“Do you think that your view is suffering from politics here domestically?” Chris Cuomo, CNN “New Day” anchor, asked Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sept. 16. “Do you believe if there were [a] President Romney that members of your party would have the same resistance that they’re showing right now?”
McCain momentarily halted his spirited avocation for strikes to reply. “You know, there are some, Chris, in all honestly, [who oppose it] just because they don’t like President Obama,” said McCain.
There would seem to be ample evidence to support this claim stretching back even before Obama’s Jan. 20, 2009, inauguration. On Jan. 16, 2009, radio host Rush Limbaugh told listeners a “major American print publication” asked him to “write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency.” He retorted he “[didn’t] need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails. … Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. … Somebody’s gotta say it.”
The teeth gnashing continued unabated.
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told the National Journal Oct. 23, 2010. As an Aug. 4, 2011, headline by satirical newspaper The Onion put it: “Obama Turns 50 Despite Republican Opposition.”
When Obama did win re-election Nov. 6, 2012, conservatives had no choice but to become more calcified; which leads us to today.
Whether as a cause or effect of these Republicans’ reflexive obstructionism, it seems a consensus has been reached against U.S. involvement. I now find myself in the unfamiliar position of agreeing with the majority stance on this issue.
“About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act,” wrote Lesley Wroughton Aug. 24, reporting the findings of a Reuters/Ipsos poll.