All these elections mean is at least two more years of obstruction and probably more beyond that regardless of who wins the White House in 2016. As long as Obama has his Veto pen for the next two years and as long as the Dems hold enough Senate seats to be able to fillibuster I don't see much getting done even if the Republicans win back the White House. Then we will see if the Republicans are hypocrites when it comes to fillibusters to block legislation and Executive decisions to pass legislation.
All these elections mean is at least two more years of obstruction and probably more beyond that regardless of who wins the White House in 2016. As long as Obama has his Veto pen for the next two years and as long as the Dems hold enough Senate seats to be able to fillibuster I don't see much getting done even if the Republicans win back the White House. Then we will see if the Republicans are hypocrites when it comes to fillibusters to block legislation and Executive decisions to pass legislation.
__________________________________
The democrats do love the fillibuster.
They filibustered against the Civiil Rights Amedment.
They filibustered against the Voting Rights Amendmant.
Why should they do anything to help the American People?
It is not on their agenda.
I know you guys hate this site but its still interesting
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/07/obstruction-and-how-the-press-helped-punch-the/201494
Obstruction And How The Press Helped Punch The GOP's Midterm Ticket
Five Years Of Enabling Radical Gridlock
Blog ››› 27 minutes ago ››› ERIC BOEHLERT
In the days after the midterm elections, the New York Times has been a cornucopia of campaign commentary. Lots of attention is being paid to the issue of gridlock, which has defined Washington, D.C. since President Obama was first inaugurated.
Lamenting America's "broken politics," Times columnist Nicholas Kristof opted for the both-sides-are-to-blame model, suggesting that, "Critics are right that [Obama] should try harder to schmooze with legislators." Across from Kristof on the Times opinion page, Republican pollster Frank Luntz urged Obama to find a way to create "common-sense solutions" with his Republican counterparts. (This, despite the fact that Luntz in 2009 helped Republicans craft their trademark strategy of obstructing Obama at every turn.)
And the same day, while reviewing Chuck Todd's new book on Obama, which stressed that the president "wanted to soar above partisanship" though his two terms will likely "be remembered as a nadir of partisan relations," the Times book critic stressed Obama's "reluctance to reach out to Congress and members of both parties to engage in the sort of forceful horse trading (like Lyndon B. Johnson's) and dogged retail politics (like Bill Clinton's) that might have helped forge more legislative deals and build public consensus."
So after six years of radical, blanketed reticence from the GOP, we're still repeatedly reading in the New York Times that while Republicans have put up road blocks, if Obama would just try harder, Republicans might cooperate with him. You can almost hear the frustration seeping through the pages of the Times: 'What is wrong with this guy? Bipartisanship is so simple. Republicans say they want to work with the White House, so why doesn't Obama just do it?'
Indeed, cooperation is simple if you purposefully ignore reality--if you downplay the fact the Republican Party is acting in a way that defies all historic norms. If you adopt that fantasy version of Beltway politics today (i.e. the GOP is filled with honest brokers just waiting to work with the White House), then it's easy to dissect the problems, and it's easy to file both-sides-are-to-blame columns that urge bipartisan cooperation.
What's trickier, apparently, is speaking truth to power and accurately portraying what has happened to American politics and noting without equivocation that the sabotage that has occurred is designed to ensure the federal government doesn't function as designed, and that it cannot efficiently address the problems of the nation.
And this week, it all paid off for Republicans. "Obstruction has just been rewarded, in a huge way," wrote Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast.
Led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Republicans vowed in 2009 to oppose every political move Obama made, not matter how sweeping or how minor. "To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked," wrote Matthew Yglesias at Vox, in the wake of the midterm election results. New York's Jonathan Chait made a similar observation about McConnell: "His single strategic insight is that voters do not blame Congress for gridlock, they blame the president, and therefore reward the opposition."
But why? Why don't voters blame Congress for gridlock?
