The old adage of doing what I say and not as I do is a contradiction that came to stark realization recently when the Democrat controlled Senate deployed the nuclear option that would force approval of liberal leaning appointees without interference from the Republicans.
In a government already suffering from the lack of cooperation due to partisan politics, the democrats significantly increased the ante by using a tactic they decried when they were in the minority years ago.
Changing the rules will clearly benefit the democrats, but with elections not too far off in the future, the shoe could well be on the other foot should the Republicans win a majority in the Senate in 2014.
Meanwhile Senate majority leader Harry Reid may be gloating now, but the current administration will probably set a legacy that has dramatically increased the atmosphere of non-cooperation between the respective parties.
Both parties can be assigned the bratty behavior award as a culture that is geared to the failure of the competitors rather than the success of the country has been created in Washington DC. The democrats were just as stubborn as the Republicans when the liberals were in the minority. They refused to cooperate on conservative appointments and filibustered conservative bills.
Then Senator Barack Obama eloquently argued against the Republicans deploying the same nuclear option when the Republicans finally became irritated with the lack of progress to appointments and threatened to do what the Democrats actually did last month. Changing the rules to benefit themselves was set aside since it was an offense to the protocols of the operating guidelines which have worked well both times of advantage or disadvantage.
Stacking appointments with people of the same ideological beliefs is a tactic that can be extremely effective, from Supreme Court nominations, vacancies that take place in the appellant courts, to appointees that can be in power well passed the time an administration ends its tenure. With judicial appointments, a political influence can be installed that will influence rulings for decades to come.
Detonating the nuclear option demonstrates that the democrats have little regard with reaching across the aisle to work with the opposition. The very arguments voiced in 2005 were merely political theater voiced by the democrats. Obama applauding the changing of the rules so his political agenda can now be fulfilled is completely opposite to what he stated as a senator, in fact many of the stances as a senator have been reversed since Obama became president.http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/21/senators-sang-a-different-tune-on-the-nuclear-option-back-in-2005/
Conservatives have been fuming already at the lack of transparency the Obama Administration touted when Obama’s reign began. If one took inventory of all the things stated and what has actually transpired, it is no surprise the popularity of Obama has slid downhill with even his supporters that stood with him. Obama has managed to alienate a large percentage of people on both sides of the political aisle.
Winning at all costs seems to be the political strategy in many areas of contention. There is a curious adage of winning all the battles but losing the war, and despite all the perceived victories, history will likely judge that this administration will have a detrimental long term impact than any other by far.
If one wants to measure how off track this administration is, all one has to do is look to Russia’s Vladimir Putin who has chided the western powers for the slippage of morality and steering away from traditional values.http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/world/story/1.2460933
Who would have believed decades ago that the Russian president would probably be more aligned to some traditional standards than the American president? Liberalizing the constitution and traditional values is not necessarily a good thing.