Reginald, the reason I'm not going to spend yet more time pulling comments by Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi or those involved in the Bush impeachment effort or others regarding George W. Bush is that I know, in advance, that it will just devolve into an asinine round of "that person isn't a Democratic leader" (even if an elected official) or "that person was just raising legitimate objections to Bush" or "that person didn't use the word 'priority' in his sentence," etc etc etc ... more endless rounds of silliness that I have no patience for anymore. We both know the attitude conveyed regarding George W. Bush by partisan Democrats.
So, moving on. Reginald, you pronounce: "I know it's impossible for you to accept the reality that Republicans did something bad that the Democrats haven't done, but wishing doesn't make it so." You KNOW this? Or are you just projecting your own attitudes. The reason I ask is that, over the years on this forum I have condemned right-wing spokesmen, or well known Republicans, when (in my view) they have said something that is wrong or bigoted or whatever. As much as you may not believe this, my focus is on truth, and the holding of everyone to the same standards. So yes, if I felt McConnell had done or said something wrong, I would not hesitate to say so. Now, Reginald, when was the last time you strongly condemned a left-leaning Democrat on your forum? When has Curtis done so? You guys may have, but if you did, I missed it.
Furthermore, going to the substance: What was done
that was bad? That a Republican leader stated that he wants to elect a Republican President?
In terms of actual deeds
, the reality is that a compromise
was recently reached between the Republican Leadership and the President with regard to tax legislation. Consistent with the totality
of what Senator McConnell really
said (read on).
Reginald, it is Curtis
who alleges that Republican leaders "place partisan gain above all." He bears the burden of proof, not me.
We have heard symphonic whining
from the Left-leaning press and blogs over Mitch McConnell’s statement of intent to make Barack Obama a one-term President. Notwithstanding that elected Democrats surely wanted to make George W. Bush a one-term President and, after they failed in that, urged an end to Republican occupancy of the White House after Bush’s second term (succeeding in the latter effort with the election of Barack Obama). This is of course the normative view of any party that is out of power. It in no way suggests that McConnell does not have the best interests of the country at heart. It just shows that the guy is honest.
I can't believe that anyone will take any
of this condemnation of McConnell seriously (other than those on the Left who just long to lap up any smears against their "opponents" no matter how silly). The complaining
is so absurd. Are both of you really so stuck in yourselves that you cannot raise your heads above ground and see that this is all much to do about nothing?
Regarding the statement by the Senator that has caused the Left’s tizzy, McConnell explains:
“Over the past week, some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office,” Mr. McConnell says. “But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won’t veto any of these things. We can hope the President will start listening to the electorate after Tuesday’s election. But we can’t plan on it.”
It comes as no surprise to me, and it should come as no surprise to you, that Politico.com says that President’s characterization of McConnell’s statement is only “HALF TRUE
” (or, put another way, it is really a partial lie). The Left’s whining condemnation is just more partisan bullsh*t-as-usual.
The orchestration of outrage, once again, in an attempt to score political points. Just more silly game playing. Nothing more.
No wonder I so quickly lose patience with this nonsense. Hell, I'm going to go walk my dog; a much more productive use of my time. Now that I've started here, I may as well go and clean up some more dog sh*t outside. http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/oct/30/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-claims-mitch-mcconnell-says/
Here is the relevant text from the Politico.com article:
… Sen. Mitch McConnelll made [a comment] in an interview with the National Journal's Major Garrett on Oct. 29, 2010: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
So McConnelll said it. But we think some further context is in order.
McConnell said he had been studying the history of presidents who suffered big defeats in midterm elections in Congress, but then won re-election in two years anyway. McConnelll said he doesn't want Republicans to repeat the same mistakes that allowed that to happen.
"After 1994, the public had the impression we Republicans overpromised and underdelivered," McConnell said. "We suffered from some degree of hubris and acted as if the president was irrelevant and we would roll over him. By the summer of 1995, he was already on the way to being re-elected, and we were hanging on for our lives."
McConnell said Republicans need to treat the midterm elections as "the first step in retaking the government."
It was in that context that McConnell said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
Garrett asked if that meant "endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?"
Said McConnell, "If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him."In other words, in the very same interview, McConnell said that he'd be willing to work with Obama if Obama is "willing to meet us halfway." That's called compromise. And that sounds very much in the spirit of Obama's call to "seek out common ground."
… As for McConnell's comment "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," that sounds an awful lot like Obama's summation that "his main goal after this election is simply to win the next one." But while McConnell said it, Obama left out an important detail -- that McConnell also said in the same interview that he is willing to meet the president halfway
. That leads us to a ruling of Half True