1. Do you think you'll be surprised by anything Obama will say tonight?
2. What would you like him to say?
3. What do you think he will say?
My answers?
No.
I go back and forth on what I want him to say. I want him to lay things out and give us a real state of the union, and not the BS "the state of our union is strong" stuff that we got from Bush for eight years, especially when it's quite obvious that our union isn't as strong as it has ever been, and we're in the midst of a lot of turmoil. I think that, when there was still an illusion of a Democratic supermajority, he should have been aggressive in Congress in pushing his agenda. Instead he let Congressional Democrats run things, and they screwed it up, and the drive for bipartisanship killed his agenda. On the other hand, now that it's virtually impossible to do anything without a bipartisan effort, since Republicans have shown a willingness to filibuster anything and everything they don't like, nothing will get done at all.
Still, I think he needs to be aggressive. He needs to sell America on the idea of his agenda. He hasn't done that so far, and the reason he has failed so completely is that he expects his ideas to simply win on their merits, while Republicans go for the flash in the pan approach. I think he needs to throw down a gauntlet. I think he needs to say that the health care bill sucks, that Congress screwed it up, that Republicans are dragging their feet, that Democrats made giveaways to special interests, and that they need to do it right. If he can gain the support of the people, he can control the debate. Until now, he's barely even been a part of the debate.
What do I expect to see? Uncle Fluffy. I think he'll whitewash everything that has happened in the last year, he'll be conciliatory towards Republicans, he'll be nice, he'll be inoffensive, and he'll reach out to Republicans. And I envision I'm going to get a headache from all the eyerolling I feel coming on.
Bipartisanship has its place, and it's a laudable goal. But when people are on opposite ends of an ideological spectrum on a particular issue, and your efforts to give them something are thrown back in your face, then you don't surrender your core beliefs, you try to win. Otherwise why bother being in the majority? Why bother even having a position at all?
Where does everyone else stand? I'm particularly interested in what Hatrack's small but hardy band of conservatives think on this one. Is there anything he could say that you would take positively?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I posted this to Hatrack this morning after hearing the morning news talk about how liberals are upset with Obama for turning his back on... whatever.
And then... reality set in
Liberals are disappointed in Obama. The news is reporting that he has to find a way to return to the voice he had while he was campaigning. But that's not going to happen, for one simple reason. The campaign was fantasy. Now he's faced with reality.
What did people expect? Obama's entire campaign was some sort of undefined, inchoate "Change". "What kind of change?" some people asked. "Who cares!" was the answer. "Any change is worth voting for." So America elected an incompetant boob with zero executive experience, and damned little legislative experience. Quite fittingly, a nation that worships movie stars and vegges out to reality TV voted a good looking, slick talking, substantless bubble into the nation's highest office.
Everyone who pointed out that the man is even less qualified for the presidency than the hilarious and frightening Sarah Palin was accused of being a war-mongering racist.
Well, folks, you get what you pay for. And the lamer-in-chief with his psycho chief of staff and tax cheat treasury secretary are what we paid for. And now we're stuck with him for another three years. Way to go.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, some of us voted for him based on some very specific policy initiatives, not from some amorphous proclamation of him not being like the guy in office or the other guy running.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And on votes like that, he couldn't have been elected dogcatcher. Sorry, but you know what a minority you're in about that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't actually. I'm not saying you're wrong, and I think there is the potential for a great deal of truth in what you're saying, but I have no hard evidence to support it.
If I even saw some polling data that asked people why they voted for Obama, what they expected, and what they think now, then I'd believe it much more strongly.
I do think that there was a cult of personality involved, and that that was an aspect of his popularity and appeal. And I think there were a large number of people who simply voted Not-McCain, Not-Palin or Not-Republican. But I have absolutely no way of knowing what percentage of people voted for him for those reasons as opposed to what percentage voted for him for substantive policy driven reasons. I'd also take into consideration that elections are rarely about a majority of the population weighing and balancing purely substantive policy driven criteria. If we're recognizing that as a basic truth of the voting population, then this doesn't much matter. However, if we recognize it as a truth, and then ask just how much more does Obama owe to these factors than a regularly elected president, then I think we're asking the right question.