Why would the president, who's had virtually his entire agenda categorically obstructed, be blamed and not the politicians who purposefully plot the gridlock? Because the press has given Republicans a pass. For more than five years, too many Beltway pundits and reporters have treated the spectacular stalemate as if it were everyday politics; just more "partisan combat." It's not. It's extraordinary. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
Note the press complaint Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) logged four years ago. It was about how timid the news media were in covering Republican obstructionism. Her critique still applies today:
You guys don't write about [it], and this is what they do. I don't see it, and I take five newspapers. I don't see it on the tube, and I don't see it anywhere. It's obstruction. It's obfuscation. It's bringing the body to a halt and it's been done dozens of times. And this is one more of those times... and they haven't gotten much criticism for it clearly or they would have stopped it.
On paper, the GOP's desperate maneuver in 2009 looked risky: Just gum up the works of Congress and stand in the way of every proposal from the new president who was just swept into office with a public mandate for change? Wouldn't commentators clobber the GOP for blind partisanship and hollow obstruction?
Looking back though, there was very little risk involved. There was no element of chance because within days of Obama being sworn into office, the Beltway press sent out clarion call: If Republicans don't cooperate with the new, wildly popular president, it's the president's fault.
And that press judgment hasn't budged since 2009.
If you think I'm exaggerating about this phenomenon taking root within days of Obama's first term, just go back to the White House's January 23, 2009 press conference. That's when NBC's Chuck Todd asked the new president if he would veto his own party's stimulus bill if not enough Republicans voted in support of it.
Todd's weird query highlighted the unheard-of double standard constructed almost overnight by the press with regard to the pressing issue of bipartisanship: If there was little or no bipartisan support for Obama's stimulus package, then it was Obama's fault, his fault alone, and the bill itself must be a P.R. failure.
Sure, the legislation might help save the collapsing economy at the time. (Fact: It did.) But in terms of optics and how it looked, the emergency stimulus bill was a loser. Why? Republicans didn't like it. The party that had just been pushed out of office didn't support the bill, so the press declared it to be an Obama failure and a key Republican victory.
"Republicans find their voice," cheered Politico after the GOP snubbed Obama weeks into his first term. The Los Angeles Times reported in January 2009, "t was clear that [Obama's] efforts so far had not delivered the post-partisan era that he called for in his inauguration address." Meaning, nine days after being sworn in, Obama still hadn't ushered in a "post-partisan era."
Five years later the simple question remains: If Republicans emphatically do not want to cooperate in any meaningful way with Democrats, is there anything Obama can do to change that? Answer: No, not really. But according to the press, Obama is supposed to change that equation, or else he loses. He takes all of the blame.
That's how the game has been played since early 2009. And that's the dynamic Republicans just rode to midterm victory.
_____________________________________________
MediaMatters?
One of the political action groups financed by Obama’s biggest supporter George Soros, the French socialist billionaire?
Almost as sad as the job growth under obama’s failed economy.
Over 70% of the jobs obama claims he created are part time and or very low wage.Every liberal seems to be posting answers to the “Why” by cutting and pasting leftwing media.
Does any liberal have a clue as to why obama’s policies and reid and the democrats lost at every level of government Tuesday?
Because of people like you. You know, low info voters.
________________________________
Yea, everyone is stupid except the liberals who can't explain why they got their a$$'s kicked.
If you knew anything at all, you would know that the party in power always does poorly in midterm elections. Nobody seems surprised at that other than you. Everyone but you seems to understand that. You, being uneducated and low info, do not understand it.
But keep ranting. I am enjoying the hell out of that. 😛
If you actually believe that routine mid term results for the party in the White House explains this debacle you are really in deep deep denial.
Considering history backs his assertion I would say you are the one in denial.
In the last 80 years, since 1934, the party that had the Presidency has only gained seats 3 X in the House and 5X in the Senate so I would say there is nothing unusual in the GOP gaining this past election. As I have said numerous times turnover is cyclical. Don't believe me or think I am lying these are the facts not an opinion.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php
[Edited on 11/10/2014 by Bill_Graham]
________________________________________________
Your “analysis” of past elections matters not. It puts no money in the people’s pockets nor does it restore their civil rights.
Today is today and history while exactly that, is history, doesn’t help the average American who’s income has declined under obama and the democrats and the people are hurting more than they were six years ago.
We have less money in our pockets, less freedoms and are under the thumb of big government and its regulation of every aspect of a citizen’s life.
The policies of obama and the democrats were rejected by The American People on election day and will continue for at least the next two years as obama has no respect for the law not the peoples wishes.
