McConnell: Defeating Obama “single most important job”

Last week, both President Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gave interviews to the National Journal in which they said something very similar: Each man said he and his party needed to view the uncoming mid-term results with “humility.”

Obama:
“I think it’s premature to talk about vetoes because maybe I’m a congenital optimist, but I feel as if, post-election, regardless of how it plays out, the most important message that will be sent by the American people is, we want people in Washington to act like grown-ups.”

McConnell:
“We need to have a humble, grateful response about this election.”

Inside the Beltway, that was widely read as an acknowledgment by both — but especially by McConnell, for the need for compromise on important issues in the next Congress.

But McConnell’s gesture of conciliation didn’t hold for a week. This week, he gave another interview to National Journal, in which he said “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

MCCONNELL: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”

NATIONAL JOURNAL: What’s the job?

MCCONNELL: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Perhaps McConnell didn’t mean to, but he provided insight into his contempt for the plight of average voters. What’s the most important job? Not creating a climate to aid job creation. Not cutting the deficit. Not even cutting taxes.

No. As has been the case since Obama’s inauguration, the GOP has as its main goal trying to make sure the president fails — even if the country fails right along with him.

524 comments Add your comment

Peadawg

October 26th, 2010
9:42 am

“And the monkey card is similar to the race card? ”

The only reason “monkey” is considered racist is b/c Obama’s half black. It was fine to call Bush a monkey though. :roll: give me a break.

Angry As Hell

October 26th, 2010
9:42 am

Since everyone is convinced that Barak Obama is going to be a one-term president, maybe he should play his version of what the Republicans did to him his first 2 years in office. Maybe he should tell Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, “If you guys hated my first 2 years, you’re really going to hate my last two years,” and proceed to veto every bill the Republican Congress sends to him.

Intown

October 26th, 2010
9:42 am

Yes. Republicans are after one thing only — power.

BW

October 26th, 2010
9:43 am

No wonder this country is headed down the drain…we’ve got real problems but our focus is on playing race cards, lipstick on pig, etc etc….this commentary is killing everyone’s brain cells….let’s talk about how to resolve our nation’s problems and as an added bonus manage to do so without playing zero sum games….now that would be a leader.

Rob

October 26th, 2010
9:44 am

Angry As Hell: But then the Democrats would be the “party of noooooooooooooooooooo”.

granny godzilla

October 26th, 2010
9:45 am

Peadawg

cause I really do like you and believe in patience

from the Wall Street Journal October 16, 2010

“The Treasury reported a nearly $1.3 trillion deficit for 2010, down from 2009 but still the second-largest in more than 60 years, adding fuel to this year’s political debate about the size of deficits and government.”

Grudgingly admitted, but admitted – OBAMA BROUGHT DEFICIT DOWN

Peadawg

October 26th, 2010
9:45 am

Like I said Granny, I guess it all depends on your sources. Would you accept something from heritage.org that says the President’s budget would increase the national debt to $20 trillion by 2020? I doubt it…

Whats Important

October 26th, 2010
9:46 am

Intown – and the Democrats are there for the good of mankind? What a fantasy you live in.

Angry As Hell

October 26th, 2010
9:46 am

Rob–

That’s fine. Let’s put the shoe on the other foot.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

October 26th, 2010
9:47 am

Dear BW @ 9:43, broadly agree, but until our leftist friends embrace Keynes’s “Animal Spirits” theory and appreciate the effect of the agenda of the past four years, we are wasting time looking for agreement.

williebkind

October 26th, 2010
9:47 am

BW

October 26th, 2010
9:43 am
Lets wait after the elections! We may get fist timers here with new ideas. Seems the change we got is not working.

Peadawg

October 26th, 2010
9:47 am

“The Treasury reported a nearly $1.3 trillion deficit for 2010″

Where are you getting $1.3 trillion? Everywhere I’ve seen it’s $13 trillion(which is up from last year).

Keep up the good fight!

October 26th, 2010
9:48 am

Okay…I asked and now have it straight. Obama references back of the car–its racist because it “recalls” back of the bus. Calling Obama a monkey is a religious reference and not racist.