Without that sort of data though, it's all speculation. I suspect you're on to something, but I have no idea if it's as big as you think it is.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Everyone who pointed out that the man is even less qualified for the presidency than the hilarious and frightening Sarah Palin was accused of being a war-mongering racist.
There's no irony in this statement, is there. Blatant wide-brush hyperbole about blatant wide-brush hyperbole.
posted
yo leaked stuff here: accompanying talking points for speech
quote:Topline Points: Pre-State of the Union **Not for Distribution**
Rescue, Rebuild and Restore
· President Obama took office a year ago amid an array of challenges unparalleled in our lifetime. o Our economy was in freefall — gripped by the deepest downturn since the Great Depression and teetering on the edge of an even greater collapse. o Job losses of more than 700,000 a month compounded an ongoing assault on the middle class: a decade of stagnant wages, the impact of plummeting home values and the ever-rising costs of health insurance and educating their kids. o A $1.3 trillion budget deficit, two wars and badly frayed global alliances also greeted the president at the door.
o Faced with daunting challenges, Obama took strong and politically-difficult steps to rescue the country from a potential second Great Depression; to rebuild the economy for the long term, so businesses are thriving, the middle class is growing and all our families are more secure; and to restore America's leadership in the world, as we wrestle with the global challenges of the 21st century.
Rescue Economic Issues
· Within one month of his inaugural, President Obama had shepherded the most far-reaching economic recovery plan in American history. It has brought our economy back from the brink of a second Great Depression and, one year later, we are beginning to see signs of progress. o Job losses, while still too high, have fallen to a tenth of where they were a year ago and the economy is growing for the first time in two years.
o The President also began the work to rebuild the economy for the long-term by laying a new foundation for growth and prosperity — a prosperity that is focused on working families, small business owners and the economic competitiveness of our nation.
Rebuild Domestic Agenda
o Under President Obama's leadership, we have begun to confront challenges that Washington has ignored for decades and enact reforms meant to strengthen families, small businesses and American economic competitiveness that lobbyists and special interests have worked to prevent time and again. o We are closer than ever on real health reform, we're moving toward a clean energy economy, we've taken on the big banks and special interests to reform outdated and lax financial rules, and we've initiated far-reaching education reforms to demand excellence in K-12 and make college more accessible and affordable.
o President Obama has also signed historic legislation — from extending unemployment benefits to expanding health insurance for children to ensuring that women receive equal pay for equal work — that, for decades to come, will improve and strengthen the lives of everyday Americans and working families throughout the country.
o On issues large and small, the President has worked to rebuild the economy on a new foundation so that middle class families, and those who aspire to the middle class, can enjoy the prosperity and economic well-being enjoyed by the special interests, the very wealthy and the well-connected.
o He's matched this leadership and advocacy for the American people by standing up to those very special interests and by beginning to change the way business is done in Washington by making government more accountable, accessible and transparent to all Americans. o For the first time ever, every visitor to the White House — what they're doing and who they're meeting with — will be made public o And we've limited the influence of lobbyists in government by preventing executive branch employees from receiving gifts from lobbyists, by prohibiting administration officials from lobbying the government for two years after they leave public service, and by removing lobbyists from government boards and commissions.
Restore Global Relationships
o As he's worked to rescue the economy and rebuild it on a new foundation that will promote growth and prosperity for all Americans, President Obama has begun the hard work required to restore America's standing and leadership in the world. o He's enhanced American safety and security by beginning the responsible drawdown of American combat troops in Iraq. Working with our allies, he's refocused the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan while bolstering our relationship with Pakistan. o He's also engaged our partners throughout the world to combat extremism, begun to rebuild frayed alliances, and reasserted American leadership on issues like climate and energy, financial recovery, public health and hunger o After one momentous year in office, President Obama has governed as he said he would, making tough decisions instead of deferring them, thinking about the long-term well-being of the country and not just his own, short-term politics.
o On a whole range of issues, President Obama has remained faithful to the central commitments of his campaign and he has begun to deliver changes that the American people expect and deserve.
quote:And on votes like that, he couldn't have been elected dogcatcher. Sorry, but you know what a minority you're in about that.