The worst president in over 50 years will go down in history as a complete failure.
Actually it does as you and the other Conservatives seem to think you won some great victory when history shows turnover in Congress is cyclical.
The Middle classes income has been stagnant or in decline since the Regan Administration Mule so your blind hatred of Obama and blaming him for every ill known to man is illogical. One of the main reasons is the GOP giving it to the rich so blame them not Obama.
And considering Bush and the GOP are the ones who crafted the Patriot Act which eroded our freedoms I am curious what Obama has done to make this worse?
And Obama is far from the worst President of the last 50 years as Bush wins that title by a country mile.
Actually it does as you and the other Conservatives seem to think you won some great victory when history shows turnover in Congress is cyclical.
I'll tell you why. It depends on where you sit. After several years of hearing that the GOP
was comprised of racists and extremists, headed for extinction due to demographic shifts and
a sweeping leftward move of the country, we saw that might not be the case after all. Despite
the claims, I think we've seen that the Democrats don't exactly have the world on a string.
It wasn't only the House and Senate elections, but the governorships as well. The voters have
seen six years of Democratic governance and don't seem too impressed.
I know you guys hate this site but its still interesting
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/07/obstruction-and-how-the-press-helped-punch-the/201494
Obstruction And How The Press Helped Punch The GOP's Midterm Ticket
Five Years Of Enabling Radical Gridlock
Blog ››› 27 minutes ago ››› ERIC BOEHLERT
In the days after the midterm elections, the New York Times has been a cornucopia of campaign commentary. Lots of attention is being paid to the issue of gridlock, which has defined Washington, D.C. since President Obama was first inaugurated.
Lamenting America's "broken politics," Times columnist Nicholas Kristof opted for the both-sides-are-to-blame model, suggesting that, "Critics are right that [Obama] should try harder to schmooze with legislators." Across from Kristof on the Times opinion page, Republican pollster Frank Luntz urged Obama to find a way to create "common-sense solutions" with his Republican counterparts. (This, despite the fact that Luntz in 2009 helped Republicans craft their trademark strategy of obstructing Obama at every turn.)
And the same day, while reviewing Chuck Todd's new book on Obama, which stressed that the president "wanted to soar above partisanship" though his two terms will likely "be remembered as a nadir of partisan relations," the Times book critic stressed Obama's "reluctance to reach out to Congress and members of both parties to engage in the sort of forceful horse trading (like Lyndon B. Johnson's) and dogged retail politics (like Bill Clinton's) that might have helped forge more legislative deals and build public consensus."
So after six years of radical, blanketed reticence from the GOP, we're still repeatedly reading in the New York Times that while Republicans have put up road blocks, if Obama would just try harder, Republicans might cooperate with him. You can almost hear the frustration seeping through the pages of the Times: 'What is wrong with this guy? Bipartisanship is so simple. Republicans say they want to work with the White House, so why doesn't Obama just do it?'
Indeed, cooperation is simple if you purposefully ignore reality--if you downplay the fact the Republican Party is acting in a way that defies all historic norms. If you adopt that fantasy version of Beltway politics today (i.e. the GOP is filled with honest brokers just waiting to work with the White House), then it's easy to dissect the problems, and it's easy to file both-sides-are-to-blame columns that urge bipartisan cooperation.
What's trickier, apparently, is speaking truth to power and accurately portraying what has happened to American politics and noting without equivocation that the sabotage that has occurred is designed to ensure the federal government doesn't function as designed, and that it cannot efficiently address the problems of the nation.
And this week, it all paid off for Republicans. "Obstruction has just been rewarded, in a huge way," wrote Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast.
Led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Republicans vowed in 2009 to oppose every political move Obama made, not matter how sweeping or how minor. "To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked," wrote Matthew Yglesias at Vox, in the wake of the midterm election results. New York's Jonathan Chait made a similar observation about McConnell: "His single strategic insight is that voters do not blame Congress for gridlock, they blame the president, and therefore reward the opposition."
But why? Why don't voters blame Congress for gridlock?
