve invoked that anti-majoritarian rule a record number of times in the last few years.

    Oh, wait …

    It’s also been an especially bad week, in an especially bad summer, for folks like Nate, so we should cut him some slack. I mean, having one of your primary denialist heroes look at the effin’ data for three years and completely reverse himself has just got to leave a welt. I also suspect there are a fair number of farmers all over the Midwest right now who might have a slight difference of opinion with you concerning the kooky cultishness of global warming.

  7. donn says:

    Republicans are trying to save us from going over a cliff. 40 Plus months of over 8% unemployment. Complete mis-direction of attention to real problems during his term. Tax the Rich? You could confiscate the money of the “Rich” and it would make hardly a dent. yet we argue about it forever. We don’t have a tax problem we have a spending problem. healthcare? why doesn’t the government running 1/7 of the economy by power hungry bureaucrats scare more people? I could go on, but the left is uninterested in facts. They call looking at facts hate speech and call you intolerant and ascribe all sorts of nefarious motives. There used to be democrats you could discuss ideas with. Now it seems you can’t ask a question without being called a name instead of some thoughtful response.

  8. John Armstrong says:

    Robert – can you give us a couple of those instances where the republicans proposed compromise?

  9. Robert Nowall says:

    Sure…while the Republicans were in the middle of crafting their compromise position on the DREAM Act and illegal immigration, Obama discarded debate (and law) by issuing an executive order.

    It should be pointed out, too, that many of the new crop of Republicans coming in have come to the conclusion that their predecessors have compromised *enough.*