Blaming Republicans for gridlock is not factual

Columnists Cokie and Steven Roberts adhere to the Democrats’ favorite phrase — “The Republicans are the party of no.” Odd, isn’t it, that when the Democrats repeated that mantra often enough, it actually took on a life of its own?

Can we, at least, make some effort to be factual? When one examines the actual facts, the Republican-controlled House, once they gained control, passed numerous pieces of legislation only to have them completely ignored by Sen. Harry Reid. He did not even allow a hearing on any part of it. So please Cokie and Steve, inform me as to which party was actually the “party of no”? 

And please inform me as to when Mitch McConnell obstructed Obama’s agenda? Am I missing something? Take the health-care legislation. The Republicans were barred from even participating in the legislation. Obama and the Democrats, behind closed doors, rammed Obamacare through without any Republican input at all.

Normally, legislation which would drastically affect the whole nation would be hammered out by Democrats and Republicans sitting down together and eventually working out a compromise both parties could live with. May I ask, where was this compromise on the part of Democrats when this health-care bill was passed? This compromise that you now ask Republicans to make? 

You are right that Republicans and President Clinton did work together to pass legislation. Note however, that it’s been pointed out many times that Clinton did attempt to govern from the center as opposed to Obama rigidly governing from the far left. 

And now what has Obama stated? If the Republican Congress doesn’t concede to his wishes and pass legislation he wants, he will make Congress irrelevant and rule by executive fiat. May I point out that even some Democrat advisers have issued stern warnings that we have reached a constitutional crisis. Will this country remain a republic, a nation of laws, passed by the people’s elected representatives or will we be ruled by one who would set himself as a virtual king issuing executive orders? Doesn’t anyone recall the statement made much earlier by Obama in which he voiced his desire to render the Republican Party impotent?   

Is it not odd how the Roberts duo mentions the U.S. Constitution in their article? The balance of power among the three branches of government! So where does the Constitution give authority to the president to completely override Congress and rule alone by issuing executive orders? The U.S. Constitution clearly defines the duties of the president. 

Cokie and Steven please take note that the last vote gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress, not to concede to Obama’s wishes but to attempt to have Obama, at least, make an attempt to work with the new Congress. Polls show the majority of voters are concerned about the open border situation, for instance. That they wish for the sealing of our borders and that both parties and the president work toward a solution that would place illegals in back of those who legally entered the country and have them work toward citizenship. 

But what do you suppose Obama would do if such legislation were to pass? Veto it? this is just one example. Then I could mention the proposed pipeline that Obama has refused to take any action on.

No, the voters did not concede to Obama the authority to rule by executive order and attempt to render the Constitution irrelevant. 

Tebeau is a resident of Kalispell.