5 ms·

Can you provide a source for how President Obama ignored the Republicans for his first two years in office? Or are you suggesting that because Reid moved to inv

Can you provide a source for how President Obama ignored the Republicans for his first two years in office? Or are you suggesting that because Reid moved to invoke cloture a record number of times in 2007, this is an indication that the Democrats are ignoring the Republicans because more filibusters are being broken than ever before?

nickff 10y ago
I would say that passing Obamacare without a single Republican vote in either the House or Senate counts as 'ignoring the Republicans'. I would also say that Reid's alteration of Senate rules (A.K.A. 'the nuclear option') was done to avoid compromising with the Republicans. There are many other examples of this sort of behavior, and I am not saying that either side is 'better than the other', just that President Obama was not an innocent victim of mean partisans.
- CocaKoala 10y ago
  You stated that President Obama ignored the Republicans for his first two years in office, but the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2009, more than two years after he took office. I don't see how this supports your point, because it doesn't take place during the time period that you're talking about. Harry Reid altered Senate rules in 2011, which is well after Obama served two years in office. Again, can you provide an example of how Obama ignored the Republicans during his first two years in office? You say that there are many examples of this sort of behavior, but you failed to provide any of them. Edit: And let's be clear here, we've already shifted goalposts once; initially I asked you to provide examples of how the Republicans made efforts to cooperate with President Obama during his first two years in office, and you very neatly juked that by saying "well, he ignored them for his first two years and it made them mad". If you've made an assertion that you can't provide evidence for, please say that you are wrong; I don't want to have to chase your point through this argument.
  - nickff 10y ago
    >You stated that President Obama ignored the Republicans for his first two years in office, but the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2009, more than two years after he took office. I don't see how this supports your point, because it doesn't take place during the time period that you're talking about. Obamacare was actually enacted in March of 2010, just over a year after Obama took office in January of 2009.[1][2] The 'nuclear option' was used in October 2011, and I meant to use it as an example of the Democratic party continuing shutting the senate Republicans out of the process.[3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Afforda... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Presidency_.28since_2009.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Presidency_.28sin... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Use_of_nuclear_option_during_Obama_presidency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Use_of_nuclear_...
    - CocaKoala 10y ago
      You're correct about the ACA; I misremembered when President Obama took office, and I apologize for that. I will contest the 'nuclear option', though; I can see how you can argue that it shuts the Senate Republicans out of the process, but I can see an equal argument that it was a reaction to an overuse of the filibuster to block legislative progress; Reid filed for cloture 137 times in 2007/8, and 139 times in 2009/10. Not every cloture motion necessarily means a filibuster, but similarly not every filibuster results in a cloture; since filibusters are challenging to count, cloture motions seem like a reasonable way to measure obstruction [1]. If Reid had to file a cloture motion approximately once a week during Obama's first year in office, I feel like that indicates a trend of "our way or the highway" from the Republicans; rather than pushing to change and modify legislature, the Republicans simply rejected things they didn't like and tried to take their toys home. If they're not meaningfully participating in the process (and I would say that filibustering at least once a week is not meaningfully participating; I do not believe that significant legislation or confirmation that is so deeply anathema to the Republican mindset that it cannot POSSIBLY be allowed to pass and be inflicted on the American public happens on a weekly basis), then it's hard for me to see how taking away this option that they've abused is shutting them out. They're still welcome to participate, but screaming so loud that nobody else can talk is not participation. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/15/how-we-count-senate-filibusters-and-why-it-matters/?utm_term=.34f9d0b8e330 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/1...
- CoryG89 10y ago
  This is probably not as true as you may think. There are many sources that point to GOP meetings where they planned no-compromise obstruction to anything the president tried to do starting from his initial inauguration. I agree in that I doubt Obama has much desire to "work with" most Republicans either, but at least (as far as we know) he didn't conspire in secret meetings to completely block anything they tried to do, partisan or not. http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/ http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-det...
  - nickff 10y ago
    The president doesn't have to conspire with anyone else to block legislation; he has the veto. I would argue that any president is entirely within his rights to exercise the veto (as President Obama has done repeatedly), but it is a tool of obstruction.

