McConnell is ‘Perplexed’ That Obama is Still President

The argument from Republicans that because they won control of the Senate, President Obama should immediately do everything they want done because “the American people have spoken” is absurd on every level. Mitch McConnell seems absolutely shocked that Obama is still the president:

But the newly reelected Kentucky Republican had little praise for Obama’s actions in the month after Democrats’ devastating mid-term results, a list of presidential moves that include an emissions pact with China and executive action to shelter millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation.

“We don’t have any personal problems. There is, however, a deep philosophical difference. You look at the way the president’s reacted to what can only be described as a butt kicking election,” McConnell said. “By any objective standard the president got crushed in this election. So I’ve been perplexed by the reaction since the election, this sort of in-your-face dramatic move to the left. So I don’t know what we can expect in terms of reaching bipartisan agreement. That’s my first choice, to look at things we agree on — if there are any.”

How dare Obama continue to be the president after an election in which he was not on the ballot! He should just take his seat in the back of the bus and stop being so uppity, amirite?

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com holytape

    So says the turtle, who when they lost the 2008 elections, said that his primary goal was to work with, and by ‘with’ I mean against Obama.

  • bmiller

    So the Not-So-Good Senator from Kentucky must think we live under a parliamentary system?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    The GOP was going to work with the president to get things done, but then the president had to go and poison the well by existing.*

     

    * Statement copyright GOP, Inc, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014.

  • Chris J

    So McConnell, the guy who said the main goal of the Republican party should be to make Obama a one-term president so they can get their pet legislation through, has a sad because he doesn’t think Obama is going to be interested in bipartisan agreement. After a long campaign of pretty much opposing whatever Obama supports simply because he supports it.

    It’s even more hilarious to hear him whine about being unable to look for common ground legislation when the Republicans have made repealing the ACA their primary and only objective, generally refusing to do anything until they get their way.

    “Bipartisan” has been long dead, McConnell, and you and your party pulled the trigger and drove the nails into the coffin.

  • roggg

    So I don’t know what we can expect in terms of reaching bipartisan agreement. That’s my first choice, to look at things we agree on — if there are any.

    Yeah because the GOP has worked hard on finding common ground over the last 6 years…

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    roggg “Yeah because the GOP has worked hard on finding common ground over the last 6 years…”

    They did, but they were too successful. Now there’s no common ground left to burn. Thanks, Obama!

  • scienceavenger

    By any objective standard the president got crushed in this election

    This is the main Foxmeme these days – that the President got beat in this election, despite him not being on the ballot. It illustrates 1) Just how much self-delusion the GOP is capable of, and 2) Just how much it chaps their lily white asses that they are 0-2 against him. If you can’t beat em, pretend you did.

  • dugglebogey

    Just like how all the Republicans resigned in 2008! Wait, they didn’t? Nevermind then.

  • typecaster

    I’m thinking that 2006, when Republicans took the shellacking in the midterms, is a better example. I remember many on the left being amazed that Bush didn’t alter his policies after that “stunning rebuke”, but just kept on Presidentin’ as if nothing had happened. The Right had a lot of reasons why the midterm results shouldn’t matter back then, which of course they’ve forgotten now. And also of course, Obama doing exactly what Bush did is something they don’t remember, and greatly hope that we don’t either.

  • gshelley

    I’m with everyone else.

    I can’t believe he is really dumb enough to believe this so is probably playing to the crowd. Then again, the desire to avoid cognitive dissonance can be pretty powerful, so maybe he does accept whatever absurd justification he has invented for why the Republican reaction to their defeats in 2006 and 2008 is totally different to Obama’s in 2014, and why he should have accepted that the electorate didn’t want him to do the job he was elected to do, but they didn”t need to do the same.

  • John Hinkle

    So I don’t know what we can expect in terms of reaching bipartisan agreement.

    So yeah, we want to be bipartisan, but Obama destroyed the possibility. Case in point: he steadfastly refused to repeal Obamacare, even AFTER the House had done so 50 times. How much more bipartisan do we have to get?

  • lorn

    Well, of course, Obama, if he had any decency, would be embarrassed enough over the results of his repeated attempts to shut down the government to step down gracefully but being completely shameless he accepts none of the blame for his nefarious plan.

  • Michael Heath

    typecaster writes:

    I’m thinking that 2006, when Republicans took the shellacking in the midterms, is a better example. I remember many on the left being amazed that Bush didn’t alter his policies after that “stunning rebuke”, but just kept on Presidentin’ as if nothing had happened.

    President Bush made two dramatic shifts to the left in his second term. The first was abandoning the Cheney/Rumsfeld/neo-con approach to foreign policy and instead going with the more traditional bipartisan approach led by Condi Rice. This started prior to the 2006 election. That foreign policy approach isn’t all that much different than the Obama administration’s, or Clinton’s, or H.W.’s, or Reagan’s. The radical aspect was when Cheney and Rumsfeld were in charge.

    The second shift was W. getting the hell out of the way when the financial crisis hit and allowing the experts in his administration and the Fed to dictate a response, where mostly Congressional Democrats supported what needed to be done in the last Congress of Bush’s 2nd term.

    I don’t think either shift was a reaction to the 2006 election results. I instead respond here to note that were some big shifts leftward and to technocratic friendly policies, which was for the better, after historic fuck-ups by President Bush prior to 2005 on foreign policy and then again as the financial crisis hit in 2008.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    Am I the only one who remembers, after the 2008 election, when the argument from the right is that we’re really a “center-right” nation and that the Democrats would be violating the “will of the people” if they tried to govern even slightly to the left?

    Strange how the argument has now been completely inverted, though the conclusion remains identical.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=523300770 stuartsmith

    Given that many of the Democrats who ended up ousted were campaigning on their opposition to Obama, you could easily make the argument that the failure of Democratic voters to show up and support them is an endorsement of Obama.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dale.husband dalehusband

    What stuartsmith said! Indeed, shouldn’t the Democratic Party do some sort of purge to get rid of the anti-liberal hypocrites that clearly remain in it?