Clinton’s example, eh? Care to list for us the major left-wing legislation that Bill Clinton passed? The list might be shorter than you recall.
Yes, of course. Any sane person has to admit that a prediction about the complicated events in the future is just a guess. And that’s why I don’t get the anger at Obama for making a different prediction about what the GOP would do, especially when that prediction is based on assuming the GOP is willing to self-destructively obstruct Obama.
I’d acutally shorten this list. AUMF was a bad idea, but I don’t think it was a particularly liberal or conservative bad idea. Its not like liberal Presidents never start wars. Homeland Security was basically a restructuring of existing gov’t departments, was originally proposed by the Democrats, and again, I don’t think it was really intrinsically liberal or conservative.
The tax cuts certainly were a conservative priority, but even those Bush had to force through with Reconciliation, meaning that they’d end up sunsetting a decade later.
But in anycase, I very much agree with the OP. Obama is the most successful President of my lifetime in terms of getting his parties priorities passed into law. Its bizarre watching liberals turn on him because he hasn’t been able to jedi mind-trick Ben Nelson into voting for things Ben Nelson doesn’t want to vote for.
Primarily the 1993 tax increase package that led to a stream of budget surpluses in a time of economic prosperity that reached even the bottom deciles. Not a single Republican voted for it, but they all try to take credit for the results.
But for the most part, Clinton did not get many home runs, but he did get steady stream of hits, with a Congress actually controlled by an oppositionist opposition.
Already explained. He should know better by now. But he doesn’t. He keeps getting chumped. If you don’t get that, there’s no explaining it to you.
This is my point. You’re able to come up with one solid example. I could add SCHIP, and AmeriCorp, and maybe one or two others. But that’s it.
And for the example you list, 41 Democrats in the House and 6 Democrats in the Senate opposed that bill. It only passed because it was not filibustered. If Obama could pass bills that 6 Democratic Senators opposed, he probably would have passed a bigger stimulus and the public option, and it would have had nothing to do with his salesmanship, or whatever other fairy tales are spun about how legislation gets crafted.
And that’s where going over their heads comes into it. Clinton had the people knowledge to do that and make it work, Obama does not.
What does that mean? You think the GOP didn’t filibuster because Clinton had the public on his side, but they did filibuster Obama because he didn’t have the public on his side? Do you have any evidence to support that theory?
They didn’t have the same filibuster rule back then, did you know? It used to take actually filibustering. There was a Senate rules change as part of the backdown from Trent Lott’s nuclear option bluff.
Now, how about YOU start to provide some evidence to support YOUR theories, Counselor? Educating you on political basics is getting a bit tiresome.
If you insist on a fact based discussion, perhaps you’d care to offer some.
So let me ask again - please cite the average of polls showing that Americans want a public option. My points make complete logical sense. Yours, being from the liberal/emotional viewpoint, don’t of course.
But if you can show some proof to back up your wild assertions, I’m willing to listen. So bring it.
Wait: I’m confused - is the point of this thread about why liberals feel angry or what makes for effective negotiations between two parties?
Examine my statements again. My point isn’t that perhaps a more liberal proposal could have been negotiated or passed. My point is that doing what could more easily pass in the legislature (i.e. more politically expedient) is not necessarily going to endear you to your base. Especially when it’s done in a way that indicates that maybe you only value your own principles to the extent that they get you what you want.
There’s a certain large segment of the population (both liberal and conservative) that believes in “principles”. They think, even at the risk of failure, politicians should at least try to propose and pass legislation near and dear to their hearts.
They aren’t going to be happy about legislation that *a priori *compromises on those principles in the name of political expediency.
Expecting emotional responses to have a rational basis is not reasonable. And it’s not exactly limited to liberals. Many Republicans incumbents found that out for themselves with the Tea Party.
Was it likely that economically conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson (while he’s overall a centrist, Nelson is economically conservative) would have gone for more? Probably not. But we’ll never really know because the attempt was never really made. And that might be what irritates most liberals about President Obama.
Smachy: In your words, that would be “hashing out the debate for the nth” time. If you didn’t pay attention in times 1 through n-1, why would you start now?
I don’t think you have that history quite right. But in any case, how does that support your position that Clinton was more successful than Obama because he took his case to the public?
Pretty sure your wrong, at least if by ‘real filibustering’ you mean actually having someone talk on the floor of the Senate. That was changed in the 70’s by Byrd.
If your point is merely descriptive, then I agree that this is part of what’s going on. But if your point is normative, that it’s right for people to insist on symbolic battles, then I’m afraid I disagree. Helping real people is more important than discussing big ideas.
I don’t understand the “attempt was never really made,” line. You mean, Obama never attempted to persuade Nelson? Why do you think that’s true? Or do you mean that Obama never publicly announced a more liberal policy in order to persuade Nelson?
Then you can provide some of what you call “evidence” otherwise. Sheesh.
That was in response to your ill-informed jibe about filibustering. :rolleyes:
Evidence here ‘Real filibusters’ haven’t been part of the Senate procedures since the 60’s.
Come on now. I’m referring back to the ancient mists of 2005.
OK, your refering to it. But why? What specifically are you saying was different about the filibuster that changed in 2005. You said ‘actual filibustering’. What makes a filibuster ‘actual’ that your claiming changed?
The procedural filibuster has been in use since 1975.