IFObama lost and Mittens were president...

[WI_DEM]

and the House continued to be GOP and the senate went narrowly GOP would you support the Democratic minority in the Senate to obstruct Mitten's agenda the way the GOP minority in the Senate has obstructed President Obama? or would you say, 'We're Democrats and we are above that kind of thing and we will find common ground...' blah,blah, blah.

[MadHound]

1. I would want them to be obstructionist,

Sadly, as when Bush was president, the Congressional Dems will fold, time and again under your scenario.

[treestar]

2. I'm inclined to say I would be all for obstructing

everything, including appointments. GOP has finally earned it.

And I'd want Obama to run in 2016.

[Warpy]

3. I think Mitt has few enough core principles to suprise everybody

especially the religious conservatives and quite possibly the cadre of plutocrats led by the Koch brothers. He's not an ideologue.

I hope he's the nominee, given the RNC's history of election fraud. I sincerely doubt he will be elected but he could very well be cheated into office.

But yes, jellyfish Democrats will always go along to get along and keep the cash flow positive.

[HopeHoops]

4. God help us.

[hfojvt]

5. Democrats actually did quite a bit of obstructing when Bush was President

even when milquetoast Daschle was Senate Majority leader, and even, strangely enough, on the debt ceiling http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/149

However, since the Devil has all the good music, sometimes it is hard to completely obstruct hugely popular things like tax cuts and wars, especially after 911.

[Cosmocat]

8. 9-11 was the greatest political card in modern history

it is what got W reelected, and was the ultimate go to card for the Rs up until December of 2008 - it did not matter what it was, if the Rs wanted it, it was about NATIONAL SECURITY and opposing it was appeasing them there terrorists.

With the "liberal media" all too willing to approve of it

That, of course, is, until a democratic president took over.

Have we heard the words "troops in the field" or "commander in chief" at all the last three years?

[Hugabear]

6. SHUT IT DOWN

I'd rather NOTHING get accomplished for 2 years (until we can vote in a Democratic Congress) than sit back and watch rethugs run roughshod over the country, instituting their pro-corporate, pro-wealthy agenda.

[liberal N proud]

7. The only hope America would have is for an obstruction until another election

Othewise we are all doomed.

[YvonneCa]

9. Haven't we seen this movie...

...before? (2004) I was grateful then that Dems tried to prevent any more damage by GWB...and fought to win back Congress in 2006. Which they did.

Compromise for the sake of compromise (Dems being 'above that kind of thing') is bad for everybody. I am always for 'common ground' compromise in our government...it is how government is supposed to get things done. I draw the line, however, at stupid wars, torture and running the country off a cliff financially...which is what GWB did.

The problem now seems to me to be the short attention span of American citizens, who will get the government they deserve if they put us in a situation where history repeats itself.

[Puzzledtraveller]

10. I tend to question

what's the difference anymore.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. Seven words: RUTH BADER GINSBURG IS 79 YEARS OLD

That's the only motivation I need to see to it that people vote for President Obama!

[jwirr]

12. I hate to say it but I would want them to obstruct as much as they could.