Quantcast

Robert Draper's Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Began The Night Of The Inauguration.

luvguins 2012/04/26 20:04:37
From where we have arrived now, some of us thought we knew when the GOP was being transparent about their campaign to sabotage the president when Mitch McConnell said their plan was to "make Obama a one term president" in October, 2010. However, we were way behind the GOP's nefarious plans according to Robert Draper's new book, "Do Not Ask What We Good We Do: Inside the House of Representatives". Draper, a contributor to GQ and the NY times, imbedded himself with House members in 2011 including the key players, and was surprised how forthcoming and candid they were about their mission and it's beginning.

As President Barack Obama was celebrating his inauguration at various balls, top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington.


The event -- which provides a telling revelation for how quickly the post-election climate soured -- serves as the prologue of Robert Draper's much-discussed and heavily-reported new book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives."


According to Draper, the guest list that night (which was just over 15 people in total) included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) -- who, Draper writes, had an acrimonious relationship with Luntz.


For several hours in the Caucus Room (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama's legislative platform.


"If you act like you're the minority, you're going to stay in the minority," Draper quotes McCarthy as saying. "We've gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign."


The conversation got only more specific from there, Draper reports. Kyl suggested going after incoming Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for failing to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes while at the International Monetary Fund. Gingrich noted that House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) had a similar tax problem. McCarthy chimed in to declare "there's a web" before arguing that Republicans could put pressure on any Democrat who accepted campaign money from Rangel to give it back.


The dinner lasted nearly four hours. They parted company almost giddily. The Republicans had agreed on a way forward:


Go after Geithner. (And indeed Kyl did, the next day: ‘Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it—please?’)


Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies. (Eight days later, Minority Whip Cantor would hold the House Republicans to a unanimous No against Obama’s economic stimulus plan.)

Begin attacking vulnerable Democrats on the airwaves. (The first National Republican Congressional Committee attack ads would run in less than two months.)


Win the spear point of the House in 2010. Jab Obama relentlessly in 2011. Win the White House and the Senate in 2012.


"You will remember this day," Draper reports Newt Gingrich as saying on the way out. "You’ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown."

Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-dr...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • C. C. Rider 2012/04/26 20:45:40 (edited)
    C. C. Rider
    +46
    The "hate" machine against this President has been the worst I have ever seen. And yet he still stands tall and will win in 2012. From the likes of drug addled Rush and Nugent they just can not stop him. These GOP candidates will loose too.


    tall win 2012 drug addled rush nugent gop candidates lose

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Jakedog tommyg ... 2012/04/27 03:15:08
    Jakedog
    +1
    What if what he is doing is the best for our country, and all those who say the lies about him have another agenda and it doesn't have the best interests of the majority of Americans as part of its plan.
  • tommyg ... Jakedog 2012/04/27 11:38:18
    tommyg - POTL- PWCM-JLA
    +1
    That is another possibility. But based on the direction we are headed, I wouldn't say he is doing what's best for our country. More government isn't the answer, contrary to Obamas way of thinking.
  • David L... MsTlynne 2012/04/27 02:24:30
    David Lindner
    +1
    Stopping the president from bankrupting our nation isn't an attack. Sorry
  • luvguins David L... 2012/04/27 02:43:32
    luvguins
    +3
    Better turn that on the guys with the 12% approval rating....Congress. The president doesn't spend any money or did you miss civics class?
  • tommyg ... luvguins 2012/04/27 11:39:25
    tommyg - POTL- PWCM-JLA
    +2
    LOL That's funny luv. I've seen you blame Bush for our current fiscal mess.

