Will the Republicans continue to obstruct, or will they actually work with the president this time around?

[zoony]

Although, neither Clinton nor Reagan faced such unanimous, lockstep, opposition.

I think it's because both were masters at dealing with congress thru the American people. Obama has tried to do it behind closed doors

[Larry]

I think it's because both were masters at dealing with congress thru the American people. Obama has tried to do it behind closed doors

I do think that's part of it.

Clinton and Reagan, when they didn't get what they wanted, were willing to "Go over Congress' head", by going to the people.

Although, I'll observe, Obama has done that. He's done a lot of appealing to the People, during his term. His appeals don't work. But he's done them.

This may be a reflection of poor leadership. Or it could be a reflection of 48% of the country viewing him as some alien, un-American, "other".

[Hubbs]

Yep it looks like we will continue to see a "pro-growth GOP" (low taxes for rich people) trying hard to fight against the success-punishing Democrats.

One day, the Republican Party will regret its embrace of trickle-down economics.

That day is probably not going to be next Tuesday. In fact, I'm pretty sure all of the coming week can be ruled out.

One day, though. A long time from now.

[visionary]

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/08/15029606-boehner-obamacare-is-the-law-of-the-land?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

Boehner: 'Obamacare is the law of the land'

Republicans' efforts to undo President Barack Obama's health care reform law appear to have come to an end, as House Speaker John Boehner described it Thursday as the "law of the land."

In an interview with ABC News, the nation's top elected Republican seemed to indicate that Congress wouldn't engage in the type of repeated repeal votes the way it had in the past two years. Boehner's office provided a transcript of the exchange:

[thebluefood]

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/08/15029606-boehner-obamacare-is-the-law-of-the-land?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

The firebrands aren't gonna like this.

[alexey]

One day, the Republican Party will regret its embrace of trickle-down economics.

That day is probably not going to be next Tuesday. In fact, I'm pretty sure all of the coming week can be ruled out.

One day, though. A long time from now.

Maybe it will happen sooner rather than later. There are always new people looking for opportunities. A good small government environmentalist could change things around

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 11:09 PM ----------

Hopefully Boehner is interested in getting things done. It is a good time for GOP to leave the 20% behind and work out solutions in the middle.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/09/usa-healthcare-boehner-idUSL1E8M90GI20121109

Top Republican lawmaker: 'Obamacare is law of the land'

Nov 8 (Reuters) - Top Republican lawmaker John Boehner said on Thursday he would not make it his mission to repeal the Obama administration's healthcare reform law following the re-election of President Barack Obama.

"The election changes that," Boehner, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, told ABC news anchor Diane Sawyer when asked if repealing the law was "still your mission."

"It's pretty clear that the president was re-elected ," B oehner added. "Obamacare is the law of the land."

...

[DogofWar1]

Boehner's recent interview gives me hope that he's willing to work with the President. He didn't outright say it, but he sort of intimated that he's open to the idea of working with Obama, and maybe even to *GASP* certain tax increases *LE GASP*. Prior to the election, that would have never happened. The fact that they lost I think has made it sink in that there is, at least for the near future, a new status quo, and they are better off working within the confines of that than fighting to the man.

The problem is, Boehner has to convince the rest of the party to be reasonable with him. Odds are that will go one of three ways.

1. Boehner is swiftly removed from power and branded a traitor.

2. The Republican party splits into moderate Republicans siding with Boehner willing to work with Obama, and hard-liners who refuse to.

3. The Republican party starts negotiating in earnest and good faith with the administration, and we start seeing serious results.

Call me cynical, but I don't think 3 is particularly likely.

And this is, of course, assuming he doesn't back off his comments and go hard-liner himself again. That's always a possibility.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Dang alexey beat me to it (reuters report)

Boehner says one thing and then moments later a staffer walks it back. Frustrating.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I think we're going off the cliff. I don't think even if Boehner wanted he could get tax rate increases through the house, and I am pretty sure that even getting rid of deductions (as Boehner is still claiming he would go for) would violate the Norquist pledge. I don't think Boehner could even get HIS plan through the house. So, it looks like we are going over the cliff.

Which all means that a week after New Years, the Senate will pass tax cuts to the middle class without any spending cuts.

Does anyone have an idea as to what will actually happen if we go off the cliff for a week or so? I'm thinking I'm gonna save my money to start buying any and all stock on January 1 as the market tanks for a week or so.

[alexey]

Dang alexey beat me to it (reuters report)

Boehner says one thing and then moments later a staffer walks it back. Frustrating.

I do not know much about Boehner and about whether he prioritizes getting things done or ideological purity...

If we do the wishful thinking thing and presume that he is interested in cooperating with moderates to get something done, then we could view his recent actions as preparing the ground for that.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I do not know much about Boehner and about whether he prioritizes getting things done or ideological purity...