...And as someone who wouldn't have voted for the man for dogcatcher, you've earned your grain of salt on that point.
1. No, probably not. I suppose the only question is whether the tactic will be more "whitewash" (we're making progress, where there's opposition, we can still find compromise, everyone's going about the process in good faith) or "distraction" (Our commitments in Afghanistan, look how the protests continue in Iran, newly blossoming diplomatic efforts, automakers showing signs of turning around...)
2. What I'd like him to say is he'll hammer down the best bills he can, he'll put pressure where it's needed for the bills to include the necessary language to be effective, and he'll let the stonewallers philibuster if necessary to make clear that one side is willing to move forward for America and the other has very little hard policy beyond "stand in the way of anything that might make the president look good."
I'd like to hear more specifics about the intentions for using remaining recovery funds. Some businesses have been saved; some of those same have been in the news flaunting the sort of behavior that makes many average Americans wish they had been allowed to crash and burn for their arrogance. Very little of this is encouraging to those who remain in the 10% unemployment gap, and they're the ones who matter.
I'd like to hear him reaffirm his commitment to closing Guantanamo Bay and getting the remaining forces out of Iraq.
3. Probably something like "Your government understands the pain you're going through in these trying economic times, and that's why we're going forward with a freeze on spending to show that we share in the sacrifices, the hard choices, that the average American family is having to make."
...Because whatever faults he may have, the poor deluded man still wants to believe that the people who despise and/or obstruct him do so as a matter of policy. If the sky opened during the speech and arcangels came down to crown him with garlands, there are people out there now who would spin it as pandering to Evangelical Christians and insist they weren't going to fall for such a cynical socialist ploy.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
that is just the accompanying talking point distribution. It can't provide an entire synopsis of whatever his speech will be or what rhetorical flourishes he will use.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1: I hope so, I still have alot of faith in the guy.
2: I want him to chide his party for being gutless, I would pump my fist if Ben Nelson got personally called out. I think he needs to ask the Republicans for help on this health care bill and plead with them to own it. At the very least ask for a commitment for reforms if not a government run option.
Saber rattling directed at Iran. Stop now, the time for sanctions is virtually gone, military action may be our only recourse.
Drastic action was taken to save the economy, what specifically is going to be done to create jobs? How is the government going relinquish control of our banks, but at the same time prevent corporations from becoming too big to fail?
Why was nothing done towards immigration reform? We are losing the best and the brightest minds from all over the world to other countries. The number of people going to college in the US dropped from 29% to 22% while at the same time there was a 50% increase in people attending college around the world.
The climate change conference in Copenhagen was a fiasco, what happened? What is the US actually going to do in regards to either creating green jobs, or promoting alternate energy?
Iraq is actually shaping up to a true Mission Accomplished. Thank president Bush for eventually prosecuting the war in the manner it needed to be fought in, and express our thanks to the Iraqi people for stepping up to the plate. Indicate that we won't let Iran destabilize the region. Discuss the cold reality of Afghanistan, we aren't winning, what are our true objectives are even they don't accomplish the same thing we are accomplishing in Iraq. Discuss that in no uncertain terms if those goals are not being met, we are withdrawing, and leaving some bases there in case terrorist cells are tolerated again.
edit: What specific conservative agendas like "immigration reform" will he pursue so that he can work with Republicans.
And epic out of left field change, "I will pursue a total elimination of "first past the post" in state primaries so that at last third, fourth, fifth, and Nth parties can exist in our nation."
There's more, but I'd take just those things.
3: I think he will discuss many of the topics I've stated above but in a far more general manner. Pundits will complain that he wasn't very specific.
edit: nvm, Pundits have already jumped that gun and are already predicting a lack of substance.
posted
What could he pursue in state primary election changes? If you're talking about how the parties run primaries, then the change has to come from the parties, not from Congress. Even as we speak, both the Democrats and Republicans are undertaking a pretty big effort to reform their primary structures. Democrats are even talking about doing a sort of regional primary structure, which is what I suggested/supported on here two years ago when the primaries were in full swing. None of them are talking about abandoning New Hampshire, Iowa and the other ahead of the pack states however, and this is highly distressing to me.