Why would the president, who's had virtually his entire agenda categorically obstructed, be blamed and not the politicians who purposefully plot the gridlock? Because the press has given Republicans a pass. For more than five years, too many Beltway pundits and reporters have treated the spectacular stalemate as if it were everyday politics; just more "partisan combat." It's not. It's extraordinary. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
Note the press complaint Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) logged four years ago. It was about how timid the news media were in covering Republican obstructionism. Her critique still applies today:
You guys don't write about [it], and this is what they do. I don't see it, and I take five newspapers. I don't see it on the tube, and I don't see it anywhere. It's obstruction. It's obfuscation. It's bringing the body to a halt and it's been done dozens of times. And this is one more of those times... and they haven't gotten much criticism for it clearly or they would have stopped it.
On paper, the GOP's desperate maneuver in 2009 looked risky: Just gum up the works of Congress and stand in the way of every proposal from the new president who was just swept into office with a public mandate for change? Wouldn't commentators clobber the GOP for blind partisanship and hollow obstruction?
Looking back though, there was very little risk involved. There was no element of chance because within days of Obama being sworn into office, the Beltway press sent out clarion call: If Republicans don't cooperate with the new, wildly popular president, it's the president's fault.
And that press judgment hasn't budged since 2009.
If you think I'm exaggerating about this phenomenon taking root within days of Obama's first term, just go back to the White House's January 23, 2009 press conference. That's when NBC's Chuck Todd asked the new president if he would veto his own party's stimulus bill if not enough Republicans voted in support of it.
Todd's weird query highlighted the unheard-of double standard constructed almost overnight by the press with regard to the pressing issue of bipartisanship: If there was little or no bipartisan support for Obama's stimulus package, then it was Obama's fault, his fault alone, and the bill itself must be a P.R. failure.
Sure, the legislation might help save the collapsing economy at the time. (Fact: It did.) But in terms of optics and how it looked, the emergency stimulus bill was a loser. Why? Republicans didn't like it. The party that had just been pushed out of office didn't support the bill, so the press declared it to be an Obama failure and a key Republican victory.
"Republicans find their voice," cheered Politico after the GOP snubbed Obama weeks into his first term. The Los Angeles Times reported in January 2009, "t was clear that [Obama's] efforts so far had not delivered the post-partisan era that he called for in his inauguration address." Meaning, nine days after being sworn in, Obama still hadn't ushered in a "post-partisan era."
Five years later the simple question remains: If Republicans emphatically do not want to cooperate in any meaningful way with Democrats, is there anything Obama can do to change that? Answer: No, not really. But according to the press, Obama is supposed to change that equation, or else he loses. He takes all of the blame.
That's how the game has been played since early 2009. And that's the dynamic Republicans just rode to midterm victory.
_____________________________________________
MediaMatters?
One of the political action groups financed by Obama’s biggest supporter George Soros, the French socialist billionaire?
Almost as sad as the job growth under obama’s failed economy.
Over 70% of the jobs obama claims he created are part time and or very low wage.Every liberal seems to be posting answers to the “Why” by cutting and pasting leftwing media.
Does any liberal have a clue as to why obama’s policies and reid and the democrats lost at every level of government Tuesday?
Because of people like you. You know, low info voters.
________________________________
Yea, everyone is stupid except the liberals who can't explain why they got their a$$'s kicked.
If you knew anything at all, you would know that the party in power always does poorly in midterm elections. Nobody seems surprised at that other than you. Everyone but you seems to understand that. You, being uneducated and low info, do not understand it.
But keep ranting. I am enjoying the hell out of that. 😛
If you actually believe that routine mid term results for the party in the White House explains this debacle you are really in deep deep denial.
Considering history backs his assertion I would say you are the one in denial.
In the last 80 years, since 1934, the party that had the Presidency has only gained seats 3 X in the House and 5X in the Senate so I would say there is nothing unusual in the GOP gaining this past election. As I have said numerous times turnover is cyclical. Don't believe me or think I am lying these are the facts not an opinion.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php
[Edited on 11/10/2014 by Bill_Graham]
________________________________________________
Your “analysis” of past elections matters not. It puts no money in the people’s pockets nor does it restore their civil rights.
Today is today and history while exactly that, is history, doesn’t help the average American who’s income has declined under obama and the democrats and the people are hurting more than they were six years ago.
We have less money in our pockets, less freedoms and are under the thumb of big government and its regulation of every aspect of a citizen’s life.