Another important episode of “You should know”

Ragnar Danneskjöld

October 26th, 2010
9:48 am

Dear Granny @ 9:45, “deficits” do not matter – they are a mere accounting construct. The level of “Federal spending” matters, as every dollar spent by the Feds is one less that can be spent by the productive economy.

jconservative

October 26th, 2010
9:50 am

Some of you are confusing the deficit and the national debt.

The deficit for Bush’s last budget, FY 2009, was $1.4 trillion – 9.9% of GDP. The FY 2010 figures are a deficit of $1.3 trillion – 9.1% of GDP. (Figures from CBO.) The deficit is the result of revenue less spending for a 12 month Fiscal Year (FY). The FY runs from Oct 1 to Sept 30 of each year. We are currently in FY 2011. For the last 30 years spending has exceeded revenue by huge margins.

The National Debt is the total debt of the US government. As of the close of business on 10/22/10 the National Debt of the US is $13,667,624,992,210.96. That is “trillion” for those who have problems with numbers.

A short history of the national debt. In Jan 1961 the national debt was $650 billion. 20 years later, Jan 1981 the national debt was $950 billion, an increase averaging $15 billion a year for the 20 year period.

Then in early 1981 we decided that we would cut taxes and cut spending.
And so we cut taxes. But we did not cut spending. Instead we drastically increased spending. After 30 years of this formula we have today a national debt of $13.7 trillion, an increase of $12.7 trillion for the 30 year period.

Given this history why does anyone believe the Republicans or the Democrats are going to wave a magic wand and solve this problem?

This problem will only be solved by cutting spending AND by raising taxes. Like it or not, that is the “magic wand”.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

October 26th, 2010
9:51 am

Dear Peadawg, I think Granny is citing the one-year change attributable to the current government, whereas you are looking at the cumulative deficit. Look at spending – that is more revelatory, especially non-military spending.

Big D

October 26th, 2010
9:51 am

Do you know why God created Mankind?
Because he was so disappointed in the monkey.

Mark Twain.

granny godzilla

October 26th, 2010
9:51 am

PEADAWG

READ CAREFULLY THIS TIME

from the Wall Street Journal October 16, 2010

“The Treasury reported a nearly $1.3 trillion deficit for 2010, down from 2009 but still the second-largest in more than 60 years, adding fuel to this year’s political debate about the size of deficits and government.”

Grudgingly admitted, but admitted – OBAMA BROUGHT DEFICIT DOWN

Kamchak

October 26th, 2010
9:52 am

Kamchak

October 26th, 2010
9:29 am
I hope we are still talking about insurance!

Nope.

Smoking guns and mushroom clouds. You silly cons swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Keep up the good fight!

October 26th, 2010
9:52 am

Pea…you are confused. $1.3 budget deficit in 2010. 13T is the national debt.

granny godzilla

October 26th, 2010
9:52 am

Rags

Yep.

Continual gradual improvement….

Ragnar Danneskjöld

October 26th, 2010
9:54 am

Dear jconservative @ 9:50, “This problem will only be solved by cutting spending AND by raising taxes. Like it or not, that is the “magic wand”.” While you are correct as a practical matter, given the mindset of the overlords of both parties, cutting spending alone could be sufficient. Abolish SEC, FTC, FDA, FNMA, FHLMC, FHA, agriculture department, and the combination of spending constraint and the concurrent growth in the tax revenues due entirely to economic growth will wipe out the cumulative deficit in 10 years.

Peadawg

October 26th, 2010
9:54 am

“I think Granny is citing the one-year change attributable to the current government, whereas you are looking at the cumulative deficit. ”

Gotcha. And the fact that the cumulative debt/deficit/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it is more this year than it was last year is why people are so angry.

Georgian

October 26th, 2010
9:54 am

Keep,

Monkey in my terms of what I think of is a crazy animal running around a cage acting like an idiot, eating bananas. IT has nothing to do with Obama as a half white/black. Instead of immediately thinking race, why can you not read my whole comment and see that right after that I say he is crazy. It is common practice to use one phrase/word to compare something.

