Romneyland's got nothin'

[ProSense]

Romneyland's got nothin'

by Kaili Joy Gray

After Bill Clinton more or less extemporaneously ass-kicked Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, the Republican-led House, the Republican Senate obstructionists—pretty much the entire Republican Party and its entire ideology—how did Romneyland respond? After wiping away the tears so as not to rust the candidate, that is?

Laughably:

“President Clinton drew a stark contrast between himself and President Obama tonight. Bill Clinton worked with Republicans, balanced the budget, and after four years he could say you were better off. Barack Obama hasn’t worked across the aisle – he’s barely worked with other Democrats – and has the worst economic record of any president in modern history. President Clinton’s speech brought the disappointment and failure of President Obama’s time in office clearly into focus.”

Yup. The Big Dog gave the most epic speech calling for President Obama's re-election (well, since Michelle Obama's epic speech the previous night). He laid out, in the clearest of terms, why we "have to vote for Barack Obama." And how does Romney respond? Nuh-uh because, um, nuh-uh.

They got nothin' but fear. When even Very Serious Journalists have little else to say besides, "Uh, wow," you know that they know that come November, they're going to lose.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/06/1128443/-Romneyland-s-got-nothin

WaPo tried to erase unprecedented obstruction by Republicans with a 5000-word false equivalency. It was published a few days ago.

It takes two to cooperate

By Steve Benen

<...>

But putting that aside for a moment, there is a fair amount of interest right now in the larger question: President Obama desperately wanted to work with both parties to advance the nation's common interests, and that hasn't come to fruition. The Washington Post ran a 5,000-word piece the other day, making the not-so-bold case that both sides share responsibility.

There's ample evidence to the contrary. Indeed, I'm not sure if Republicans noticed, but Clinton himself spoke at some length last night about GOP obstructionism.

&quot W)e all know that he also tried to work with congressional Republicans on health care, debt reduction and new jobs. And that didn't work out so well. But it could have been because, as the Senate Republican leader said in a remarkable moment of candor two full years before the election, their number one priority was not to put America back to work; it was to put the president out of work. Well, wait a minute. Senator, I hate to break it to you, but we're going to keep President Obama on the job."

<...>

On the other hand, there were congressional Republicans who huddled, literally on Obama's first day, and agreed to adopt "unyielding opposition" to every White House measure. The Senate GOP leadership decided before the president was even inaugurated that they would not compromise on anything. Shortly after the inauguration, one House Republican leader said his caucus was prepared to emulate the "insurgency" tactics of "the Taliban."

I realize the political establishment has rules, and those rules dictate that both sides must always be blamed for partisan strife, but there are some pesky facts that point in a very different direction.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/06/13705116-it-takes-two-to-cooperate

[russspeakeasy]

1. The "big dog" effectively marginalized the republican party.

Gotta love the guy.

[ProSense]

2. Mitt and Republicans are now just saying any damn thing. n/t

[flamingdem]

3. All that's left is complaining about Dems calling Rmoney & Co

Nazis