The policies of obama and the democrats were rejected by The American People on election day and will continue for at least the next two years as obama has no respect for the law not the peoples wishes.
The worst president in over 50 years will go down in history as a complete failure.
Actually it does as you and the other Conservatives seem to think you won some great victory when history shows turnover in Congress is cyclical.
The Middle classes income has been stagnant or in decline since the Regan Administration Mule so your blind hatred of Obama and blaming him for every ill known to man is illogical. One of the main reasons is the GOP giving it to the rich so blame them not Obama.
And considering Bush and the GOP are the ones who crafted the Patriot Act which eroded our freedoms I am curious what Obama has done to make this worse?
And Obama is far from the worst President of the last 50 years as Bush wins that title by a country mile.
___________________________________
The average working American has lost about $5,000 of income during the obama presidency.
President Bush’s Patriot Act, necessary after the 9/11 attacked preceded by Clinton administrations intelligence services failures were attacked by obama but when he became president, obama endorsed the Patriot Act.
The American People is all major polls state that obama is the worst president since WWII.
The hypocrisy of the left continues as does their predilection to lie and never take responsibility for their failures.
The American People know this well and said so loud and clear on election day when the rejected obama’s policies and reid and the democrats at every level of government.
...and repeat, ad nauseum..... see number 8, above.....
The average working American has lost about $5,000 of income during the obama presidency.
That's interesting. Can you provide a link to that analysis? Curious to read.
The average working American has lost about $5,000 of income during the obama presidency.
That's interesting. Can you provide a link to that analysis? Curious to read.
Don't hold your breath for that link Jerry!!!
And as Sang stated earlier 35% voter turnout doesn't speak for the entire American population. The rest of the country have tuned out both political parties. They didn't get any mandates with this victory with such a tiny turnout.
The average working American has lost about $5,000 of income during the obama presidency.
That's interesting. Can you provide a link to that analysis? Curious to read.
Don't hold your breath for that link Jerry!!!
And as Sang stated earlier 35% voter turnout doesn't speak for the entire American population. The rest of the country have tuned out both political parties. They didn't get any mandates with this victory with such a tiny turnout.
____________________________________________________________
The middle class is struggling and it is getting worse under obama:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/median-income-falls-inequality_n_3941514.html
http://thegazette.com/2014/04/04/fact-check-blum-middle-class-income-net-worth-down-under-obama/
Interesting way of looking at it. Thanks! 
Snort!
Snort!
Insightful.
...and repeat, ad nauseum..... see number 8, above.....
If you like your health care plan you can keep it?
Number One was the funniest -- FEAR. Like climate change bringing the world to an end.
Or the president will take away all your guns.................guffaw.....
and I did get to keep my healthcare....
Why don't you provide a list of Republicans who have said the President is going
to take away all of your guns? I'd like to take a look at that.
Politifact lie of the year winner, 2013...
Do you ever read such garbage before you post it?
A President lied? You're kidding me!!!!!! He must be impeached now! We must never allow politicians to lie.
And as Sang stated earlier 35% voter turnout doesn't speak for the entire American population. The rest of the country have tuned out both political parties. They didn't get any mandates with this victory with such a tiny turnout.
Most of the Obama voters probably didn't know there was an election going on.
A President lied? You're kidding me!!!!!! He must be impeached now! We must never allow politicians to lie.
Especially when it's done to pass the most expensive entitlement in history.
Read what this SOB has revealed...
A President lied? You're kidding me!!!!!! He must be impeached now! We must never allow politicians to lie.
Especially when it's done to pass the most expensive entitlement in history.
Read what this SOB has revealed...
Last time I looked Alloak ACA was voted on and passed by Congress not by the American voter so not sure the point of the article.
even after the republicans won their constituents still seem to be extremely unhappy people. maybe that's just their disposition.
I know you guys hate this site but its still interesting
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/07/obstruction-and-how-the-press-helped-punch-the/201494
Obstruction And How The Press Helped Punch The GOP's Midterm Ticket
Five Years Of Enabling Radical Gridlock
Blog ››› 27 minutes ago ››› ERIC BOEHLERT
In the days after the midterm elections, the New York Times has been a cornucopia of campaign commentary. Lots of attention is being paid to the issue of gridlock, which has defined Washington, D.C. since President Obama was first inaugurated.
