But what next?

[pjohns]

One may reasonably wonder why, exactly, the Democrats are intent upon fighting battles that they cannot win--such as the effort to stop Neil Gorsuch's confirmation to the Supreme Court. (Yes, they have enough votes to sustain a filibuster; but that will almost certainly lead to the "Nuclear Option," thereby making the threshold just 51 votes--or 50, plus the vote of the vice-president--and very few people in either party want to see the Senate blown up that way.)

Strategically, it would make much more sense to work with President Trump on some things, and oppose him on others--as has traditionally been the case with a president of the other party. (Using this as an example, Neil Gorsuch will just replace the late Antonin Scalia--an originalist and a textualist, for the very same--whereas the next appointment might actually change the balance of the Court.)

One is reminded of Emperor Hirohito's decision to bomb Pearl Harbor, in 1941. Presumably, he asked himself, "Can we do it?"

The follow-up question should have been, "Yes, but then what?"

The same is true with the Democrats' obstructionism.

My sense, however, is that many of those who form the Democratic base are so embittered and enraged--they thought that they would surely win the presidential election in 2016; and perhaps even take control of the Senate, also--that they are pressuring their Senators and Representatives to take the path of obstructionism at every turn.

Some, of course, will compare this to what once happened with former President Obama. But there is really no comparison. The right disliked Barack Obama's policies; whereas the left has a visceral distaste for Donald Trump.

Comments?

[Crepitus]

Nonsense. No reason to wait. If they successfully use the threat of the "nuclear option" this time around they will pull it out every time it looks like things aren't going their way. Don't let them threaten, make them fight!

[Green Arrow]

One may reasonably wonder why, exactly, the Democrats are intent upon fighting battles that they cannot win--such as the effort to stop Neil Gorsuch's confirmation to the Supreme Court. (Yes, they have enough votes to sustain a filibuster; but that will almost certainly lead to the "Nuclear Option," thereby making the threshold just 51 votes--or 50, plus the vote of the vice-president--and very few people in either party want to see the Senate blown up that way.)

Strategically, it would make much more sense to work with President Trump on some things, and oppose him on others--as has traditionally been the case with a president of the other party. (Using this as an example, Neil Gorsuch will just replace the late Antonin Scalia--an originalist and a textualist, for the very same--whereas the next appointment might actually change the balance of the Court.)

One is reminded of Emperor Hirohito's decision to bomb Pearl Harbor, in 1941. Presumably, he asked himself, "Can we do it?"

The follow-up question should have been, "Yes, but then what?"

The same is true with the Democrats' obstructionism.

My sense, however, is that many of those who form the Democratic base are so embittered and enraged--they thought that they would surely win the presidential election in 2016; and perhaps even take control of the Senate, also--that they are pressuring their Senators and Representatives to take the path of obstructionism at every turn.

Some, of course, will compare this to what once happened with former President Obama. But there is really no comparison. The right disliked Barack Obama's policies; whereas the left has a visceral distaste for Donald Trump.

Comments?

Yes, calling Obama "the Kenyan" and "the Half-Dark One" and calling his wife "Moochelle" really was an expression of distaste for his policies.

[Green Arrow]

Anyway, the Democrats don't have a strategy. They never did. They are just flailing.

[patrickt]

Nonsense. No reason to wait. If they successfully use the threat of the "nuclear option" this time around they will pull it out every time it looks like things aren't going their way. Don't let them threaten, make them fight!

We can only allow fools who believe in the Theory of Disparate Impact on the Supreme Court.

[Crepitus]

We can only allow fools who believe in the Theory of Disparate Impact on the Supreme Court.

Fools? So you want racist judges?

[donttread]

One may reasonably wonder why, exactly, the Democrats are intent upon fighting battles that they cannot win--such as the effort to stop Neil Gorsuch's confirmation to the Supreme Court. (Yes, they have enough votes to sustain a filibuster; but that will almost certainly lead to the "Nuclear Option," thereby making the threshold just 51 votes--or 50, plus the vote of the vice-president--and very few people in either party want to see the Senate blown up that way.)

Strategically, it would make much more sense to work with President Trump on some things, and oppose him on others--as has traditionally been the case with a president of the other party. (Using this as an example, Neil Gorsuch will just replace the late Antonin Scalia--an originalist and a textualist, for the very same--whereas the next appointment might actually change the balance of the Court.)

One is reminded of Emperor Hirohito's decision to bomb Pearl Harbor, in 1941. Presumably, he asked himself, "Can we do it?"

The follow-up question should have been, "Yes, but then what?"

The same is true with the Democrats' obstructionism.

My sense, however, is that many of those who form the Democratic base are so embittered and enraged--they thought that they would surely win the presidential election in 2016; and perhaps even take control of the Senate, also--that they are pressuring their Senators and Representatives to take the path of obstructionism at every turn.

Some, of course, will compare this to what once happened with former President Obama. But there is really no comparison. The right disliked Barack Obama's policies; whereas the left has a visceral distaste for Donald Trump.

Comments?


The parties oppose for partisianship only. they are in effect running around wasting our money on our time.

[pjohns]

Yes, calling Obama "the Kenyan" and "the Half-Dark One" and calling his wife "Moochelle" really was an expression of distaste for his policies.
These were extremists who did this; they were not representative of Republicans (or conservatives) in general.

Most of us (Republicans and conservatives) simply disliked his policies.

But those who wish to delegitimize Donald Trump are surely infected with TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).

[Green Arrow]

These were extremists who did this; they were not representative of Republicans (or conservatives) in general.

Most of us (Republicans and conservatives) simply disliked his policies.

But those who wish to delegitimize Donald Trump are surely infected with TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).
For extremists there sure are a lot of them.

[pjohns]

For extremists there sure are a lot of them.

Uh, would you care to provide some evidence to back up that assertion?

[MisterVeritis]

Yes, calling Obama "the Kenyan" and "the Half-Dark One" and calling his wife "Moochelle" really was an expression of distaste for his policies.
Cigar called the Kenyan "The Dark One". I simply corrected his title to "The Half-Dark One" to reflect his white mother's contribution to Barack Hussein O's genetic mixture.

And Mooch is a mooch. Fortunately (s)he is gone.

[Bethere]

These were extremists who did this; they were not representative of Republicans (or conservatives) in general.

Most of us (Republicans and conservatives) simply disliked his policies.

But those who wish to delegitimize Donald Trump are surely infected with TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).

Then most of your Republican friends on tPF are extremists.