Nice try, but race (for me) has nothing to do with it. If he was white as a sheet I would not agree with his outlandish statements and policies.

retired early

October 26th, 2010
9:54 am

Bubba

Last time I checked the Dems won the election. The GOP were in charge for 8 years. Did they move forward on Health Care, the deficit? Why should they have ANY input?
I guess I was a pre-tea partier. Because I kept screaming “we have to balance the budget”. My GOP coworkers during these “W” years were unconcerned that his tax cuts would be paid for by their children and grandchildren. They did not care. Because it was the GOP in charge.

Peadawg

October 26th, 2010
9:55 am

“Grudgingly admitted, but admitted – OBAMA BROUGHT DEFICIT DOWN”

Yet somehow how debt/deficit/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it went up from last year…hmmmm.

Georgian

October 26th, 2010
9:55 am

Keep,

The deficit has almost DOUBLED since REID, PELOSI, OBAMA took charge.

Midground

October 26th, 2010
9:55 am

BW
BW, I could not agree more. The unprecedented amount of corporate funds in politics is incredible. Unlike personal contributtions that may be for genuine support for a particular candidate, Corporations do not make political donations out of admiration. Both parties are very beholden to the corporate interests that fund them: George Soros for the left and Koch brothers for the Tea party and the conservative-right How else do you explain the funding of their ad blitz ??? They all have an agenda, and want a return on their investment. Our money-grabbing representatives and Senators do their bidding and they fund their re-election and election bids. The American people get lost in the process…

Tommy Maddox

October 26th, 2010
9:56 am

What was Obama’s statement YESTERDAY regarding working with Rupublicans?

“They can come along but will have to sit in the back”.

Wasn’t there a large scale civil movement based in part about someone being told to sit in the back?

Peadawg

October 26th, 2010
9:57 am

“They can come along but will have to sit in the back”.

Talk about wanting to work together! Obama’s true colors come out.

Midground

October 26th, 2010
9:57 am

Not factually correct Georgrian !! Look up the deficit figures at the beginning of the decade and look at it on Jan 19 2009. The results may surprise you !!!

kayaker 71

October 26th, 2010
9:58 am

Interesting how Jim Marshall, the D congressman from our district, is dodging Bozo at every turn. He states in political ads, that he didn’t vote for the Health Care Bill, that he is not some surrogate of Pelosi and that he is for the “average” voter, whatever that means. These guys are running scared and don’t want to identify with Bozo at any cost.

granny godzilla

October 26th, 2010
9:59 am

Tommy

Sitting in the back, and being slaves, and being lynched, and crappy schools, and being prevented from voting, and having their women raped,
and having their home and farms burned ……

Really cheesy comparison.

granny godzilla

October 26th, 2010
10:00 am

kayaker 71

where’s Bush?

Ragnar Danneskjöld

October 26th, 2010
10:00 am

Dear Granny @ 9:52
Cumulative Federal outlays, by Fed Fiscal year (000 omitted):
2006 2,655,057 military 521,827
2007 2,728,702 551,271
2008 2,982,554 616,073
2009 3,517,681 661,049
2010e 3,720,701 719,179

It is the nonmilitary spending that rages out of control.

kayaker 71

October 26th, 2010
10:02 am

Granny,

Guess he’s still in Dallas enjoying his retirement.

Keep up the good fight!

October 26th, 2010
10:03 am

Georgian…words matter and have implications especially when your initial sentence starts with a race card issue (although you were on the correct side of that play). You may want to select your words more carefully and realize that some terms do have a racial tone….

Call a white man “Boy”…no real meaning. Call a black man…and it does have a historical racial reference. Same with the term monkey. Applied to Bush – no historical racial reference but to a black man, it does have a significant racial historical reference. Unfortunate but that is reality.

But as to the other comments in your post…let’s be clear. There will always be some who disagree, that does not mean that something is “shoved” down anyone’s throat. We elect representatives to government for a reason.