Lamenting America's "broken politics," Times columnist Nicholas Kristof opted for the both-sides-are-to-blame model, suggesting that, "Critics are right that [Obama] should try harder to schmooze with legislators." Across from Kristof on the Times opinion page, Republican pollster Frank Luntz urged Obama to find a way to create "common-sense solutions" with his Republican counterparts. (This, despite the fact that Luntz in 2009 helped Republicans craft their trademark strategy of obstructing Obama at every turn.)
And the same day, while reviewing Chuck Todd's new book on Obama, which stressed that the president "wanted to soar above partisanship" though his two terms will likely "be remembered as a nadir of partisan relations," the Times book critic stressed Obama's "reluctance to reach out to Congress and members of both parties to engage in the sort of forceful horse trading (like Lyndon B. Johnson's) and dogged retail politics (like Bill Clinton's) that might have helped forge more legislative deals and build public consensus."
So after six years of radical, blanketed reticence from the GOP, we're still repeatedly reading in the New York Times that while Republicans have put up road blocks, if Obama would just try harder, Republicans might cooperate with him. You can almost hear the frustration seeping through the pages of the Times: 'What is wrong with this guy? Bipartisanship is so simple. Republicans say they want to work with the White House, so why doesn't Obama just do it?'
Indeed, cooperation is simple if you purposefully ignore reality--if you downplay the fact the Republican Party is acting in a way that defies all historic norms. If you adopt that fantasy version of Beltway politics today (i.e. the GOP is filled with honest brokers just waiting to work with the White House), then it's easy to dissect the problems, and it's easy to file both-sides-are-to-blame columns that urge bipartisan cooperation.
What's trickier, apparently, is speaking truth to power and accurately portraying what has happened to American politics and noting without equivocation that the sabotage that has occurred is designed to ensure the federal government doesn't function as designed, and that it cannot efficiently address the problems of the nation.
And this week, it all paid off for Republicans. "Obstruction has just been rewarded, in a huge way," wrote Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast.
Led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Republicans vowed in 2009 to oppose every political move Obama made, not matter how sweeping or how minor. "To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked," wrote Matthew Yglesias at Vox, in the wake of the midterm election results. New York's Jonathan Chait made a similar observation about McConnell: "His single strategic insight is that voters do not blame Congress for gridlock, they blame the president, and therefore reward the opposition."
But why? Why don't voters blame Congress for gridlock?
Why would the president, who's had virtually his entire agenda categorically obstructed, be blamed and not the politicians who purposefully plot the gridlock? Because the press has given Republicans a pass. For more than five years, too many Beltway pundits and reporters have treated the spectacular stalemate as if it were everyday politics; just more "partisan combat." It's not. It's extraordinary. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
Note the press complaint Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) logged four years ago. It was about how timid the news media were in covering Republican obstructionism. Her critique still applies today:
You guys don't write about [it], and this is what they do. I don't see it, and I take five newspapers. I don't see it on the tube, and I don't see it anywhere. It's obstruction. It's obfuscation. It's bringing the body to a halt and it's been done dozens of times. And this is one more of those times... and they haven't gotten much criticism for it clearly or they would have stopped it.
On paper, the GOP's desperate maneuver in 2009 looked risky: Just gum up the works of Congress and stand in the way of every proposal from the new president who was just swept into office with a public mandate for change? Wouldn't commentators clobber the GOP for blind partisanship and hollow obstruction?
Looking back though, there was very little risk involved. There was no element of chance because within days of Obama being sworn into office, the Beltway press sent out clarion call: If Republicans don't cooperate with the new, wildly popular president, it's the president's fault.
And that press judgment hasn't budged since 2009.
If you think I'm exaggerating about this phenomenon taking root within days of Obama's first term, just go back to the White House's January 23, 2009 press conference. That's when NBC's Chuck Todd asked the new president if he would veto his own party's stimulus bill if not enough Republicans voted in support of it.
Todd's weird query highlighted the unheard-of double standard constructed almost overnight by the press with regard to the pressing issue of bipartisanship: If there was little or no bipartisan support for Obama's stimulus package, then it was Obama's fault, his fault alone, and the bill itself must be a P.R. failure.