If you're talking about how states apportion their representatives according to the final vote tallies, then I don't see how that could be changed without a Constitutional amendment.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn: I mean the second paragraph, yes a constitutional amendment would be necessary. No president will expend their political capital seeing it happen. Only a large group of legislators can make that happen.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He'd have to go to the people first, and he'd probably have to do it as an election promise to make sure people are actually paying attention.
Actually, now is the best time in maybe a hundred years for someone with real clout to attempt such a maneuver. The entire country is fed up with BOTH parties, but the political framework of the country makes it impossible to guarantee a wholesale change in the status quo, and even harder to present real third and fourth options. Given the incredibly low state of approval of Congress (both parties), Obama could affect a populist anti-Congress platform.
"You all remember my good ideas from 2008? Well they're still good ideas, if only Congress hadn't mucked them all up! Look at them filibustering each other into oblivion, while your problems continue to go unsolved."
A blame Congress message COULD work, but he'd have to tap into just the right vein of public outrage over Congressional incompetence, and he'd have to spend the next two years taking a much more hands-on approach to Congress.
Personally, I'd like to see a constitutional amendment allowing states to create term limits first, and then I'd be interested in exploring what you're proposing. I suppose it could be packaged as a general Congressional Reform amendment though, but I have a feeling your idea would be more difficult to swallow than term limits. You want a fundamental change in the way we elect people to public office.
The irony is, people would balk at the idea of voting for a party and not a candidate, for fear of the power it would give parties in choosing their representatives. But the status quo system of voting for individuals of the two major parties virtually ensures that only those two parties will ever exist, thus giving them immense power.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if President Obama did push Congress harder about not getting things done if they would push back on him and his lack of leadership. Obama talks about healthcare and his plan getting passed yet he completely defers to Congress. There are a lot of instances where Obama should step up and lead and he just isn't. Or worse, he claims he knows nothing about decisions, like the pay czar limiting salaries.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obama talks about healthcare and his plan getting passed yet he completely defers to Congress.
This is a microcosm of why it is a little difficult to take you seriously. A soundbite like "yet he completely defers to Congress" is misleading, and not just for virtue of your use of words like "completely" that apply absolutes to the condition.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DarkKnight, you do understand that Congress actually writes and passes the laws, right? The President only signs them. He can't pass laws without Congress.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but past presidents have taken a much more hands-on role in pushing specific policy initiatives through Congress by lobbying Congressmen and whipping votes. Obama appears publicly to be largely hanging out on the sideline waiting for something to come to his desk. It's all well and good to say "I want this in the bill, now go have fun!" But if you don't actually push to have your agenda made into law, it makes it slightly more difficult to take you seriously at the end of the day when Congress totally cuts out everything you wanted. Even Bush jumped into the fray from time to time.
No, he hasn't completely deferred to Congress, but I've been very surprised by how little he's appeared to publicly lobby Congress on his own plans and ideas. Furthermore, it has been quite regular for a hundred years for Presidents to write their own legislation and have a Congressman introduce it in the Congress as the administration's bill. So where are his ideas? Where is his legislation? DarkKnight might be somewhat overstating his case, but he certainly has a point.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: DarkKnight, you do understand that Congress actually writes and passes the laws, right? The President only signs them. He can't pass laws without Congress.
Um... someone should tell Obama that.
quote:Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.
Apparently, he can bypass the legislature if they don't do what he wants.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, totally ignoring the fact that the Senate voting down that commission was utterly bizarre since even the damn thing's co-sponsor voted against it, yes, he can, and while I don't know the details, I'm guessing it won't be the same.
The Congressional Commission would have presented their findings to the Congress for either adoption or rejection as a straight up or down vote. There were a couple other technical reasons why it was such a big deal, but I can't remember them. If it comes from Obama, the Commission can still be created, but their recommendations will simply be a list of suggestions for Congress to consider, but they won't have to vote on any of those recommendations unless someone introduces them.
