The last President who NEEDED a filibuster-proof majority on a routine basis was…well, there WASN’T one. Although Clinton was in something close to this situation towards the end, when the GOP stalled all his judicial nominees in hopes that a Republican would get to fill all those court slots.
And how many judges has the Senate confirmed for Obama on the district and circuit court benches? Hardly any.
Doesn’t what happened last Tuesday constitute ‘working’ from the GOP’s point of view?
Actually, my bringing it up was the first I’d heard of it ON this board. But I’d heard a great deal about it elsewhere.
Yes. And the Lincoln Bedroom, and Filegate, and Travelgate, and the bit where Clinton supposedly shut traffic down at a major airport for a couple hours so he could get his hair cut while AF1 was on the runway…
Aside from Monica Lewinsky, not really.
“Countless lower-court judges”?? You really haven’t been paying attention.
The thing is, there are still a LOT of problems that can only be dealt with through legislation. But those problems will just have to fester for another six years.
And that happened at times when both parties actually had an interest in governing. Hell, even the Gingrich Congress wanted to prove it could run the country. Mitch McConnell (Senate GOP Leader) recently faulted the GOP leadership of that era with being too willing to try to pass legislation, and not focusing hard enough on bringing Clinton down. (That was the GOP-controlled Congress that shut down the government over Clinton’s refusal to massively cut Medicare, just to give you an idea of how conciliatory they were. The current GOP leadership is determined not to play nice the way they did.)
OK, they can be counted. So far, two years in, 42 judges have been appointed. I agree it’s ridiculous that there are still 47 noms pending, but clearly there will be plenty of impact to the courts over the next 6 years (assuming re-election, as the OP does). Hell, even at the current “block rate” that’d be another 120 judges or so…
I guess I’m just an optimist, but I know that there is plenty of room for common-sense legislation that both parties can compromise on. Perhaps cynicism and electioneering will win the day, but maybe there are a few GOPers that really do want to get something accomplished. We shall see.
I notice that the new GOP Senator from IL has already indicated he’d support a pared-down version of the Disclose Act, for example. And Rand Paul is already making noise about cutting the defense budget.
From David Frum, a long time ranking officer of the Forces of Darkness, speaking to Salon, which I do not read for the articles, but only for the pictures of nekkid women…
That’s the key. When you itemize what’s actually in the law, people support every bit of it. They only think they’re supposed to be against “Obamacare” when they don’t know what it is. They think it has something to do with Stalin. Bill Maher says part of the Democrats’ problem is that they won’t brag about their achievments. This is a perfect example. If the Republicans want to really try repealing HCR, the Dems should run ads saying exactly and specifically what that means. “They want to force seniors to pay more for drugs. They want insurance companies to be able to dump you if you get sick.” I wishm, for once, that the Deomocrats would get out of the gutter and get down in the sewer with the Republicans.
That could send shock waves far beyond the Beltway!
I’m not sure what you expected from a guy who, in a thread about the judge overturning the gay marriage ban in California, said:
Social Security and Medicare were great Democrat accomplishments. Many Republicans never liked either program, but Republican politicians who make direct assaults on either get hurt. Right now it does not seem as though the President’s health care plan will be like that.
Obama should have spent his first term fixing the economy and achieving successful conclusions to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If he had achieved those goals he would have earned the credibility to move ahead with health care. Instead he pushed through a health care most Americans do not like or understand, while the unemployment rate rose three percentage points, and the situation in Afghanistan got worse.
Good point about Afghanistan-I wonder what Obama is planning to do?The “surge” is not going well.
Also, the administration is planting stories about our “ally” Hamid Karzai (the “bags of cash” from Iran).
Either we are backing a coup, or this is preparatory to starting talks with the Taliban and getting out.
I hope it is the latter case-we have expended a lot of money and blood, for no perceivable gain.
I also think Obama had better be careful about getting into bed with India-our other “ally” (Pakistan) might get upset.
Wait, how do you know the Admin is planting those stories?
There is zero chance in hell that this would ever be accomplished. Obama came in with very strong approval ratings, like most presidents – ratings that could only go down.