nickff 10y ago

I would say that passing Obamacare without a single Republican vote in either the House or Senate counts as 'ignoring the Republicans'. I would also say that Reid's alteration of Senate rules (A.K.A. 'the nuclear option') was done to avoid compromising with the Republicans. There are many other examples of this sort of behavior, and I am not saying that either side is 'better than the other', just that President Obama was not an innocent victim of mean partisans.

CocaKoala 10y ago
You stated that President Obama ignored the Republicans for his first two years in office, but the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2009, more than two years after he took office. I don't see how this supports your point, because it doesn't take place during the time period that you're talking about. Harry Reid altered Senate rules in 2011, which is well after Obama served two years in office. Again, can you provide an example of how Obama ignored the Republicans during his first two years in office? You say that there are many examples of this sort of behavior, but you failed to provide any of them. Edit: And let's be clear here, we've already shifted goalposts once; initially I asked you to provide examples of how the Republicans made efforts to cooperate with President Obama during his first two years in office, and you very neatly juked that by saying "well, he ignored them for his first two years and it made them mad". If you've made an assertion that you can't provide evidence for, please say that you are wrong; I don't want to have to chase your point through this argument.
- nickff 10y ago
  >You stated that President Obama ignored the Republicans for his first two years in office, but the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2009, more than two years after he took office. I don't see how this supports your point, because it doesn't take place during the time period that you're talking about. Obamacare was actually enacted in March of 2010, just over a year after Obama took office in January of 2009.[1][2] The 'nuclear option' was used in October 2011, and I meant to use it as an example of the Democratic party continuing shutting the senate Republicans out of the process.[3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Afforda... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Presidency_.28since_2009.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Presidency_.28sin... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Use_of_nuclear_option_during_Obama_presidency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Use_of_nuclear_...
  - CocaKoala 10y ago
    You're correct about the ACA; I misremembered when President Obama took office, and I apologize for that. I will contest the 'nuclear option', though; I can see how you can argue that it shuts the Senate Republicans out of the process, but I can see an equal argument that it was a reaction to an overuse of the filibuster to block legislative progress; Reid filed for cloture 137 times in 2007/8, and 139 times in 2009/10. Not every cloture motion necessarily means a filibuster, but similarly not every filibuster results in a cloture; since filibusters are challenging to count, cloture motions seem like a reasonable way to measure obstruction [1]. If Reid had to file a cloture motion approximately once a week during Obama's first year in office, I feel like that indicates a trend of "our way or the highway" from the Republicans; rather than pushing to change and modify legislature, the Republicans simply rejected things they didn't like and tried to take their toys home. If they're not meaningfully participating in the process (and I would say that filibustering at least once a week is not meaningfully participating; I do not believe that significant legislation or confirmation that is so deeply anathema to the Republican mindset that it cannot POSSIBLY be allowed to pass and be inflicted on the American public happens on a weekly basis), then it's hard for me to see how taking away this option that they've abused is shutting them out. They're still welcome to participate, but screaming so loud that nobody else can talk is not participation. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/15/how-we-count-senate-filibusters-and-why-it-matters/?utm_term=.34f9d0b8e330 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/1...
CoryG89 10y ago
This is probably not as true as you may think. There are many sources that point to GOP meetings where they planned no-compromise obstruction to anything the president tried to do starting from his initial inauguration. I agree in that I doubt Obama has much desire to "work with" most Republicans either, but at least (as far as we know) he didn't conspire in secret meetings to completely block anything they tried to do, partisan or not. http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/ http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-det...
- nickff 10y ago
  The president doesn't have to conspire with anyone else to block legislation; he has the veto. I would argue that any president is entirely within his rights to exercise the veto (as President Obama has done repeatedly), but it is a tool of obstruction.