If we do the wishful thinking thing and presume that he is interested in cooperating with moderates to get something done, then we could view his recent actions as preparing the ground for that.

Agreed, but the last four years has in my opinion not shown a stable enough track reocord in order to justify much hope in that direction. Maybe knowing he has to deal with a four year (non campaigning) President will change the way he works, after all the GOP's stated job of the last four years was to deny Obama a second term, now that thye've failed to do that maybe they'll accept the reality that they need to work with him, lest the GOP risk another voter backlash in four years due to their obstructionism.

[Larry]

I do not know much about Boehner and about whether he prioritizes getting things done or ideological purity...

If we do the wishful thinking thing and presume that he is interested in cooperating with moderates to get something done, then we could view his recent actions as preparing the ground for that.

Well, it's really hard to try to come to any conclusions, based on the carefully chosen code phrases being used. What's going on, now, is carefully scripted theater, for public consumption.

I think we can look at what's happened with previous negotiations, because then we're looking at results, rather than staging.

If the Republicans want to get a deal done, if they want one that includes some small tax increases, there are ways to get it done. They'll go into a Party huddle, and they'll decide that well, we need to find 15 (or however many) people who are willing to volunteer to take the heat for this. They'll use various ways of picking who those people will be. Maybe they'll pick people who are in really safe seats. The folks who lost reelection, but who still have a vote for a few more weeks, are immune to voter retaliation.

And, in either case, whether they were willing to negotiate, or not, the public rhetoric would be the same.

[Larry]

Agreed, but the last four years has in my opinion not shown a stable enough track reocord in order to justify much hope in that direction. Maybe knowing he has to deal with a four year (non campaigning) President will change the way he works, after all the GOP's stated job of the last four years was to deny Obama a second term, now that thye've failed to do that maybe they'll accept the reality that they need to work with him, lest the GOP risk another voter backlash in four years due to their obstructionism.

Problem with you optimism is the words "another voter backlash".

I don't think the Republicans think they've been punished. Certainly I don't think still-Speaker Boehner does.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I know one area Republicans will NOT obstruct, and will continue to work with the administration

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/11/counterterrorism-legal-policy-in-obamas-second-term/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Counterterrorism Legal Policy in Obama’s Second Term

By Jack Goldsmith

Friday, November 9, 2012 at 8:31 AM

One important consequence of President Obama’s re-election will be the further entrenchment, and legitimation, of the basic counterterrorism policies that Obama continued, with tweaks, from the late Bush administration. We will have four more years of a Democratic president presiding over military detention without trial, military commission trials (at least for the 9/11 conspirators, if not for more), broad warrantless surveillance, drone strikes around the globe, and covert war more generally. These policies will of course be scrutinized by the many watchers of the presidency.

But they will receive less pushback than they would have received under a republican president. Not only does the public generally trust the former constitutional law professor and civil liberties champion more than a republican president to carry out these policies (this is the Nixon going to China phenomenon). But in addition, many on the left (in Congress and the NGO community, and perhaps the press) who might otherwise be uncomfortable with these policies will give President Obama a freer hand than they would a republican president. The paradoxical bottom line: aggressive counterterrorism policies will, as a general matter, become more entrenched as a result of Obama’s election, compared to a Romney presidency.

Click link for rest

[AsburySkinsFan]

Agreed Larry.

Today Ed Stetzer president of Lifeway Research (Southern Baptist and TOTALLY NOT a Liberal) posted this video on his blog and twitter today as a wake up call to the way Conservatives are viewed by the Left.

http://www.edstetzer.com/2012/11/rachel-maddows-comments-a-refl.html

Here is his blog entry.

Rachel Maddow (and much of the ideological left) think that conservatives (and, by what she included in her comments, evangelicals) "have to pop the factual bubble." I actually agree with parts of her comments, as I made clear yesterday in my post about not making a "conservative set of facts." For example, I wrote "I'm saddened that many Christians are being included in the groups that create their own facts." This week, more and people are noticing.

Of course, I recognize the usual suspects will likely forward this around and say I am promoting Rachel Maddow's worldview. This is not the case-- it is not a secret that we'd disagree on a bunch of things. However, it is time to face reality for some evangelicals-- making up your own set of facts is not helping. Being known for conspiracies is hurting. It's not everyone, perhaps it is not most, but it is just too many.

I'm crazy enough to think the polls were right, that President Obama was born in Hawaii and is not a Muslim, and... well... you get the point. It's unhelpful when Christians are the one holding up myths about biased polls, a forged birth certificate, a Muslim President.

The reason this is important is because these are the views (of us evangelicals) that are growing in prominence in our culture. Gullible or conspiracy-spreading Christians just do not help these perceptions. Instead, they feed the impression that evangelicals are just without willingness to face truth. If unchurched people think they must commit intellectual suicide to become Christians, it hinders the work of gospel proclamation and cultural engagement.

As such, this video is well worth your time.

Watch it.

