Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has weighed in on what he believes to be the most important issue for Senate Republicans during the next session of Congress. No, friends, it’s not the economy; it’s not jobs; it’s not the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; it’s not national security or energy independence.
In an interview with the National Journal’s Major Garrett, McConnell said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” The most important thing, he said, was to give the Republican 2012 presidential candidate the easiest time possible to defeat Barack Obama.
If you had any doubt about what’s really at stake in next week’s mid-term election, now you know. Maybe, deep in his heart, McConnell really believes making Obama a one-term president is best for the country. He’s certainly entitled to his opinion and his opposing viewpoint.
But to declare as the current Senate minority leader (and potential Senate majority leader if the Republicans win big enough next Tuesday) that above all else, the Republicans' Job #1 is to destroy the Obama presidency is disturbing (at the very least). Not even conservative MSNBC host and commentator Joe Scarborough could believe that McConnell admitted it, calling the statement “embarrassing” and “pathetic.”
Think about it. Is this the party you really want in power for the next two years? The man is essentially guaranteeing gridlock. They will block everything and anything that has on it Obama’s hallmark, whether it’s an appointment to the court or a way to move the economy forward. If it’s good for Obama, it’s bad for the Republicans—and it will be blocked, destroyed or made impotent. Game playing while our country is strangling. Lovely.
And this, of course, is before we factor in the Tea Party effect on the coming Congress. McConnell is apparently the voice of mainstream Republican values; why else would he be Majority Leader?
Two years. Can our country afford it?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Joereg4
Where was Barbara when the democrats tried to make Bush a one term president? Why in the world the author is surprised one political party wants to defeat the other?
Obama has been trying to destroy what liberty we have left, his defeat can't come quick enough. Stopping the statist agenda should be #1,2,3,4,5 because it is that agenda that is killing jobs and the economy.
And Joe Scarborough is not conservative.
2 - barbara barnett
Where were the Democrats? Compromising and giving Bush an awful lot of what he wanted. Too much, to be perfectly honest. Obama has no "statist" agenda. Destroy liberty? Big Brother started listening on Bush's watch.
3 - handyguy
Joe Scarborough would be surprised to hear that he is not conservative.
This malarkey about liberty being destroyed is truly tiresome and ludicrous. Find yourself another meme.
4 - barbara barnett
Agreed. Joe Scarborough would indeed describe himself as a very proud conservative (although I'm not sure he owns the title so proudly these days).
5 - Glenn Contrarian
Barb -
You know what it is? The Republicans remember what happened after the Depression - FDR for 4 terms and a Democratically-controlled congress for close to 40 years. To them, it really is all about the power...and if that means they've got to oppose that which is good for America and the American people in order to take back the power, then so be it.
To them, it really is the Republican Party Uber Alles.
6 - Baronius
Handy, Joe Scarborough is always surprised when he hears that he's not conservative. But he hears that a lot. From the little I know of him, he falls into that David Brooks / Christopher Buckley zone of people who claim to be conservative while defining the word in such a way as to disparage most conservatives. I don't know if that's just because he has a softer style, but then again he does toughen up when he's on the attack. That attack always seems to be against the right though.
7 - handyguy
When he was a congressman, he was pretty damn conservative. Certainly far from a liberal. He may have reconfigured his rhetoric a bit since becoming a TV host, but no liberal I know would claim him. Note the exasperated look on Mika Brzezinski's face much of the time: "Now Joe..."
It's like calling NPR 'leftward.' They are certainly to the left of you, as is much of the population. But their stated and I think successful intent is to report the news well, and not to worry about staking out a dot on the ideological scale.
8 - Jon Sobel
Actually, I think it was a bit of refreshing honesty! I'd like to hear more of it. From all sides. Then the public might see clearly whose policies (or lack thereof) would be in their best interest!
9 - barbara barnett
Indeed!
10 - Jules
I'm saying this as someone who is sick of the endless vilifying all around - he's saying that because he doesn't agree with any of Obama's policies on everything listed in the first paragraph.
Doesn't the other side always want the other party out of office? It's always the goal. And really after the last election I not only heard people saying it was time to be rid of Bush but of the entire Republican party.
Both sides say nasty things all the time. I guess you have to be in the middle to see it.
11 - barbara barnett
Jules,
But when the other side's leader fires the salvo that the #1 goal is to make sure Obama is taken out, what does that do to the issues important to the country? Disagreement and debate is crucial, compromise as well, but when it's strongly suggested that anything seen as an Obama win on anything is bad, what is that saying?
12 - Glenn Contrarian
Jules -
Both sides say nasty things all the time. I guess you have to be in the middle to see it.
The key, however, is to see which party stands for what policies...and frankly, the policies of the Democratic party are (for the most part) eminently sensible, whereas the policies of the Republican (and Tea) party would lead the country right back down the toilet where we were headed in late 2008.
We say let LGBT's have the same rights as everyone else.
They are dead set against the idea.
We say reward companies for bringing jobs back from overseas to America.
They think that's a fool's errand.
We say don't give tax breaks to companies who outsource American jobs overseas.
They think that's an unfair tax hike on corporations.
We say that there's nothing wrong with having the wealthy pay a greater portion in taxes (which worked just fine at the 70% to 90% range from the early 50's till Reagan took office).
They think that will drive us into another Depression.
We say that workers should be paid a living wage (which idea Adam Smith supported in his Wealth of Nations).
They want to get rid of the minimum wage.
We say that regulation is needed to protect people from the excesses of corporate greed.