The Executive Branch creates commissions and other groups to go out and gather information all the time. Congress does the same, but the difference between these two is that the findings of the Congressional groups are presented to Congress, and in many cases, result in a vote on those findings. The reason so many people voted against it was not wanting to be saddled with a potentially unfriendly vote when those findings come calling.
I like that Obama called Republicans out on the filibuster last night. The Senate blocked commission on the budget was blocked because of yet another filibuster. Republicans are filibustering EVERYTHING they don't like. It's become a minority veto, and they're using it to swamp the legislative process. If they want to do that, then they have to take a share of the blame that comes from nothing getting done. He worded it a lot more friendlier than I might have liked, especially to a citizenry that doesn't really understand the legislative process, but at least he brought it up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The republicans are honestly breaking the filibuster in order to stay relevant. It's working okay for now, but it's getting a little ridiculous even for them.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He can bypass the legislature if what is being done is part of the executive (making commissions is very much an executive function), and he has funding available as provided by Congress that can be dedicated to the purpose (which he no doubt does, through an executive department, until and unless Congress passes a law preventing him from spending money on such an effort).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think DK's criticism is pretty on point, actually. President Obama has not taken a major leadership role in many of the issues that he promised to push, health care being the biggest example of this. As President, he has enormous power to bring to bear on Congress and an great position to persuade both Congress and the public. I've seen very little evidence that he has exercised any of this consummate with how import he said the health care reform was.
Leaving something to the Democrats in Congress is pretty much a recipe for failure and health care reform, done correctly, is such a obvious win issue that I'm amazed that so little effort has been put into actually engaging the American public in it. Certainly you can blame the divided nature of the Democrats, their apparent impotency or you could blame the obstructionist and outright dishonesty of the Republicans, but really, the failure of getting proper health care reform is going to fall very heavily on President Obama. And there is so much he could have done, but did not, so that this would not be the case.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The republicans are honestly breaking the filibuster in order to stay relevant. It's working okay for now, but it's getting a little ridiculous even for them.
And the Democrats and President Obama are letting them. They've plenty of options, but it seems they have gone with quiet acceptance of the situation.
Could you imagine were the situations reversed? Would anyone be talking about how the Republicans were doomed because they only have the Presidency and a very large majority in both houses of Congress? Of course not, because the Republicans may do all the wrong things, but, by god, they get them done.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What plenty of options? I don't dispute that there are some; I am curious as to what you think they are.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am fine with the existence of the filibuster, but it needs to go back to where people have to actually talk during that time. There needs to be some cost, even if it is just video of someone reading the phone book on the senate floor.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the mini-nuke one of making a filibuster an actual filibuster, like you said. Making the filibuster be something more than a procedural thing is by this or other means would work.
Alternatively, they could make the Republicans pay for being so incredibly obstructionist. The Dems control the legislative agenda and the Presidency. They have numerous opportunities to really stick it to the Republicans. They also have an opponent who is being outrageous with the filibuster, but they have made no moves that I can see to capitalize on that with public opinion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: And the Democrats and President Obama are letting them. They've plenty of options, but it seems they have gone with quiet acceptance of the situation.
they're not letting them do anything. the democrats never had a majority outside of common caucus. this common caucus includes lieberman. the republicans are simply pursuing a scorched-earth strategy wherein they are willing to cripple government with massive obstructionism in order to prove that it does not work. It's the last refuge of their privatization scheme.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure how to respond to that. Are you using majority to mean something other than more than 50%?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I like the mini-nuke one of making a filibuster an actual filibuster, like you said. Making the filibuster be something more than a procedural thing is by this or other means would work.
Alternatively, they could make the Republicans pay for being so incredibly obstructionist. The Dems control the legislative agenda and the Presidency. They have numerous opportunities to really stick it to the Republicans. They also have an opponent who is being outrageous with the filibuster, but they have made no moves that I can see to capitalize on that with public opinion.
I would like to see that, too.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: the republicans are simply pursuing a scorched-earth strategy wherein they are willing to cripple government with massive obstructionism in order to prove that it does not work. It's the last refuge of their privatization scheme.
