Yeah, they aren't willing to do what the President wants them to do and he's not willing to compromise with them. That's essentially the problem. He's more of an ideologue than a politician. If a Republican President was trying to "fix" things with far right Republican plans, would a Democrat controlled congress be likely to go along with it? Certainly not. When you have a divided government you can't just say "my way or the highway" and so far that's about all Obama has been saying. Do it my way or I'll do it myself, do anything else and I'll veto it. When you take that stance, you have to expect Congress to fight back.
Someone arguing that the Speaker of the House inviting someone to speak in front of the House is treason is telling me that I'm lost.....LOL that's hilarious.
"Netanyahu's acceptance of the invitation by House Speaker Boehner to address a joint session of Congress to rebut President Obama's Iran strategy is misguided and terribly damaging to U.S. and Israeli strategic interests. For Netanyahu to ignore protocol and notify the White House only after he accepted the invitation and refused to rescind it is a slap in the face of the president, who has done more than any of his predecessors to safeguard Israel's security. Netanyahu has ignored every appeal from the media, leaders of Jewish organizations, Israel's European friends, and many others to cancel his trip, if for no other reason but for Israel's sake. To be sure, Netanyahu has disgraced Israel and undermined its crucial relations with the most important ally that stood by it, rain or shine, and remains its ultimate defender." Netanyahu Betrays What's Best for Israel Notwithstanding the accolades Netanyahu may receive from the floor of Congress, he has betrayed what is best for Israel. The Israeli electorate must remember this as they cast their votes come election day.
You can try and deflect all you want, but the simple fact is, like the president himself said numerous times, "elections have consequences". He can't choose to deny that now that the people chose to overwhelmingly elect Republicans to take over both houses of congress. The people decided to try and force the president to moderate his views and work with the other side of the aisle, so far he's been stubbornly resistant to the notion, for the sake of the country we can all hope he'll listen to the people eventually.
Is that not what happened though? Do elections have consequences, or just ones that go the way the president wants them to go?
I find it so interesting and perplexing that conservatives have embraced this narrative. The phenomenon started in 2009-10 with a Republican strategy of non-cooperation. I think it was plain for what it was at the time. It took a little while, but conservatives managed to twist the stalemate into a rationalization of Republican action as some sort of reaction to what Obama was doing. Then, thanks to the passage of time, they were able to add to this rationalization reactions by Obama to Republican intransigence as antecedent causes of Republican positions, even though they came later in the timeline. Conservatives have essentially flipped the history on its head and then embraced that narrative as the lens to use to look upon American politics. And, I find it perplexing because weren't we all there seeing the same things? How do you remember it all so differently now? HP makes out the impact on Israel to be worse than I expect it to be. The Republican party has an irrational devotion to Israel, and even the Democratic party is more well-disposed toward Israel than Israel deserves. Will that allegiance by a host of American politicians and voters be much undermined by Netanyahu thumbing his nose at a lameduck president? I doubt it. The next president, Republican or Democrat, will probably be even warmer to Israel than Obama was and they'll let bygones be bygones.
Not even close (and I seriously dislike Boehner - I don't think a raging alcoholic should be in such as position); but Obama has pressed the envelope pretty far. In regard to Islamic terrorism I some times wonder what he is thinking. I don't think he has put the nation's safety and security first. I detest the notion of open borders. What other "sovereign state" has this view? Most South American countries, for example, are obsessive about border security.
Hmm... not sure we should be aspiring to South American country standards, but more to your point, not sure many South American countries have one of these:
They don't have one of what? A French statue honoring the alliance of the two nations and their shared commitment to liberty, or a sonnet written by a Jewish woman from New York?
Simply can't let this internet meme continue unchallenged. Mcmark....I've shown you this before. Why don't you include the whole quote for context...or are you just a complete partisan hack? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...9fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president? 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. NJ: What are the big issues? McConnell: It is possible the president’s advisers will tell him he has to do something to get right with the public on his levels of spending and [on] lowering the national debt. If he were to heed that advice, he would, I imagine, find more support among our conference than he would among some in the Senate in his own party. I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change. So, we’ll see. The next move is going to be up to him.
We all know what he meant (and he did mean it). And no backpedaling will change the fact that republicans put defeating the president over the good of the country.
That's actually not a "fact", and if you think it is, you should probably check up on the definition of "fact".
So, in order for the cogress to have worked with the President, they expected him to do a "Clintonian backflip"??????
Weak once again bobby: NJ: What’s the job? McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president? 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.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html
This just gets better and better for Boehner. Israeli Official Now Suggests Boehner Misled Netanyahu On Speech A senior Israeli official is now implying that House Speaker John Boehner led Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to believe that his invitation for the prime minister to speak before Congress in March was bipartisan, according to Reuters. "It appears that the speaker of Congress made a move, in which we trusted, but which it ultimately became clear was a one sided move and not a move by both sides," Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Tzachi Hanegbi said Friday on a Tel Aviv radio program, per the news outlet. Then, via Reuters: The interviewer asked if that meant Netanyahu had been "misled" into believing Boehner's invitation was bipartisan, a characterization Hanegbi did not contest.
