Skip to comments.NYT's Weisman Wonders Why GOP Won't Just Capitulate After Obama Win: "What Are Elections For?"
Posted on 03/18/2013 2:08:50 PM PDT by Kaslin
Betraying his impatience with the Republican Party's insistence that President Obama cut spending, New York Times political reporter Jonathan Weisman sounded shocked that the GOP wasn't simply surrendering its principles in the wake of Obama's four–point victory last November, in Monday's "Republicans Determined To Press On With Air, If Not Vote, of Confidence." (Nice flattering photo of Paul Ryan, by the way.)
A year ago this month, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin stood on the floor of the House and declared that the ideals of small government, privatized health care and rigorous spending discipline captured in the budget plan about to pass the House would and should be central to the 2012 election campaign.
Then he and Mitt Romney lost -- Mr. Ryan’s home state, every swing state but North Carolina, and 332 electoral votes. Democrats locked down control of the Senate, which they had once been expected to lose, and chipped away at the Republicans’ House majority, sending the Republican Party into a round of soul-searching that persists today -- everywhere, it seems, but on Capitol Hill.
In Congress, Republicans are pushing an agenda that is almost identical to the one that their party lost with in November, with no regrets and few efforts to reframe it even rhetorically. The House will vote this week on the third iteration of Mr. Ryan’s budget, which would again try to turn Medicare into a subsidy for private insurance purchases, slash the top income tax rate and cut deeply into programs the president campaigned to protect.
On the Sunday political talk shows, a few conciliatory words from rank-and-file Republicans were all but drowned out by the resolute tone of Republican Congressional leaders. Mr. Boehner said on the ABC News program “This Week” that Mr. Obama had harvested the fruits of his election victory on Jan. 1, with a deal that allowed tax rates to rise on annual income over $450,000. That covered a smaller group than the $250,000 threshold the president campaigned on.
"The president got his tax hikes on January the first,” Mr. Boehner said. “The talk about raising revenue is over. It’s time to deal with the spending problem.”
Republicans in the House and Senate are standing firmly in the way of Mr. Obama’s second-term agenda, with a message that is striking when set against the results of an election just four months ago: Mr. President, you have to come to us.
Representative Lynn Jenkins of Kansas, a member of the House Republican leadership, emerged from a closed-door meeting with Mr. Obama last week and declared, “I’m encouraged to have heard from the president today, but more encouraged that perhaps this is an indication he is willing to change course.”
Which raises the question: What are elections for?
“Continuing to double down on policies that have been firmly rejected by the American people flies in the face of everything the Republican Party said they would do in the aftermath of losing the popular vote for the fifth time in the last six elections,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama.
Of course, Republican lawmakers interpret the last election differently. “I think they are claiming too much of a mandate,” said Senator John Hoeven, Republican of North Dakota. “Number one, it was a close presidential election. Number two, the Republicans won the House, and they can lay claim to the same mandate. So to me, that’s a wash.”
That turn of phrase, "Of course, Republicans see it differently," is a common formulation for the Times when it wants to portray the GOP position dismissively, as an unnecessary afterthought.
You mean like how the Democrats caved to Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, both Bushes and Ike? What a laff.
What is congress for then? Just get rid of it and have an emperor.
Mr.Weisman, true Patriots never surrender their Country!
Every Republican in Congress won, too.
I told my liberal cousin the day Obama was elected that I would treat him EXACTLY like the left treated Bush for 8 years..than he quickly shut his pothole
That arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave already thinks he is
Yeah, like that
Sure, Mr. Obama should be able to get all he wants legislatively because he won the election.
Congress should be declared null and void because Mr. Obama
won the election.
The Supreme Court should be disbanded because Mr. Obama won the election.
State and local governments should be considered extraneous
because Mr. Obama won the election and he should be able to run everything because he won the election.
See? Ya know?
This is a great little indicator of leftist insanity these days. Someone should write a book on the subject of where the leftist mind has actually gone since King Obama took the throne. They’ve really lost it. If McCain or Romney would have won can you imagine the meltdown?
Another Democrat who envies the power held by one party rule in Red China.
Go ahead GOP.
You gave up on Conservatism very publicly today.
NYslimes: "GIVE UP. GIVE UP. GIVE UP."
This idiot doesn't even understand the 3 branches of gov'ment.
Exactly. I might ask what House elections are for. I’m sure lefties’d be pleased as punch if there were just one big election, a sorta national plebescite granting all power to one party or another. But we’re not setup for that. Plus, it’s a horrific idea.
Ask Mr Weisman what he said the day after GW Bush was inaugurated in January 2001. No doubt he and his friends in the liberal media were saying, "we have to destroy this President; let's keep recounting the ballots in Florida."
after 20 years in the senate feinstein STILL does not understand seperation of powers. the NYT is too busy trying to use junk reporting to create junk science to support a homosexual gene.
It is the NYC disease.
BTW when did NYC become a city of wimps?