And you think I am hard to take seriously...Sheesh! Simple searches show that Republicans do have ideas, have put forth legislation which immediately dies because the Democrats will not bring it to the floor. Obama is not leading the Democratic party. He makes his speeches and then pretty much (does that make you happier) passes the buck onto Congress. NCLB was written by Ted Kennedy but was also pushed through by Bush. The arguement can definitely made that President Bush led the country while President Obama is not. The Democratic party is falling victim to their own individual power. Too many backroom deals, giveaways to lobbyists and the healthcare industry, allowing one Democratic Senator to hold up their own plans should be handled by President Obama. The bills are all still laden with pork and earmarks even though President Obama said they wouldn't be. If you want to make big promises you have to be willing to do the work to try to make them happen. President Obama seems much more comfortable making speeches on what his plan is and then usually taking a back seat. Healthcare is supposed to be his plan yet he mostly acts like a bystander.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DK, the Republican Ideas seem to be nothing more than misdirection, band aids, and name calling.
Their ideas on health care were--Cut how much doctors can be sued for even when they screw up your life, and um, take it one step at a time so we can kill it one step at a time and give out tax breaks.
Their ideas on employment--"Its jobs stupid, just don't spend any money making jobs for the jobless. Cut taxes on the wealthy and we can expect the good-hearted wealthy folks to spend all their extra money hiring people at good wages with health care."
Their ideas on the deficit--"Cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations so that profits go up and they hire more common workers, even middle class workers who can pay all the taxes. Oh, and cut all other programs but the military."
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Squicky: Historically speaking, in this country, when you want "to get something done" you have to grab the reigns and take charge. People were largely fed up with George W. Bush's excess use of using this principle to advance executive power. Obama allowing the legislature to legislate is how the system is supposed to work. While I agree there is something to the criticism of Obama not getting out there and whipping up votes, I think his commitment to monthly meetings with both party heads was a means to address that problem. It brings him closer to the congress.
But at the same time I think he felt that with his party having a strong majority in both houses, it would suit him better to lay out his agenda and let his party do the grunt work. Had it worked out properly he would have been seen as the champion of the legislation and congressmen/women and senators wouldn't be gripping about him being omnipresent. Congress failed, it's easy to say "Well duh?!" but you sometimes you have to let people fail before they will accept your help.
I think we are going to see Obama be a bit more hands on with the congress, rather than simply talking to the media about how he feels about the job they are doing. I think he is charismatic enough that he will find himself quite capable at finding legislators from both parties, to join with him on initiatives that will also make the trip to his desk.
It will be good for him to spend some more time with Democrats and Republicans. Democrats because frequent visits from your boss keep you on task, Republicans because while you can BS the media, and even other legislators, Obama strikes me as the sort of guy who if he is actually talking to you, he gets past the crap and ascertains what if anything can be done.
edit: Further it will be good for him to hear from more conservatives as he shapes his policy decisions.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: the republicans are simply pursuing a scorched-earth strategy wherein they are willing to cripple government with massive obstructionism in order to prove that it does not work. It's the last refuge of their privatization scheme.
And you think I am hard to take seriously...Sheesh! Simple searches show that Republicans do have ideas, have put forth legislation which immediately dies because the Democrats will not bring it to the floor.
There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to bring it to the floor. The pre-vote procedure quickly determines that the very bad, unappealing plan posed by the superminority party does not have enough support to make the floor, and voting would be a waste of time.
Would you prefer we procedurally extend the inefficiency of congressional sessions just so you may have the pleasure of witnessing superminority bills inevitably fail?
quote:The arguement can definitely made that President Bush led the country while President Obama is not.
And I'll start taking that argument seriously when Obama starts managing the same amount of vacation time as bush. good luck, dude!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Too many backroom deals, giveaways to lobbyists and the healthcare industry, allowing one Democratic Senator to hold up their own plans should be handled by President Obama. The bills are all still laden with pork and earmarks even though President Obama said they wouldn't be.
