They quite explicitly said the exact opposite the day after Obama was elected. They didn't just want Obama's policies to fail. They were willing to accept failures that hurt people, so that those people would associate the pain with Obama and vote the other way next time. That's the level of obstructionism I'm suggesting we not pursue.
> They quite explicitly said the exact opposite the day after Obama was elected. They didn't just want Obama's policies to fail. They were willing to accept failures that hurt people, so that those people would associate the pain with Obama and vote the other way next time.
I don't see anything about them being okay with hurting the country, but I see a lot about them wanting President Obama to fail, and fail badly. Do you blame them? Do you not think that Democrats want Mr. Trump to fail badly, and are having these same conversations?
If X is your number one priority, then Y - e.g. helping the American people, doing what's right, etc. - is not. What's telling is not that they said right out that they were willing to accept collateral damage - of course they didn't, because it would be political suicide - but that they said nothing at all about it. Didn't acknowledge its existence. By contrast, look at what Sanders said.
“To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him."
That explicitly acknowledges an obligation toward the American people - something we never got from the "oppose Obama at all costs" crowd. So yes, there is a difference between today's loyal opposition and 2008's treasonous opposition. I reject your false equivalence.
