Why do Republicans hate the Democrats in Congress even though they have continually gave Bush what he wanted?

Question

Would you Republicans rather have a Congress that cut funding for the war, started impeachment against the President, and refused to extend the right for the government to listen in on international phone calls for the purpose of fighting terrorism ?
If not, then why are you complaining about the job Congress is doing ? Are you actually upset at the few domestic victories that Congress has achieved ?

Would you Republicans like to get rid of this Congress and replace them with more anti-Bush people ?

Answer 1

The Republicans get what they want and they still piss and moan!!

Answer 2

The Republicans were in the majority for 12 years. In that time, they really made it difficult for the Democrats to even get a bill to the floor. The Republican minority leader even admitted to that on the floor Friday. The Democrats are pulling some of the same games on them now. In committee hearings, the Republicans get about half the time to ask questions, funny things happen during the votes, stuff like that.
They shouldn't act so indignant about it. They know they have it coming, although, it certainly doesn't accomplish anything.

Answer 3

Here is a example of how the Dems operate to make Bush look bad. But you can bet when it is all said and done, they will blame Bush again, and their media will help them. How do they give him everything he wants, by having all their earmarks included in everything.
Democrats have Block Children's Insurance
It took more than a decade of constant agitation for the elderly to win the right to charge their prescription medications to Medicare.
Republican reluctance to spend the money combined with a Democratic willingness to put off action keeps the issue in partisan play. The result was that it took a Republican president to undo the political knot and pass a plan that finally offered senior citizens some relief.
We are now watching House Democrats play the same partisan game with the renewal of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which expires on Sept. 30. Meanwhile, the Senate on the one hand and President Bush on the other appear to have crafted a generous extension of the program that may now fall prey to the House Democratic desire to provoke a presidential veto — and the children be damned! Starting yet another blame Bush campaign.
Bush opened the game by proposing a $5 billion expansion of the program to cover more children and to limit the focus of the program to child health insurance.
This highly successful program, initiated in the middle of the Clinton administration, has now succeeded in reducing the proportion of uncovered children to less than 10 percent (many of whom could get Medicaid if their parents bothered to apply). States have moved to use the program to expand coverage of adults without insurance and the Bush administration is being restricted to pass it.

But the Senate went further and is pushing a $35 billion program, financed by an increase of at least 60 cents in the federal cigarette tax. The extra money would bring the five-year cost to $60 billion.

Crafted by Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Orrin Hatch (Utah) along with Democrats Max Baucus (Montana) and Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia), the plan would make child coverage virtually universal and permit states to access food stamp and other assistance program data to locate uncovered children and bring them into the program. But it would restrict the coverage of adults.

Raising the tobacco levy is a good thing to do anyway, even if you don't need the money. A higher cigarette tax has been demonstrably shown to cut teen smoking, and the increase, which would bring the total levy to $1 per pack, is a good step to improve national healthcare.

Bush threatened a veto, but seems to have backed off and appears able to live with the Senate bill.

So the House decided to pass a bill he couldn't sign. By deliberately provoking a veto, they hope to demonstrate what a heartless Scrooge Bush really is.

Not only is the House upping the price tag to $50 billion, it is gratuitously courting the favor of the medical establishment by eliminating the cuts in physician fees scheduled for the next few years as part of the effort to save Medicare without cutting benefits. The House bill also opens the doors of the program wide to adult coverage. Covering adults is a good idea.

It would be great to cover all Americans without having to fundamentally alter our healthcare system. That way, socialist utopians like Hillary couldn't use the uncovered population as an excuse to make healthcare a government-dominated program.

But House leaders know full well that Bush won't sign the bill that repeals his Medicare physician fee cuts and opens the program to adult coverage. But they are determined, nevertheless, to jerry-rig a bill that Bush can't sign by festooning it with provisions that not only endanger the future of the Medicare program they profess to adore but also may kindle a new round of medical cost inflation they profess to abhor.

The House should just back off. It is a major accomplishment in healthcare, the new third rail of our politics, to expand SCHIP to cover all children. Forcing the administration to give up its hard-won gains on Medicare cost containment to swallow the program is deliberately unrealistic.

Answer 4

To respectfully answer your question, Sir...and more to the point, Why do Democrats not like for little unborn children to have a chance to live?

EDIT:

Yes, I would like to get rid of this Congress but much more for the fact that they are Socialist Anti-America, and they are destroying our Nation.

Answer 5

Republicans want to be in charge of everything all the time. And get their way all the time. It's politics.

Remember, the Republicans are in love with God first, the country second. And they want it all. Of course, it's very dangerous to liberty if one party controls everything for too long, but that's not what the Republicans are interested in. They are only interested in the power to force their conservative agendas as cooked up by the Religious Right buffoons and Wall Street. Oh yeah, and the warmongering chickenhawks.

Answer 6

Partisan hatred knows no logic.

They would have hated the Democrats even more for actually taking those stands -- but the American people probably would have been happier.

That's one of the main problems with the current Democratic leadership -- all talk, no spine.

Answer 7

they have given Bush what he wanted because they were pretty much forced to. few congressman side with democrats because what they want is bad for the country. for example leaving Iraq.

Answer 8

LMFAO...is this a serious question
could it be...ahhh the honor of the clinton legacy

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
democrats have no shame none whatsoever and by the way...36000 carded requests for unrelated pork on the defense bill engineered by pelosi without debate is NOT what bush wanted.

Answer 9

Count Acumen its makes me sick how the Democrats have become nothing but a rubber stamp for this administration.

Answer 10

Are you from Mars? Lmfao!