OK, that’s fair. You’re right, I should have said “filibuster proof” progressive majority.
Well, I’m confused. Can you, in your own words, explain exactly how the filibuster changed at all in 2005?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I think Obama is screwing up politically – it looks like his SOP is pre-compromise, which makes him look like a terrible bargainer. Whether that accurately reflects reality is another question entirely; I’m certainly not qualified to make that judgment…which is partly why I’m reading this thread in the first place. 
But remember in the run-up to the '08 election, there was an incident where Obama cornered Lieberman on the Senate floor for a stern talking to? IMHO, an incident or two like that – altered for propriety to accord with the office of President, of course – really would go a long way in shaping political perception, likely translating into an effect on political reality.
Meanwhile, as the gears of government grind on, everyone would do well to remember things like Obama and Bush: A real difference:
I still have no regrets about being an Obama supporter, despite the times I disagree with how things go.
The other thing that gets me about this current strain of anger is that, in some circles and by some members of this board, Bill Clinton is being held up as a Lion of the Left. If only Obama could be more like Clinton, they say. But Bill Clinton’s legislative record is pretty shitty for liberals.
Major Legislation Liberals Supported: Expanded the EITC, SCHIP, the Family and Medical Leave Act, AmeriCorp, the Brady Bill, and raising taxes.
Major Legislation Liberals Opposed: DOMA, welfare reform, more barriers to habeas corpus relief (AEDPA), internet censorship (CDA), more copyright protections for corporations (DMCA), elimination of barriers to media monopolies (TRA), deregulation of part of the derivatives market, and repeal of part of Glass-Steagal. Oh, and arguably NAFTA.
Now, of course, Clinton passed some of that because of the GOP Congress. But also supported some of it. And held veto power over all of it.
It depends on what the trade-off is, I suppose. If Obama can fire up the base by doing some symbolic arm-twisting and asking for big liberal legislation that ultimately loses, without greater political costs than the benefits, then he should do it. But if the cost of that is getting less out of Ben Nelson, or being more unpopular among the country at large, then it might not be worth it.
And to my mind, that’s fundamentally a political-tactical judgment based on educated guesses. Reasonable people can differ over it. Being angry about it seems to imply that Obama is not trying to win as much as possible, or acting with some ulterior motive. And that’s the part I don’t get.
What I don’t understand is that positions like Elvis’s are internally inconsistent. His criticisms of Obama’s negotiating approach contain two key points: 1) Obama didn’t realize that the Republicans are truly out to get him,and don’t have the best interests of the country at heart; and 2) Obama is never willing to call Republicans’ bluffs.
These two points are irreconcilable. You can only call someone’s bluff if they are, indeed, bluffing. But by premise #1, Republicans don’t care about anything other than destroying Obama. So, on the tax debate, where is the evidence that the Republicans were bluffing? By your own premise, it’s pretty likely that they weren’t. So no bluff for Obama to call.
Not a bluff at all. the Repubs are pushing for tax cuts for the wealthy. they also want the estate tax break for the misunderstood and deserving extremely wealthy.
I just want them to say it in public. The BS about giving tax breaks to the extremely wealthy who are job creators in nuts. Tax breaks for the ulber rich are not job creating. i don’t know anybody who is dumb enough to buy that. It has been proven over and over. If it were job creating, where are they. The tax rate for the rich went from 90 to 30 percent since Ike. But they never have enough.
About half the country give or take depending their mood buys it, you must know some of them.
This does not matter.
I think many are upset because Obama did not stick to his strength, his speaking ability. When he stayed silent and behind the scenes in the Tarp and banking bailouts we knew it was not his program. But by being quiet, he was giving tacit approval. Again Summers and Geithner were knee deep in the mess when it was being created. Yet he put them in as leaders.
Right now Obama should be making the case for the tax cut being held for those under 250 K . He is strangely silent. There is a strong and compelling case to be made, but he seems to be on the sidelines as a spectator.
He hasn’t been behind-the-scenes on this. He’s given two press conferences and it was the subject of his weekly address. He’s not out holding town halls, but he’s not hiding either. And he has sent out his economic advisors to explain the deal. Here, watch this.
And yet Clinton couldn’t get a healthcare bill passed, while Obama did.
Anybody who says that’s all they want is caricaturizing. That’s one of their priorities, but so is preserving low taxation on unearned income. What they were bluffing on was their appearance of being willing to alienate the Great Unwashed populace from whom they draw the bulk of the votes they need to stay in office, by directly and publicly voting against their own tax breaks and unemployment lifelines.
So, give them credit for having more than one thought in their heads at once, and the apparent inconsistency will clear up for you, okay?
And what he’s said about *why *they were (allegedly) wrong is … ? :dubious:
Is mostly pretty accurate. By the way, you still haven’t told me how you’re so sure the Republicans were bluffing.
Because I’m sure they’re human. You don’t seem to be.
Well? We’re waiting, breath bated, toe tapping. This should be very easy for you, ElvisL1ves, shouldn’t it? You know how to click a link, right? :dubious:
So you don’t know how to click a link after all. Well, you’ll have to go ask somebody to show you; I can’t do it from here.
There was no rule change in 2005, and the filibuster was no harder then than it is now. Why don’t you just admit you made a mistake?
That is nearly the point. He had a mandate to get things done, progressive things. But it did not happen that way. I am glad the health care bill was passed, even though it is weak. But the Repubs are going to kill it. Obama had to keep his base energized to fight the Repubs, because Fox and talk radio stir the righties up every day. The lefties were possibly victimized by their own expectations which I suppose were too high.
The Repubs did not take over anything last election. it was given through default. The Repubs had the same old people come out and vote. the Dems and progressives stayed home.
I seriously fear what is happening to America. It requires some major changes . Cosmetic crap will not do it. The people have to get back their power.
This is just silly.
You guys keep asking how Obama should negotiate differently. The technique is so simple and well known that I must imagine you are being disingenuous, but for the sake of argument, I will spell it out for you. Say Obama is negotiating over taxes. He wants to let the tax cut for the wealthy sunset. So, as I pointed out in a thread some time ago, he does not START by announcing that “Tax cuts for the wealthy are on the table.” INSTEAD what he does is announce that he wants to implement a whole new regimen of taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations. JUST the wealthy you understand, people making over $500,000 a year might see their tax rate go up by, say 25% over what it is now, and the taxes on people making $1,000,000 a year might see taxes go up 35% over what it is now, and the loopholes on corporate taxes will all be closed and severe criminal penalties imposed on CEOs of corporations that seek to evade paying their taxes, and mingled in with all this alarming stuff is the provision that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will be allowed to expire.
Well of course the conservative mouthpieces will be running around like their heads are on fire over all this stuff, “War on the job creators!” “Corporations to leave America!” blahblahblah, at the end of the day, the Republicans are allowed to thrash the Dems on all these proposals, but letting the Bush tax cuts sunset is small potatoes, and so they expire.
THAT’S what Obama should have been doing all along! It’s SO FREAKING OBVIOUS! It makes me wonder if he really cared about the tax cuts at all.