Originally Posted by BroncoInferno
To suggest that the obstruction Obama has faced is in anyway comparable with your above examples is simply dishonest.
Lets not do history revisionism.
It is comparable. Reagan and Tip O'neill had some fairly heated exchanges, didn't Tip O'neill reject Reagans request to speak to the House? Sound familiar? Boehner pulled the same move when he objected to the date of Obama speaking. Tip and President Reagan were on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum on just about every policy.
Clinton was up against the same situation with Newt Gingrich (who I don't like) they had budget wars, longest federal government shutdown in US history happened under those two. Then came the Clinton scandal, and needless to say that made things nasty.
Bush Jr. had to deal with Pelosi, both disagreed over the war on terror and funding it. Pelosi didn't exactly have rosy things to say about the President.
This President hasn't dealt with anything unusual, I won't disagree that Republicans have given him a hard time. However, one of Obama's key promises in 2008 was that he would usher in a post partisan era...he's failed to do that. A recent article on this from the WSJ...
Other presidents have more actively wooed members of Congress. President Ronald Reagan in July 1981 flew 14 Democratic members of Congress to Camp David for a barbecue to convince them to vote for his tax cut; their votes became crucial to its passage. Mr. Clinton had a penchant for calling members of Congress of both parties, as well as a host of others, day and night. Mr. Bush occasionally invited members of both parties to the White House theater to watch new-release movies and relied on the support of a handful of Democrats in the run-up to the war with Iraq.
Some of Mr. Obama's friends have tried to persuade him to open up more to both friends and foes in Congress. Republicans pointedly complained that after he was elected, Mr. Obama didn't meet one-on-one with either Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner for nearly two years. After election losses in 2010, White House officials considered inviting Republicans to Camp David but never did so.
Democrats, who controlled the White House and Congress, wanted to make changes to the bill, including expanding eligibility for legal immigrant children. That upset two crucial Republicans, Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, who had defied their party's leadership by voting to override the Bush veto. They supported the legislation but not the changes.
Mr. Grassley, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, made a quiet offer to Democrats: Move the bill out of committee without the immigration provision and then restore it with an amendment on the Senate floor, according to aides. That would let Mr. Grassley, and maybe others, go on record against the immigrant provision while supporting the overall legislation.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat, supported the idea, partly as an effort to build good will, aides said. Democrats were counting on both men as possible backers of more consequential health-care legislation coming later that spring. But the incoming White House squashed it, according to multiple aides in both parties. The White House directed Mr. Baucus to incorporate the changes into the legislation.
Messrs. Grassley and Hatch voted no on the bill, which passed just days after the inauguration. A White House official said the Grassley plan was rejected because it wasn't clear whether Democrats had the 60 votes needed to add the amendment.
The decision had consequences. Republicans would bring the story up whenever Mr. Grassley suggested working with the White House, particularly on health care, GOP aides said.