@DiogenesLamp :
At the outset, the reason I'm picky about this argument is how it is used -- "don't vote for republicans/destroy the party". I think that is a sufficiently dangerous course that it deserves opposition. In fact, it's a lot of what motivated the Trump supporters in the primaries -- "we must elect Trump to destroy the GOP". And I think most of us can see how well that's turned out....
Do you believe they did this because they were ideologically opposed to Garland, or do you believe they did this because this is an election year and it would have greatly angered the base who already perceive them as "do nothings" ?
The why is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they,
in fact, "gave Obama everything he wanted". They did not.
Their
motives weren't within the purview of the initial claim. Although I would add this -- at least with Republicans, elections raise the prospect of being able to put pressure on them from a conservative perspective. With Democrats, the effect would be exactly the opposite. In other words, if it would have been Democrats with a Senate majority, Garland would already have been confirmed. So again, going back to the underlying assertion of it not really mattering who we elect...yes, it matters.
The suspicion further exists that were this not an election year, they would confirm him just as they confirmed Loretta Lynch, who has proven to be exactly the sort of corrupt government official which the base had feared.
Absolutely no argument there. But we were in an election year, and the result therefore
is different. Had we nominated someone other than the Orange Freak, we would have gotten to appoint a justice far more likely to see things our way. That is a huge, real world difference in results.
That one i'll grant you. Democrats would have approved it, but is this the most significant thing on which he should have been opposed?
Whether it is the
most significant thing they should have opposed doesn't make their opposition meaningless. That's the standard, because again, the argument is "don't vote for Republicans because they don't do
ianything to stop Obama anyway. That is simply false. They clearly didn't do
as much to stop Obama as some of us would have liked, but that doesn't mean that they gave him everything, such that there is "no difference" between Democrats and Republicans.
How about this lawless non-budget we've been having for the last 8 years? Also I haven't noticed the courts doing much to stop him. They make noises, but he keeps doing what he wants.
Again.... the issue is not whether they stopped
everything. It's whether they stopped
nothing. That's why I prefaced this entire conversation by first establishing where the goalposts actually are. And they nevertheless seem to be creeping....
But again, did they do this because they believed it was the right thing to do, or did they do this because they believed that if they didn't,
So what? The legal result on that issue is the exact same. They did stop it. And so
what if they did it just so that voters wouldn't lynch them?
That's a great reason to elect Republicans -- because unlike Democrats, they are subject to pressure from conservative voters on some critical issues. Not on all of them, but on some important ones, we can influence their votes in a positive direction.
My recollection is that they did pass legislation to modify when and how Obamacare was to be pressed down upon us. They deliberately drained off much of it's poison so as to make it more palatable to people instead of forcing everyone to immediately feel it's horrible effects.
But they
also refused to backstop the insurance companies. Again, offering examples of where they failed to stop Obama does not prove they did not stop him in other areas. In this particular case, it was the refusal to add additional funds, plus the Rubio Amendment. Compare the result to if it had been Democrats in charge. Massive additional subsidies, likely higher individual/employer penalties, no death spiral. We are in a better position because they did not give in to Obama on that issue.
Strategically the better approach would be to allow people to immediately suffer under Obamacare so as to create the political will necessary to repeal it. This was a golden opportunity which they deliberately bungled because they do not seem to know how to play this political game properly.
That is
exactly what the Rubio Amendment and related actions have done in pushing the exchanges into the death spiral. They didn't do as much as we wanted, but they certainly did
something of real consequence.
