Did anyone notice the GOP will not let the Democratic politicians lead?

[UCmeNdc]

Before healthcare can be implemented the GOP puts up barriers to block success. Now before a possible peace with Iran can be implemented the GOP is putting up barriers to success. The GOP blocks student loan relief. The GOP blocks banking reform. The democratic ideas cannot be freely implemented since those ideas might be very successful. So the GOP must block and hinder progress at every turn.

[merrily]

1. Republicans often refuse to let Democrats do the right thing for the 99%, whether

Democrats are in the majority or not. It's frustrating.

[F4lconF16]

2. Unfortunately Democrats also refuse to let Democrats the right thing.

It's frustrating.

[merrily]

4. How many Democrats are consistently trying to do the right thing for the 99%? Compare the bills

that pass benefiting the 100% or the 99% with the number of bills that pass benefiting the 1%, and often, the 1% of the 1%.

And it's always, always, the fault of the Republicans and only the Republicans.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. I agree that some Democrats are not always very helpful

but the lion's share of obstructionism that occurs under Democratic Presidents can accurately be blamed on Republicans.

[merrily]

17. And the reverse is also true, meaning the lion's share of obstruction that occurs under a Republican

President is attributable to Democrats. That is what the voters expect and what I personally believe they have a right to expect. It was not my point, though.

[delrem]

3. Did anyone notice that water is wet?

Tell me this:
why is that the GOP always wins, the Dems always lose, whoever is in the "majority" position?
Why is it that the Dems almost singlehandedly invented the phrase "pre-emptory cave" to describe their actions, in reaction to the GOP use of the filibuster etc., even when the Dems had something of a super-majority across the board?

hmmm?

[merrily]

5. I finally started to wake up when Obama began making his first round of nominations,

starting with Rahm, Gates and Geithner, just as economy, war, and things like foreclosures on working people epitomized the crisis we were in.

Never had I donated more or worked more for any Democratic candidate for President.

I still can't believe that, until then, I'd never even heard of the DLC, Third Way, New Democrats, etc., let alone been awake to what they had in mind for the nation.

ETA: If it's any consolation, Begala said on Bill Maher recently that the left is where the energy in the Democratic Party is now. Of course, he waas responding to a comment from Jay Leno, but still....

[delrem]

10. I still don't understand it.

Here's a name:
Victoria Nuland.

OK. Please do, if you can, explain it.

[merrily]

11. An explanation for Nuland? Not Gates, or Rahm, or Geithner?

During the Bill Clinton administration, Nuland was chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott before moving on to serve as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

Interesting. wiki seems to be preparing for the day when the term "the Clinton administration" may need clarification. But, I digress.

Most of Obama's appointees were Clintonites, Republicans or members of the Chicago whatever you want to call it. Additionally, Nuland's husband works for the Brookings Institute. Beyond that, I don't know of an explanation.

Did you have something more specific in mind?

[delrem]

13. Victoria Nuland was the principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Dick Cheney.

That's pretty OTT job reference for an Obama functionary who....

Oh, nevermind.
I don't expect it could ever be explained so it actually made sense to me.

[merrily]

14. And Gates was....? And Kissinger's protege and NY Fed head, Geithner?

I get your point. But her job was not as big as Gates's or Geithner's (or, for that matter, Bernanke's, whom Obama re-appointed). The two most huge, most pressing issues in 2008 were Middle East wars and what banksters under the Fed and AIG had done to the economy of the US and other nations. So, I don't put Nuland in a more jaw-dropping category than other Obama nominees.

However, how someone could work for Clinton, Cheney and Obama is the kind of thing I wish more DUers would focus on. For that matter, more Americans.

As I said, I can't explain it. I know it's not good, though (and "President of all the people" is a lame rationalization that does not begin to explain diddly).

[world wide wally]

6. And now they recruited Charles Schumer to help them block Dems more...

and the Dems look at this asshole as their leader?

[merrily]

12. It's his turn.

[msongs]

7. as Nancy whatshername says, elections have consequences nt

[merrily]

8. Yet, not nearly as many as one might hope.

[blkmusclmachine]

9. Republicans are the Party of "NO FUCKING WAY!"

[Cal33]

15. Your "will not let Dem. politicians lead" is too much of a modest understatement. It would

be more accurate to say "with all their dirty tricks the GOP is making sure that the Democrats
will be rendered unable to lead."

And what is equally surprising is that, except for a few people like Warren, Sanders, Grayson,
Democratic politicians don't even say anything about it. These people are playing their part
in enabling the Republican masses to remain ignorant and uninformed, when they should be
doing the exact opposite.

[merrily]

18. No, Sanders has called out Republicans many times and for years.

And, before he announced he was considering running for President, he could barely get the time of day from any media, with the possible except of some MSNBC shows. Do you think Republicans are going to take his word for it over O'Reilly's, though?