    Which is it friend? Can't have it both ways.
  • luvguins tommyg ... 2012/04/27 13:34:29
    luvguins
    You sure can when we will be paying for Bush's unfunded wars and Medicare D program into perpetuity no matter who is in office
  • Pops 2012/04/27 01:09:05
    Pops
    Ty
  • CAROLYN NTARWNJBS 2012/04/27 00:56:13
    CAROLYN NTARWNJBS
    +4
    It was well planned but it hasn't derailed the President.
  • stevmackey 2012/04/27 00:43:00
    stevmackey
    +2
    It sounds like there is a plan. Strategies are what win elections. Great going. Now get in there and win for me.
  • Jackie G - Poker Playing Pa... 2012/04/27 00:06:21
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +4
    What Dan said!
  • Flash,aka,Mr.Lightning 2012/04/27 00:03:51
    Flash,aka,Mr.Lightning
    +5
    So what? And how did the DNC work for 8 years to get rid of Bush? Tit for tat. Besides many know Obama is a usurpering marxist and the sooner he is gone the better.
  • Grandbr... Flash,a... 2012/04/27 17:12:18
    Grandbrother
    I voted for Bush, but I never saw the Dems voting in absolute lockstep to unanimously oppose every single proposal he made or supported. This can not, in any sense, be described as a "tit for tat" situation. Today's GOP is by far the most self-serving, destructively machiavellian political party that I have ever witnessed, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
  • lee 2012/04/26 23:59:39
    lee
    +7
    and what a fine bunch of patriots they are...not.

    sore losers, the lot of them... and wrong.... so, wrong... about EVERYTHING... its amazing.
  • kaZappoo 2012/04/26 23:50:48
    kaZappoo
    +8
    well for a no one // from no where // with no credible past // and many aliases /

    he's dammed lucky he got one term ...sure as heck dont deserve another ,,,,,,
  • Dan™: Real Change, Not Fals... 2012/04/26 23:49:40
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    +30
    What a total non-story!

    Of course the GOP opposes Obama -- the same as they have always opposed any Democrat President, and the same way the Democratic Party always opposes every Republican President. Duh! What a non-revelation! What a bunch of silly hand-wringing and whining I've seen from Democrats over the past few years about McConnell's comments about Obama. The goal of the opposition party is ALWAYS to make the current occupant of the Oval Office a one-term President. ALWAYS!

    Yet the Democrats want us all to pretend like we have amnesia and get all worked up about the GOP opposing Obama and trying to make sure he loses his bid for re-election, as if it's some sort of beyond the pale newfangled conspiracy ...

    I swear, do you Left-wingers ever stop and think about anything at all before you start spewing your silly nonsense?

    Never mind. I know the answer: no, you never think about anything. Thinking is counterproductive to your goals. You'd rather stir people up emotionally than have them actually think about the stupid crap you're peddling.
  • Jackie ... Dan™: R... 2012/04/27 00:04:27
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +11
    Bravo - very well said.
  • rt Dan™: R... 2012/04/27 00:26:47 (edited)
    rt
    +4
    I am an independent voter. I voted for Republicans, Ross Perot, and Democrats over the years starting in about 1970. I have been watching politics pretty closely through the years and have never seen anything come close to matching what Obama walked into and what he had to deal with from the other party.
  • Dan™: R... rt 2012/04/27 00:33:27
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    +17
    "I ... have never seen anything come close to matching what Obama walked into and what he had to deal with from the other party."

    Unless you were in a coma from 2000 to 2008, how can you possibly say that with a straight face?
  • lee Dan™: R... 2012/04/27 00:39:43
    lee
    +3
    i was about as much agiast the "appointed one" as anybody, and I NEVER saw that until now...

    do you have any proof that didn't come strait out of your ass?
  • Dan™: R... lee 2012/04/27 02:53:10 (edited)
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    +10
    I didn't make that nasty image. It has existed on the internet for years, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Democrats hated Bush and unleashed years of hateful and treasonous bile against Bush for 8 solid years -- angry bile and hateful content far worse than anything I've seen thrown at Obama. Just because you didn't notice it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
  • lee Dan™: R... 2012/04/27 16:54:43
    lee
    +1
    and just because you don't see what is happeing to Obama doesn't mean it isn't happening...

    two can play that game.
  • Dan™: R... lee 2012/04/27 17:02:37
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    +4
    I see exactly what's happening to Obama. He's getting criticism from a lot of people because of his unpopular policies (such as Obamacare, the Recovery Act, etc.), his bad decisions (funding green boondoggles like Solyndra, blocking the Keystone Pipeline, etc.), for continuing some of the worst of Bush's policies (extending and even expanding the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, etc.) and for his constant, divisive rhetoric and class warfare.

