Can a party of "no" actually govern?

[Upchurch]

Last night it seemed like they were trying to replay the Obama years when they asked that the law they wanted to "vote" for not actually become law. They like to campaign as voting for laws they actually know would be awful if implemented.

I'd be surprised if there weren't a few of those Republicans Senators voting for the bill who were secretly hoping/counting on the 3 GOP Senators voting against it.

 

[Garrison]

I'd be surprised if there weren't a few of those Republicans Senators voting for the bill who were secretly hoping/counting on the 3 GOP Senators voting against it.

Reports like this one from the Washington Post suggest at least 10 Senators were against, but afraid of the consequences of voting no. I imagine that McCain and co will be getting a few thank you notes for doing the hard part.

As to the OP the only reason the Republicans didn't start coming apart during the latter part of the Obama administration was that they knew Hilary Clinton was the likely Democratic candidate and they may have hated her more than Obama. With those two gone there was nothing to hold this bunch of misfits together under the Republican banner.

 

[sts60]

Last night it seemed like they were trying to replay the Obama years when they asked that the law they wanted to "vote" for not actually become law. They like to campaign as voting for laws they actually know would be awful if implemented.

This epitomizes the irredeemable brokenness of the GOP today. They slapped together a bill and, later that day after it was finally revealed, tried to press through a vote hoping that the other chamber wouldn't agree to it as it was. Regardless of whether you think everyone should get free medical care with bonbons and a manicure, or should take out their own damned inflamed appendix with a bottle of Scotch and a razor, this is no way to govern.

 

[Craig4]

I'd be surprised if there weren't a few of those Republicans Senators voting for the bill who were secretly hoping/counting on the 3 GOP Senators voting against it.

There were probably more than a few. Congress critters aren't fond of taking things away from people. It's fiscally responsible to not give things to people. Once they have them it's an entirely different matter.

 

[blutoski]

Reports like this one from the Washington Post suggest at least 10 Senators were against, but afraid of the consequences of voting no. I imagine that McCain and co will be getting a few thank you notes for doing the hard part.

As to the OP the only reason the Republicans didn't start coming apart during the latter part of the Obama administration was that they knew Hilary Clinton was the likely Democratic candidate and they may have hated her more than Obama. With those two gone there was nothing to hold this bunch of misfits together under the Republican banner.

Which is why Trump still invokes [Whattabout] with Hillary's emails.

Front page of the [National Enquirer] last week was all Hillary (evidently, she planted fake evidence of a Russian connection to Trump - He's been framed! The Russia discussion is all about Hillary's lies)

 

[kookbreaker]

Sometimes the worst thing that can happen to a group is that it wins.

 

[LSSBB]

Sometimes the worst thing that can happen to a group is that it wins.

That's been the case in Cook County for decades now.

* ETA: and by worst, I mean worst for the citizens.

 

[kookbreaker]

That's been the case in Cook County for decades now.

* ETA: and by worst, I mean worst for the citizens.

I'm thinking more along the lines that you have a group that is united in their hatred of a common foe. When they win they suddenly find they are the ones who have to do what their foe did. But now all the differences and sloppy tactics show up and they can't rally themselves because their common foe is gone.

The Puritans beating the King in 17th century England is a classic example.

 

[fuelair]

You're exactly right. The problem is that what the Republicans have promised over and over again is that they are going to accomplish things which are, by definition, mutually exclusive. They've promised to repeal Obamacare with no one losing insurance and lower premium costs while also somehow removing the taxes necessary to pay for this. The reality is that the math doesn't work. Either you have to maintain or raise taxes or cut benefits.

The Republicans never thought they were going to have to deal with control in both houses and the White House. Now that they have the power, they can't act because no matter what they do, their base gets directly screwed. So many people have insurance because of Obamacare (or would lose insurance do to cuts) that everyone will have friends and / or a family member who will end up getting hurt and this will cost the Republicans states and districts where they have only a small majority. They could quite easily lose Congress and the Presidency for a long, long time.

embiggening, enbolding and s. embrowning by fuelair for emphasis!!!

From your computer to god's ears!!!!!!!!!

 

[Arcade22]

Problem is that Republicans are often far too divided among themselves to actually come to an agreement about basic political ideas and what direct they want the country to move in. They corralled around fanatical opposition towards Obama and just about everything he did because they couldn't come to an agreement on other things. It's easy to complain about something being bad but sometimes there are no completely good options available and you have to choose the least terrible option.

They have only offered vacuous and empty slogans like "repeal and replace" despite not really having any consensus about what, if anything, should take Obamacare's place. You've got people who completely oppose getting the state to help people get access to healthcare and those who are incredibly in favor of helping their often poor rural constituents without healthcare. It's no wonder these people can't get anything done.

 

[McHrozni]

You're exactly right. The problem is that what the Republicans have promised over and over again is that they are going to accomplish things which are, by definition, mutually exclusive. They've promised to repeal Obamacare with no one losing insurance and lower premium costs while also somehow removing the taxes necessary to pay for this. The reality is that the math doesn't work. Either you have to maintain or raise taxes or cut benefits.

The Republicans never thought they were going to have to deal with control in both houses and the White House. Now that they have the power, they can't act because no matter what they do, their base gets directly screwed. So many people have insurance because of Obamacare (or would lose insurance do to cuts) that everyone will have friends and / or a family member who will end up getting hurt and this will cost the Republicans states and districts where they have only a small majority. They could quite easily lose Congress and the Presidency for a long, long time.

This assumes their base is rational and intelligent enough to see them for the frauds they are and that the opposing party can summon something better, more creative, positive and intelligent.

The jury is out on all of those.

McHrozni

 

[ponderingturtle]

embiggening, enbolding and s. embrowning by fuelair for emphasis!!!

From your computer to god's ears!!!!!!!!!

Can they though? We seem to have a significant portion of the population that is simply unreachable by fact. Look at how many republicans think that unemployment increased under Obama.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/20/the-amount-of-misinformation-about-our-economy-is-amazing/?utm_term=.48ff7fe8ee36

Facts simply don't matter anymore. It is all about how they feel.

 

[fuelair]

Can a party of "no" actually govern?


****, no!!!! And that's no ******!!!!