Sure, the legislation might help save the collapsing economy at the time. (Fact: It did.) But in terms of optics and how it looked, the emergency stimulus bill was a loser. Why? Republicans didn't like it. The party that had just been pushed out of office didn't support the bill, so the press declared it to be an Obama failure and a key Republican victory.
"Republicans find their voice," cheered Politico after the GOP snubbed Obama weeks into his first term. The Los Angeles Times reported in January 2009, "t was clear that [Obama's] efforts so far had not delivered the post-partisan era that he called for in his inauguration address." Meaning, nine days after being sworn in, Obama still hadn't ushered in a "post-partisan era."
Five years later the simple question remains: If Republicans emphatically do not want to cooperate in any meaningful way with Democrats, is there anything Obama can do to change that? Answer: No, not really. But according to the press, Obama is supposed to change that equation, or else he loses. He takes all of the blame.
That's how the game has been played since early 2009. And that's the dynamic Republicans just rode to midterm victory.
_____________________________________________
MediaMatters?
One of the political action groups financed by Obama’s biggest supporter George Soros, the French socialist billionaire?
Almost as sad as the job growth under obama’s failed economy.
Over 70% of the jobs obama claims he created are part time and or very low wage.Every liberal seems to be posting answers to the “Why” by cutting and pasting leftwing media.
Does any liberal have a clue as to why obama’s policies and reid and the democrats lost at every level of government Tuesday?
Because of people like you. You know, low info voters.
________________________________
Yea, everyone is stupid except the liberals who can't explain why they got their a$$'s kicked.
If you knew anything at all, you would know that the party in power always does poorly in midterm elections. Nobody seems surprised at that other than you. Everyone but you seems to understand that. You, being uneducated and low info, do not understand it.
But keep ranting. I am enjoying the hell out of that. 😛
If you actually believe that routine mid term results for the party in the White House explains this debacle you are really in deep deep denial.
Considering history backs his assertion I would say you are the one in denial.
In the last 80 years, since 1934, the party that had the Presidency has only gained seats 3 X in the House and 5X in the Senate so I would say there is nothing unusual in the GOP gaining this past election. As I have said numerous times turnover is cyclical. Don't believe me or think I am lying these are the facts not an opinion.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php
[Edited on 11/10/2014 by Bill_Graham]
________________________________________________
Your “analysis” of past elections matters not. It puts no money in the people’s pockets nor does it restore their civil rights.
Today is today and history while exactly that, is history, doesn’t help the average American who’s income has declined under obama and the democrats and the people are hurting more than they were six years ago.
We have less money in our pockets, less freedoms and are under the thumb of big government and its regulation of every aspect of a citizen’s life.
The policies of obama and the democrats were rejected by The American People on election day and will continue for at least the next two years as obama has no respect for the law not the peoples wishes.
The worst president in over 50 years will go down in history as a complete failure.
Actually it does as you and the other Conservatives seem to think you won some great victory when history shows turnover in Congress is cyclical.
The Middle classes income has been stagnant or in decline since the Regan Administration Mule so your blind hatred of Obama and blaming him for every ill known to man is illogical. One of the main reasons is the GOP giving it to the rich so blame them not Obama.
And considering Bush and the GOP are the ones who crafted the Patriot Act which eroded our freedoms I am curious what Obama has done to make this worse?
And Obama is far from the worst President of the last 50 years as Bush wins that title by a country mile.
___________________________________
The average working American has lost about $5,000 of income during the obama presidency.
President Bush’s Patriot Act, necessary after the 9/11 attacked preceded by Clinton administrations intelligence services failures were attacked by obama but when he became president, obama endorsed the Patriot Act.
The American People is all major polls state that obama is the worst president since WWII.
The hypocrisy of the left continues as does their predilection to lie and never take responsibility for their failures.
The American People know this well and said so loud and clear on election day when the rejected obama’s policies and reid and the democrats at every level of government.
And yet Obama was elected twice and most likely Hillary will win in 2016. Unless the GOP regains the Presidency you won a battle but lost the war.
even after the republicans won their constituents still seem to be extremely unhappy people. maybe that's just their disposition.