    Criticism of Obama isn't a game, it's justifiable and legitimate. We are allowed to disagree with Obama's policies and his vision for America. It's not any sort of sinister plot.
  • lee Dan™: R... 2012/04/27 17:23:17
    lee
    +2
    that's all you see because you only pay attention to what reinforces your preconceived views.

    liberal = open minded.

    that means we see ALL perspectives and and weigh them together.
  • Dan™: R... lee 2012/04/27 17:58:06
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    +2
    "that's all you see because you only pay attention to what reinforces your preconceived views."

    The same could be said of you too, because that's basic human nature. It's called confirmation bias. Self-described liberals, such as yourself, do it too. You're not somehow above human nature. You're flesh and blood just like the rest of us.

    "liberal = open minded."

    That's nothing more than self-flattery. Self-described liberals are often the least open-minded and tolerant people I've met. As a Libertarian, personally I consider myself a classical liberal. Modern so-called "liberalism" is not actually very liberal. For example, I advocate free market economic liberalism; modern self-described liberals (especially those who consider themselves Progressives) advocate against free market economics and support government regulation and control of the economy. Another example: a classical liberal would argue for less government interference in the individual's choice of what type of food to eat. But modern so-called liberals advocate for banning certain types of foods that they believe are unhealthy. These are just a couple of examples.

    "that means we see ALL perspectives and and weigh them together."

    That's merely an aspiration, not a reality. Self-described liberals are no more capable of...
    "that's all you see because you only pay attention to what reinforces your preconceived views."

    The same could be said of you too, because that's basic human nature. It's called confirmation bias. Self-described liberals, such as yourself, do it too. You're not somehow above human nature. You're flesh and blood just like the rest of us.

    "liberal = open minded."

    That's nothing more than self-flattery. Self-described liberals are often the least open-minded and tolerant people I've met. As a Libertarian, personally I consider myself a classical liberal. Modern so-called "liberalism" is not actually very liberal. For example, I advocate free market economic liberalism; modern self-described liberals (especially those who consider themselves Progressives) advocate against free market economics and support government regulation and control of the economy. Another example: a classical liberal would argue for less government interference in the individual's choice of what type of food to eat. But modern so-called liberals advocate for banning certain types of foods that they believe are unhealthy. These are just a couple of examples.

    "that means we see ALL perspectives and and weigh them together."

    That's merely an aspiration, not a reality. Self-described liberals are no more capable of seeing all perspectives than anybody else. Self-described liberals are not omniscient. They are limited in their knowledge, experiences, and perspectives the same as everybody else.
    (more)
  • lee Dan™: R... 2012/04/27 19:50:33 (edited)
    lee
    do you believe e coli infected meat is unhealthy?
  • FeedFwd... lee 2012/04/27 19:55:17
    FeedFwd ~POTL
    certainly if eaten raw. Do you believe e coli infected tomatoes and carrots are unhealthy?
  • Dan™: R... lee 2012/04/27 20:55:21 (edited)
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    I think you are deliberately trying to miss the point of my post by attempting to change the subject. I'm not going to get into a debate about the relative merits of various government regulations of the free market. That wasn't the topic we were discussing. The topic was your definition of liberalism.
  • lee Dan™: R... 2012/04/27 21:05:33 (edited)
    lee
    +2
    it goes to the heart of my definition...

    liberals want regulations, yes... regulations that protect ppl from greedy corporations and fools who might end up poisoning us.

    we don't care if you want to eat cheetos all day long, but we might point out your folly.

    the ones that want to control what you eat are all on the right... especially if they think you bought that food with any of THEIR money.
  • Dan™: R... lee 2012/04/27 23:02:02
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    "liberals want regulations, yes... regulations that protect ppl from greedy corporatoins and fools who might end up poision us."