Let it sink in.

Then perhaps consider what to do about it.

[Heisenberg]

I know one area Republicans will NOT obstruct, and will continue to work with the administration

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/11/counterterrorism-legal-policy-in-obamas-second-term/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Click link for rest

Sorry, I don't buy that for a second.

In fact, I think the thought of Congress receiving MORE pushback from Romney or any other GOP candidate to be completely laughable.

I'm not arguing that more pushback is needed, but I certainly don't believe for a second what this article is saying.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Sorry, I don't buy that for a second.

In fact, I think the thought of Congress receiving MORE pushback from Romney or any other GOP candidate to be completely laughable.

I'm not arguing that more pushback is needed, but I certainly don't believe for a second what this article is saying.

You misread it.

The point is Democrats and liberals would provide far MORE pushback to a Romney administration that has secret kill lists and is prosecuting whistleblowers at a record pace.

Since a Democrat is in office and doing the bombing and killing, you won't get the pushback on the administration from Democrats in Congress or the grassroots.

[Heisenberg]

You misread it.

The point is Democrats and liberals would provide far MORE pushback to a Romney administration that has secret kill lists and is prosecuting whistleblowers at a record pace.

Since a Democrat is in office and doing the bombing and killing, you won't get the pushback on the administration from Democrats in Congress or the grassroots.

Fair enough - my mistake for misreading it.

Still not sure I buy it. For better or worse, I'm afraid this has become the new strategy for dealing with suspected terrorists in the ME.

[Larry]

Sorry, I don't buy that for a second.

In fact, I think the thought of Congress receiving MORE pushback from Romney or any other GOP candidate to be completely laughable.

I'm not arguing that more pushback is needed, but I certainly don't believe for a second what this article is saying.

I think that the article is trying to claim that the public will complain less about Obama doing these things, than they would if Romney did them.

And (IMO) he's probably right on that score.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Fair enough - my mistake for misreading it.

Still not sure I buy it. For better or worse, I'm afraid this has become the new strategy for dealing with suspected terrorists in the ME.

It is for the worst and of course it has become the strategy for dealing with "suspected" terrorists in the middle east and that is because a President from the Democratic Party has cemented every single anti terror tool the Bush/Cheney administration wanted and in many cases (Drones) have gone further then Bush/Cheney ever did.

The next R administration will have free reign to do whatever it pleases with drones and Democrats will be unable to stop them because their guy is the one who cemented these policies.

Could you imagine the outcry if a Bush administration had a "secret kill list"

[visionary]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/politics/obama-fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Boehner, R-Ohio, signaled a willingness to deal on Friday but also maintained hard-line GOP opposition to any tax increase.

"Raising tax rates will slow down our ability to create the jobs everyone says they want," Boehner said at a news conference, noting that higher taxes on the wealthy will hit small business owners.

But he also said that "everything on the revenue side and on the spending side has to be looked at."

Boehner called on Obama to take the lead in offering a workable plan that Republicans can accept but stopped short of providing details, saying: "I don't want to limit the options available to me or limit the options that might be available to the White House."

Asked if tea party conservatives or others in his caucus might oppose an agreement they don't like, Boehner responded: "When the president and I have been able to come to an agreement, there has been no problem in getting it passed here in the House."

[Jumbo]

Could you imagine the outcry if a Bush administration had a "secret kill list"

I don't think you need a list as much if you just invade the countries of interest with your entire military. Then you can just kill whoever.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I don't think you need a list as much if you just invade the countries of interest with your military. Then you can just kill whoever.

Agree. Likewise with a list and drones, you don't need any invasion

Land war invasions are so 20th century now

[Jumbo]

Agree. Likewise with a list and drones, you don't need any invasion

Land war invasions are so 20th century now

I was going to put a smiley on the end of mine, too, but it just didn't feel right.

In truth, if I were to sum up to this day, two signature criticisms (emphasis for the glandular readers) of American foreign policy over the last few decades, no matter which party had the WH, it would be arrogance and ignorance---which are also, IMO, two fundamental components of the (mainly male) "American Personality" in many cases (and common in the message board population :evilg: :pfft:) .

I say this as a guy who is much more comfortable than many with hitting people, shooting people, and who thinks we got a lot of positives as a nation, and you really shouldn't **** with us.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Although, neither Clinton nor Reagan faced such unanimous, lockstep, opposition.

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 09:48 PM ----------

ABC: Boehner Exclusive: Raising Tax Rates 'Unacceptable' but Will Put New Revenue on Table

As predicted.

Not much more about what he means, by revenues that aren't taxes. But the article does cover other topics, like an assertion that Ron Paul has gained new prominence in the Party. Taxes aren't the entire interview.

You really think that Newt is not as bad as Boehner I actually think Newt was worse than Boehner? Bill Clinton was able to reach across the table and compromise with Newt unlike President Obama so far has done in this deal.