Congresses approval rating was in the teens and less than half of Obama's at election time so not exactly a ringing endorsement. Mule can keep crowing about the midterms and ignore history that it is cyclical but until the GOP regains the White House it is a hollow victory at best.
Even before the midterms Congress was gridlocked and the GOP gaining a slight majority will not change anything as long as the Democrats control the White House. Same sheet different day.
[Edited on 11/11/2014 by Bill_Graham]
And yet Obama was elected twice and most likely Hillary will win in 2016. Unless the GOP regains the Presidency you won a battle but lost the war.
I'm thinking why even have an election?
Maybe we should just let Hillary Clinton have it.
Maybe we should just let Hillary Clinton have it.
Well, it would save more than $2 billion in campaign costs. Of course you could also argue that it would pull that same $2+ billion out of the economy, so I guess we should just go ahead and have the elections even if they are a foregone conclusion. 😛
And as Sang stated earlier 35% voter turnout doesn't speak for the entire American population. The rest of the country have tuned out both political parties. They didn't get any mandates with this victory with such a tiny turnout.
Most of the Obama voters probably didn't know there was an election going on.
pure comedy gold. 😛
Maybe we should just let Hillary Clinton have it.
Well, it would save more than $2 billion in campaign costs. Of course you could also argue that it would pull that same $2+ billion out of the economy, so I guess we should just go ahead and have the elections even if they are a foregone conclusion.
LOL, It is a job creator. 😛
Why don't you provide a list of Republicans who have said the President is going
to take away all of your guns? I'd like to take a look at that.Politifact lie of the year winner, 2013...
Do you ever read such garbage before you post it?
Right - it was the liberals that went out and bought all those guns and ammo...... lol
[Edited on 11/11/2014 by Sang]
Why don't you provide a list of Republicans who have said the President is going
to take away all of your guns? I'd like to take a look at that.Politifact lie of the year winner, 2013...
Do you ever read such garbage before you post it?
Right - it was the liberals that went out and bought all those guns and ammo...... lol
[Edited on 11/11/2014 by Sang]
___________________________
Sure seems that way in Detroit and Chicago.
Pure democrat killing field cites
Six Cities With Worst Murder Rates In United States
By John Dodge
CHICAGO (CBS) — During roughly the past three decades, there have been six cities that have been the worst for murders, per capita.
If you said Chicago made that list you would be …
Wrong.
As CBS Chicago correspondent Mason Johnson has reported in great detail, Chicago is not the “murder capital” of anything.
Officially the FBI states the Chicago metro area murder rate is about 7 per 100,000 residents, but that includes much more than just the city itself.
Within the city limits, that rate climbs to around 18–about four times the national average rate of around 4.7 murders per 100,000 people.
Obviously, that is too many murders. In recent years, New York City and Los Angeles have fewer murders than Chicago.
Still, that figure comes nowhere close to the worst rates historically in the United States.
Here is the breakdown, according to an analysis by Pew Research. The number represents the highest murder rate during the time the city held the title of so-called “Murder Capital Of The United States.”
1985-1987: Detroit, 58.2 murders per 100,000 residents
1988-1992: Washington, D.C. 71.9
1993-1995: New Orleans 85.8
1996: Washington, D.C.
1997: Richmond, Va.
1998-1999: Washington, D.C.
2000-2004: New Orleans, 42.1
2005: Birmingham, Ala 44.3
2006: Detroit
2007-2009: New Orleans, 94.7 (2007, the highest rate during the years studied)
2010: Flint, Mich.
2011: New Orleans
2012: Flint, Mich.
That’s six cities that have swapped with each other for worst murder rates in the past 27 years. Two cities, New Orleans and Washington have had the worst murder problem for 19 of those 27 years.
New Orleans has ranked No. 1 for 11 of those years.
Washington D.C. for 8 eight.
While the statistics for this year won’t be available until 2015, Chicago is basically on pace for the same amount of murders as 2013, and much lower than 2012.
One can expect to see its murder rate to remain about the same, or perhaps a bit lower that 18/100,000, and nowhere near the worst in the country.
___________________________
Sure seems that way in Detroit and Chicago.
Pure democrat killing field cites
The gun of choice in Chicago is an illegal handgun -handguns are not the guns and ammo that were bought up after Obama became president - but then you knew that - whine and deflect - that's all you have.