The idea that the President – any President – wouldn’t try to accomplish something with his great popularity and large majorities in Congress in the vain hope that his political opponents might start to like him in some future year is just an outlandish proposition. One has to strike while the iron is hot.
Do you honestly think the economy could have been fixed in one year? But that Obama just didn’t try hard enough? Give me a break. If you are a New Deal Democrat, and you really believe that, then shouldn’t you also believe that the Great Depression could have been solved in 1933 if FDR just tried a little harder?
And, as has been said many times before, when the provisions of the health care law are explained to Americans, they like them. The fact that they do not understand the bill is a fair criticism.
It’s a problem that they don’t know what’s in it, I agree.
Now, where to lay blame for that…
CNN for failure to host the supposed 'open and transparent negotiations?
The negotioations were completely open and transparent. Nothing in the bill was a secret. Nobody was tricked. When the Democrats tried to hold town halls telling people exactly what was in it and to ask for their input, the Pubs and the insurance companies bused people in (hilariously, often fatties too huge to get up from their chairs) to disrupt the meetings and shout them down specifically as an attempt to obstruct, obscure and distract from the actual content of the bill being widely understood.
This complaint about some kind of supposed lack of “transparency” is just another misdirection tactic. Anything to keep from actually talking about the content of the reform.
Having said that, the media certainly did do a shit job of explaining the content to the public, choosing instead (as they always do) to play right into the Republicans’ narrative, talking about the conflict instead of the substance (like the supposed “anger” of the retards screaming at the town hall meetings), and to pile on Obama, as the media always does with Democratic Presidents.
Which reinforces a point made earlier.
The Dems came in with every possible advantage - control of the House, control of the Senate (and by a wider margin than Republicans enjoyed at any time in recent memory), control of the White House, a President with high approval ratings right out of the box, and a bill that (allegedly) everybody loves - and they cannot do anything with it.
Another way of putting this is, everyone likes the bill if they believe the Democratic spin on it.
Because when the bill is out there, and both sides get to say what they want about it, it is not popular at all.
And the notion that Democrats are so pure and noble that they would never think of spinning anything, and it is just Republicans that are guilty of that kind of deception, is pretty laughable. And it comes across as pretty sour grapes, if you see what I mean.
Regards,
Shodan
The text of the law is not “spin,” nor do those polls spin the question. When people are asked, item by item about the factual provisions of the reform, they support it. It’s only when they don’t know what’s in it that they don’t.
Except, of course, actually passing the bill. And finance reform. And Lilly Ledbetter. And stimulus. And saving GM. Other than all that, sure, they did nothing.
And none of those, including health care reform, are going anywhere, no matter how long Boehner and McConnell hold their breaths. Maybe, maybe, they can get close to repeal in 2012 (although getting to 60 Senators will be quite tough). Realistically? 2014. By which time a great deal of it will simply be politically untenable to repeal.
That’s the important point - majorities and popularity are to be used, not hoarded. Especially for the largest social policy legislation since Johnson.
With the glaring exception of passing the most important social legislation in several decades.
Democratic spin? What kind of Democratic spin is contained in questions like, “Do you support requiring insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions?” Three-quarters of Americans support that, and that’s not spin.
I don’t have a problem with spin, nor do I instantly discredit anything I don’t agree with as being spin. The points you are making, however, are nothing but empty rhetoric. Teapot, kettle, etc.
The State of Missouri, you say? God, anything but that! :rolleyes:
It’s spin to the point that none of the probable outcomes of such a provision is mentioned. It is in discussion of the bill outside of polls that this gets covered. And when it is, support for the bill tends rather to collapse.
It is rather like the spin about how the HCR bill will reduce the deficit by $104 billion. But they don’t always mention that this is based on the assumption that other, un-related cuts to Medicare will be made, and that those cuts have been proposed every year and always voted down.
Another way to phrase the question might be "Do you support cutting Medicare and using the money for a big new program?’
And yet it was my side that won the election. Funny how that works.
Regards,
Shodan