Honestly? I blame Republicans for this. If the Democrats didn't need to get a supermajority to pass the legislation, most of that wouldn't have happened. Those giveaways and add-ons only happened to get to the magic 60 number.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Summary President Obama peppered his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation with facts, which were mostly right but sometimes cherry-picked, strained or otherwise misleading.
■He said “there are about 2 million Americans working right now” because of last year’s stimulus bill. But his own economic advisers say the total could be as little as 1.5 million, and independent estimates range down to as low as 800,000. ■He quoted the Congressional Budget Office as saying health care legislation could “bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion” over the next 20 years. But CBO has made clear that’s a soft and uncertain estimate. ■He said that when he took office, the deficit already was projected to total $8 trillion over the next 10 years. But the estimate is from his own Office of Management and Budget; the CBO put the figure at trillions less. ■He said he believes a Supreme Court decision will allow foreign corporations to spend in U.S. elections. Perhaps so, but it actually did not address a law still on the books forbidding any foreign-based corporation from spending on electioneering here. We also scoured the Republican response delivered by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. He doctored a Thomas Jefferson quote — omitting Jefferson’s endorsement of government action to protect people from injury. McDonnell also overstated the speed with which the national debt is growing.
quote: There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to bring it to the floor. The pre-vote procedure quickly determines that the very bad, unappealing plan posed by the superminority party does not have enough support to make the floor, and voting would be a waste of time.
Or it could that the supermajority says "it's our very bad, unappelaing plan or nothing!"
quote: Honestly? I blame Republicans for this. If the Democrats didn't need to get a supermajority to pass the legislation, most of that wouldn't have happened. Those giveaways and add-ons only happened to get to the magic 60 number.
Earmarks are the fault of Republicans? I think this is a bit of a reach because if the bill was that good then Democrats should have voted for it without having to make the deals they did.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:if the bill was that good then Democrats should have voted for it without having to make the deals they did
"The Democrats," sadly, are not a monolithic bloc. What appeared good to about a third of them was unacceptable to another third.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Forgive me a moment while I be be a tiny bit condescending, but I think it's adorable that you connect the "goodness" of a bill with it's political viability. Really.
A lot of us think the original bill, before it was amended to death, was great, but getting 60 votes, especially when a lot of Democratic votes come from conservative states where they have to be careful about appearing too liberal (note, the appearance, not necessarily the substance or goodness), is quite difficult for any major piece of legislation, especially so for something as contentious as this.
Earmarks might not be their fault, though I'd note a couple of things. 1. It's no excuse, but Republicans do them too. 2. A lot of those earmarks were more or less legislative bribes in order to get the vote total above 60 because the Republicans required an additional 9 votes over what would otherwise be necessary.
If this came to a straight up or down vote, it would have passed in a much more straight forward, less cluttered form, months ago. Demanding a supermajority is what screwed up the bill in large part, and what bloated it with giveaways to special interests and individual senators alike (with the qualifier that this wasn't the sole cause of special interest giveaways, at least in the Senate anyway).
Consider the precedent Republicans are setting. Do they really think they'll get a filibuster proof majority in 2010? In 2012? I doubt it. A pox on both your house. Polling shows that voters as a whole still hate Republicans slightly more than Democrats, but no one is particularly favored. I think 2010 is actually going to lead to a record low turnout, which actually might favor Republicans to a large degree, but they aren't going to get the Senate back. At least, it's very unlikely. But let's say they DO get the Senate back, and Republicans now hold the Senate by say 52-48. Do you think they'll get anything done? I mean, sure, Obama can just veto to his heart's delight, and then they'll fail to get the override (and actually, if Democrats were smart, that's exactly how they'd do it, in order to demonstrate how more reasonable they are in Congress). But let's say Obama loses in 2012 and a Republican is in the White House and in control of Congress. How do they expect to move ANY of their ideas forward after they've demonstrated that it's perfectly acceptable policy to throw a wrench in the gears of the government?