They think that regulation is bad, bad, bad (and they even try to blame the Great Recession on regulation!).
We (along with 97% of all climatologists and the vast majority of scientists in the world) know that global warming is largely driven by human civilization.
They think that it's (1) all a grand left-wing conspiracy, (2) a communist plot, (3) actually global COOLING, (4) real, but due in no wise to human civilization. To them, ANY explanation - no matter how outlandish, as long as it's against the Left - is sufficient.
We say that Fair Trade is far more sensible than 'Free Trade' wherein we get taken to the cleaners by countries who will NEVER play by the 'Free Trade' rules that the Right supports...which is one reason why we have such a massive trade deficit. We say there's nothing wrong with implementing the same trade policies with any particular country that that country implements against us.
They think that we should just believe in Free Trade and ignore the taxes, tariffs, and subsidies that the other countries impose while laughing at our refusal to do so.
So...Jules - one side is really trying to do what is best for America and the world, whereas the other side is doing whatever enriches the individual (and whatever's against the Democrats).
Your choice.
13 - PH
The gold star goes to Glenn !
muah
14 - Dan(Miller)
Here is a pretty good YouTube spoof of President Obama.
Dan(Miller)
15 - Kim Crawley
Barbara, I'm sorry you have the 'Tea Baggers' and the GOP to deal with in the United States.
I'd say, 'thank god I'm Canadian!', except Stephen Harper is our Prime Minister.
16 - Baronius
Did you guys read the article in National Journal? It's quite moderate. The point of it is that the Republicans shouldn't be too obstinate with their agenda and destroy their chances in 2012.
What I'd really like to read is the interview, which unfortunately is behind the "subscribers only" wall.
17 - barbara barnett
Baronius: me too. Not very nice of the NJ is it? My subscription ran out.
18 - Jules
My main point was that I don't really think it's all that surprising that a republican would say the goal is to make sure Obama is a one term president. That was the democratic party goal in 2004. I'm sure someone said it out loud.
Barbara - I don't think it implies anything. I heard democrats saying the same. I heard them say the world was ending... Now I hear the same from republicans. When it's election time there are always blanket statements made.
Speaking of blanket statements...
Glenn - what you said doesn't have anything to do with my point. I guess you are saying you don't care what the democrats say about republicans because they are just echoing your own thoughts.
I am not a republican by the way. My parents are democrats and my dad is involved with his district. I agree with many of your points (though not all). My political feeling don't have much to do with the point I was making.
I also have republicans in my family. There are not stupid, mean, racist, uncaring, uncharitable people. They just happen to have a different viewpoint.
My democrat dad is not for gay marriage. My republican family member says they don't care one way or the other. My dad leans conservative when it comes to jobs vs the environment.
So why are you using the word "they?" Not everyone thinks the same even in the same party. That's why I call myself in the middle. Yeah, I might lean one way, but I don't go party line on everything. I think for myself.
19 - Baronius
Jules - Don't knock yourself out looking for shades of gray in Glenn's comments.
20 - Dan(Miller)
President Obama said on Monday, We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.
Our truly post partisan president; 2012 - 2013 should be lots of fun no matter what happens next month.
Since us gredy igorunt contry hatin' konservitives gotta git out o the way and sit in the back no matter what gonna happn, it probably don't matter nun whut we mighta thunk if we ever don bothered to thunk which we ain't. We jus better say Thank you! And, of course, git outa tha way.
Dan(Miller)
21 - Jerome Wetzel
The current problem is that the Republicans have been such a hinderance the last two years, stopping every piece of legislation they worry might give Obama some type of victory. And the other problem is that the Democrats won't stand up to them. I'd like to think if the Dems keep control of Congress that good things might happen, but when they won't fight when they have a majority, why fight when they loose or lessen their control? The alternative is not attractive either, as the GOP wants to take us backward. I think I've resigned myself to the next two years of nothing positive getting done in our nation's capital, and maybe Obama and the Dems can capture that great spirit they started with in 2008 again in 2012.
22 - handyguy
Dan, as is often the case, dishes out plenty of narrow-minded sarcasm, but selectively finds it offensive when it is aimed back at his side.
And of course he quotes the president out of context. The first part of that paragraph in the Yahoo article reads:
He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front.'
So give it a superfluous racial spin which apparently you find quite amusing. [I suspect others may not.] But that spin came only from you, not from Obama.
23 - Dan(Miller)
Re # 22 -- racial spin? -- I don't see any, perhaps because I am one of them racist rednek dummies; that's just the way us stupid, fearful and ungrateful redneks talk, don't you know. Or maybe anything less than adulatory said about "The Won" is racist. Sigh, words have so many different meanings it's difficult to get, let alone stay, current. I had better go buy a bible to cling to.
And no, I'm not offended, just amused.
Dan(Miller)
24 - handyguy
Disingenuous much?
25 - Ruvy
Oh, the pain! The pathos! For about a year Americans bellyache about getting screwed over by whatever politician happens to own the headlines.... Then magically, they forget the fact the the Republicrats have been stealing their money for decades - since the 1970's at least - and that both parties have been the dancing boys for the investment bankers and oilmen who have been soaking them dry.
It matters not what any of these idiots say or whether Obama has one term, two terms or is dictator for life. They are stealing your money - what little is left to you, and so long as there is a government of these thugs, you will all be mugged daily - until the dollars you value will deteriorate to fancy toilet paper.
Sorry guys. That is the painful truth. And Barabara, you are truly a fool to fall for any bullshit a politician picks up and throws around.