Laurie

October 26th, 2010
10:05 am

Cynthia, you finally got one right. Good for you. The republican disdain for the average voter has been prevalent for some time now.

dawg

October 26th, 2010
10:08 am

It’s Bush’s fault….Don’t need to know the question…

Ragnar Danneskjöld

October 26th, 2010
10:09 am

Dear Granny @ various times, to put the 10:00 numbers in perspective, nonmilitary spending grew from 2,133,230 in the last republican budget to 3,001,522 in the current – roughly a 50% increase.

Georgian

October 26th, 2010
10:09 am

Midground,

In October 2006, the federal deficit was at its lowest in 4 years according to USA Today. Since it has been on the rise every year. That was with republicans in charge.

The total debt in 2006 was around 8 billion, in 2010 it is at 14 billion and rising. That is almost double in my book. How accurate is that? In 06 repubs were in charge, in 10 dems are in charge. Dems promised no spending that would increase the deficit yet here we are having spent 1.5 trillion a year since they made that promise.

SouthgaNole

October 26th, 2010
10:09 am

Kamchak at 8:12

and it took you guys 12 post to bring in “it was Bush’s fault” excuse.

The Nerve

October 26th, 2010
10:10 am

LOL….like every politician EVER hasn’t wanted to beat the other guy…or gal if that be the case. What mind numbing spin. Keep it coming. The fact that you libs believe Obama and the Democrat Party puts country first is both very sad and absolutely hilarious at the same time. And before you throw a poutrage against the Republicans, they aren’t any better. Vote every one of the incumbents out.

BW

October 26th, 2010
10:12 am

Yes we’ll see how the first timers do when they are awash in all the money and power that is DC. I’m not holding my breath. I understand that corporations create jobs but I also understand the first order of business is to maximize profit not keep the unemployment rate below 5%. The current model of maintaining one’s socio-economic status is unsustainable…either prices have to come down overall or incomes have to go up. I think that we are truly looking at a reset…a new normal…those who were responsible with their money and/or happen to have a skill set that keeps them employed regardless of the economy are going to be fine….as for the rest…I understand that everyone is responsible for their actions and must live with those consequences but I don’t want to have to travel with a personal bodyguard everytime I go out in public either.

granny godzilla

October 26th, 2010
10:13 am

Rags

You don’t support cutting defense spending?

You don’t think that’s out of control?

Some People are stupid

October 26th, 2010
10:14 am

Uhmm..Georgian.

I believe you have to include 07 in your deficit comment. The republican administration would have created that budget.
So 8.950 to 13.6.

A Patriotic (unlike CT) American

October 26th, 2010
10:14 am

Cynthia, once again you’ve done it…….you’ve printed a bunch of words, but, unless I’m missing something, they’re words that came out of someone else’s mouth……”What do you think”. This is journalism at it’s worst. You’re supposed to be writing an “opinion piece”, not quoting someone else verbatim or do your left wing nut jobs at the AJC tell you what to write? Have a good time while you can sweetie……your god obummer’s time is nearly half done and we’re counting the days until he’s out of office. Remember everyone, to vote on November 2nd :)

Ragnar Danneskjöld

October 26th, 2010
10:15 am

Dear Granny @ 10:13, no. If anything, that is the only part of the budget that ought to be funded.

Some People are stupid

October 26th, 2010
10:16 am

Goergian-

Did I read your comment correct. The lowest deficit in 4 years.
1. Wow, thats a great range, considering they came in with a surplus.
2. That’s like me comparing this deficit to 08 and saying its the lowest deficit in 2 years.
3. The deficit doesn’t include off the book spending so the actual deficit was higher(wars)

Come on son

October 26th, 2010
10:19 am

As has been the case since Obama’s (Clinton’s 2nd) inauguration, the GOP has as its main goal trying to make sure the president fails — even if the country fails right along with him.

This have been the GOP’s playbook before, and the fact that they have blind followers who would rather vote for crooks (GOP nominees for governor in GA and FL) who simply run on an anti-Obama platform instead of any real issues, really speaks to the fear tactics people have allowed to over take common sense. The whole GOP/Tea Party theme has been “white fright” tactics, i.e., the “blacks are taking over”, the “hispanics are taking over”, the “muslims are taking over”, you get the picture.