    Conservatives aren't against ALL regulations -- just burdensome or misguided regulations. We've arrived at a point in our history where virtually every aspect of our lives are so heavily regulated that it's almost impossible to do anything without violating some unknown regulation. The federal register contains over 80,000 pages of regulations! And that's just at the federal level. Add on top of that countless thousands of pages of laws and regulations at the state, county and municipal level and you begin to get the sense that we are not really a free people in many ways.

    "we don't care if you want to eat cheetos all day long, but we might point out your folly."

    Maybe YOU feel that way personally, but you don't speak for all liberals and fact is that quite a few so-called liberals really DO care if I want to eat Cheetos all day long and are actively trying to find ways to legislate or regulate my freedom to choose Cheetos out of existence. Take New York City Mayor Bloomberg, who has taken it upon himself to regulate salt out of existence within his city. Or what about San Francisco's war against the McDonald's Happy meal?

    "the ones that want to contro...

    "liberals want regulations, yes... regulations that protect ppl from greedy corporatoins and fools who might end up poision us."

    Conservatives aren't against ALL regulations -- just burdensome or misguided regulations. We've arrived at a point in our history where virtually every aspect of our lives are so heavily regulated that it's almost impossible to do anything without violating some unknown regulation. The federal register contains over 80,000 pages of regulations! And that's just at the federal level. Add on top of that countless thousands of pages of laws and regulations at the state, county and municipal level and you begin to get the sense that we are not really a free people in many ways.

    "we don't care if you want to eat cheetos all day long, but we might point out your folly."

    Maybe YOU feel that way personally, but you don't speak for all liberals and fact is that quite a few so-called liberals really DO care if I want to eat Cheetos all day long and are actively trying to find ways to legislate or regulate my freedom to choose Cheetos out of existence. Take New York City Mayor Bloomberg, who has taken it upon himself to regulate salt out of existence within his city. Or what about San Francisco's war against the McDonald's Happy meal?

    "the ones that want to control what you eat are all on the right... especially if they think you bought that food with any of THIER money."

    Uh ... I really can't even begin to imagine what in the world you could possibly mean here. I don't know of ANY conservative who wants to control what people eat. Can you name me one?
    (more)
  • lee Dan™: R... 2012/04/27 23:21:28
    lee
    +1
    really, i"ve not met one. they are not in Congress. they are not here.

    where are these mythical beasts of yore?

    are they all extinct?

    we live in a complex world that is globally connected... griping abou how many pages of regulation exist is tacid admission that life is too hard for you to figure out.

    Bloomberg is of what party again?

    you are losing steam here.
  • Dan™: R... lee 2012/04/27 23:50:27 (edited)
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    First of all, it doesn't matter what party Bloomberg chooses to register with, we're not talking about political parties. We're talking about political philosophies: liberal and conservative. Surely you recognize that there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans? You know, Blue Dogs & RINOs?

    I don't think there can be any doubt whatsoever that Bloomberg is a very liberal Republican.

    Secondly, my point about the burden of the regulatory state isn't idle griping or an admission that life is too hard for me to figure out. It's a serious problem that undermines individual rights and economic freedom. And it threatens to undermine our entire system of government. The Founders explicitly held that it was critical to the survival of the Republic for the law of the land to be simple enough to be understood by the citizenry.

    We have a situation at present where no single person has read or could possibly understand all the laws in effect. It's not a matter where "life is too hard" for me to "figure out." The laws are too voluminous for ANYONE to figure out. And these tens of thousands of pages of laws and regulations are administered and enforced by a virtual army of unelected and largely unaccountable bureaucrats. We have reached a condition where the average citizen or bus...

    First of all, it doesn't matter what party Bloomberg chooses to register with, we're not talking about political parties. We're talking about political philosophies: liberal and conservative. Surely you recognize that there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans? You know, Blue Dogs & RINOs?

    I don't think there can be any doubt whatsoever that Bloomberg is a very liberal Republican.

    Secondly, my point about the burden of the regulatory state isn't idle griping or an admission that life is too hard for me to figure out. It's a serious problem that undermines individual rights and economic freedom. And it threatens to undermine our entire system of government. The Founders explicitly held that it was critical to the survival of the Republic for the law of the land to be simple enough to be understood by the citizenry.