I'm not saying they have to roll over and simply accept everything that comes their way. But think of it this way. What's your philosophy of government? I don't mean WHAT government should do, but HOW it should do it. Do you think a majority should rule in this country, with respect to the rights of minorities? Do you think when the people give control of the government over to one party, that they probably support the agenda of that party? That's how we've generally viewed government in the past. When you lose control of Congress, you don't get your way all the time anymore. What you do get is the chance to modify the opposition's legislation to make it more palatable, to make it more fair, and to weed out what you might think are the worst offenses. And call a spade a spade, Democrats were perfectly willing to operate within this framework. Their health care plan was campaigned on, and they were overwhelmingly voted into office. When they got there, they came up with a health care plan and offered to work with Republicans. They didn't offer to fundamentally change the basis on which their plan worked, but they cut some things, and added a lot, to make it more palatable to Republicans. Republicans rejected it on the notion that it wasn't 100% acceptable, and shut down the whole process.
I think, based on my own philosophy of how the government should function, that this is fundamentally wrong. The party in the minority should fight for what they believe in, should attempt to gain the support of the people through honest debate of their ideas, should attempt to modify legislation they don't like as much as they possibly can, and then give it a straight up or down vote. Think of what the outcome of that is. If the legislation works, then maybe it was a good idea. If it doesn't, then they can campaign against it int he next election. That isn't just how Congress should function as a deliberative body, that's how democracy should function as a national political system. Something like the filibuster should only be reserved for the most egregious legislation, that you honestly can't live with, that you think will cause irreparable damage. I'm not talking about the scare language that Republicans have been using, but something more real.
Democrats didn't stop the Iraq War from taking place, and I think that was a serious dereliction of duty, but despite the disastrous results that Republican policies of the last 20 years have led to, I think they were within their rights as the majority to pass them. But those policies didn't work out the way they wanted them to, and people voted Democrats into power to try their ideas. Democracy worked just like it should, until Republicans said "No, you don't get to try your ideas."
I think that's what fundamentally bothers me about the Republican actions over the last year. They're refusing to participate in the Democratic process. Using a parliamentary trick to grab hold of the reins of power when your party was specifically elected out of power is not right. And you know, if I felt that it was purely ideological, I might even respect them a bit more, but it isn't, it's political. The vote that occurred earlier in the week to vote down the creation of the bi-partisan commission on the budget was voted down by six of the Republican co-sponsors. They so hate the idea of giving Democrats any political successes that they'll vote down legislation they obviously support just to hurt them? I don't usually use language like this, but that disgusts me. The fact that it was done so nakedly offends me. The fact that no one seems to be calling them on it saddens me.
And, you know, I just realized this is probably officially a rant now, so, I'll just close by saying, DarkKnight, that I think the most on the nose thing that Obama said in the State of the Union was when he told Republicans that if they want to make 60 votes the new voting threshold, then they have to take responsibility for what happens in the Senate. And that means the current health care mess. [/rant]
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or it could that the supermajority says "it's our very bad, unappelaing plan or nothing!"
Or it could be that the Republicans did some figuring and decided that no matter what is in the plan, if it passes the credit would go to the Democrats, so they were going to kill it, rant about it, and proclaim it evil socialism.
Every time the Democrats offered to discuss things with the Republicans the Republicans said, "This is our plan. Take it as our plan or do nothing."
When one or two of the Republicans tried to work with the Democrats, the Democrats worked with them, but the other Republicans attacked them as traitors.
By the way, what is a good plan DK?
Would it be cut the teeth out of Malpractice insurance? Studies show that torte reform would save a few % of health care costs, but they are not the major reason for high insurance fees to individuals.
You mentioned opening up competition by removing state limits and regulations. I pointed out problems with that as well (race to the bottom as states compete for being the home to all insurance companies). What else would there be?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Or it could that the supermajority says "it's our very bad, unappelaing plan or nothing!"
Here you go again using really inapplicable language. If it were actually "unappealing" plans being discussed, the republicans wouldn't have to desperately hold them back by becoming the most obstructionist minority act in american history. If it were actually 'unappealing,' it would not have massive majority public support (including over 60% for the public option).
Again, you just don't know what you're talking about, OR you abuse language to the extent of rendering your talking points useless.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