    We have a situation at present where no single person has read or could possibly understand all the laws in effect. It's not a matter where "life is too hard" for me to "figure out." The laws are too voluminous for ANYONE to figure out. And these tens of thousands of pages of laws and regulations are administered and enforced by a virtual army of unelected and largely unaccountable bureaucrats. We have reached a condition where the average citizen or business is living under the tyranny of a bloated bureaucracy. Individual liberty is eroded with each new law or regulation enacted.

    How can you possibly claim to be a "liberal" if you see nothing wrong or at least concerning about the current situation? See, your attitude is exactly what I meant when I said that most modern so-called "liberals" are not really liberal at all in any meaningful sense of the word, and certainly not in the classical sense of the word. You provide a prime illustration of exactly what I meant. You, sir, are the one whose argument is truly "losing steam here."
    (more)
  • lee Dan™: R... 2012/04/28 00:01:25
    lee
    +2
    so you posit that Blooberg is a liberal Republican?

    where is your evidence for that?


    Ok, lets clean the books out...

    start with the tax code.

    no more loopholes for corporations?

    ...now they must actually PAY the "highest corporate tax rate on Earth" as your side is fond of characterizing it?

    that's a bit of regulation that I'm wiling to dump.

    what say you?
  • Dan™: R... lee 2012/04/28 01:14:06
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    "so you posit that Blooberg [sic] is a liberal Republican?"

    Yes, that's exactly what I was positing; but now that I think about it, I seem to remember that Bloomberg isn't actually a Republican anymore. I checked it out.

    It turns out that Bloomberg was a Democrat up until 2001. Then he switched to Republican until 2007. He switched again in 2007 and registered as an Independent -- which he still currently is.

    Let's take a look at some of his positions on various issues: He supports abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control, and amnesty for illegal immigrants, opposes the death penalty, supports government involvement in public welfare and climate change. He has also increased property taxes to support increased spending while in office. He also supported the so-called Ground Zero Mosque -- which virtually all conservatives viewed as an outrageous affront to our national dignity.

    Seems like some pretty standard "liberal" (in the modern sense) positions on the issues to me. Do you disagree?
  • lee Dan™: R... 2012/04/28 02:21:34
    lee
    well he is mayor of NYC... so like Romney was in Mass he has had to change his stripes to blend in...

    he's adopted some liberal stances but I would not call him a liberal... just liberal for a Republican.

    you say those are his "positions", but what has he actually DONE toward any of those?

    the mosque is the only thing I remember hearing about and that is only considered "liberal" because it pissed off conservatives.... if you ask me it was a totally made up controversy for right wingers to fume at... nothing more.
  • Dan™: R... lee 2012/04/28 03:36:53 (edited)
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    Bloomberg was actually born in Massachusetts. You can choose not to call him a "liberal" all you want, but he still is. And you can choose to call him "liberal for a Republican" but he's not actually a Republican. He's currently an Independent.

    It's not just me claiming he's liberal either. Check out the Wikipedia summary: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
  • lee Dan™: R... 2012/04/28 17:08:24
    lee
    +1
    so being born in Mass makes you a liberal?

    i don't think so.

    and he can call himself anythign he wants to but he supported the war in Iraq, so he's not a liberal right there.

    you can let him fool you if you like, but I'm not buying it.
  • Dan™: R... lee 2012/04/28 18:02:51
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    +1
    Your argument fails.
  • lee Dan™: R... 2012/04/28 18:05:24
    lee
    what argument?
  • Dan™: R... lee 2012/04/29 00:47:20
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    Your argument that, despite the fact that Bloomberg skews liberal on a whole bunch of issues, because he initially supported the war in Iraq (but later repudiated his support), he's not liberal. That's a silly argument and it fails. Lots of liberals supported the war on terror initially, only to change their minds later. Bloomberg is no different. I can't even believe you're arguing this point about Bloomberg. He's liberal. Move on.
  • lee Dan™: R... 2012/04/30 00:45:09
    lee
    its endemic of the problem I see on the right all time... they rail against "liberals", but wouldn't know a real one if they met one.

    you're no different.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/20 18:30:59

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals