I was responding to Czarcasm who suggested we write our Congresscritters to encourage them to cooperate with the President. I don’t think that they should, on most of what he wants to do.
That’s fine, but your point that Congress is not obliged to pass his agenda just strengthens how impressive it is that he managed to keep 45% of his promises, and compromise (or have in the works) another ~30% or so.
Let’s be thankful that Bush did not keep most of his promises. 
It is strange when conservatives try and tell liberals (or those of us in neither camp, for that matter) how they should feel about Obama. Presidential politics is all about lofty goals and then the hard slog to actually get anything done. If Obama has a 50% hit rate, I’d say that was pretty damn good, for a president-- leaving aside whether or not I actually wanted any of those goals to be hit.
Yes, I do see - the stimulus package that was proposed and pushed thru by Obama was Bush’s fault, adding to the deficit by spending the TARP repayments was Bush’s fault, increasing the national debt by more than every other President in history was Bush’s fault, renewing the Bush tax cuts is Bush’s fault, and breaking all 112 of the promises documented above is Bush’s fault as well.
'Twas ever thus - anytime the lefties aren’t complaining that Obama can’t do anything because of the eeeevil GOP, they are complaining that what Obama did do wasn’t his fault.
Regards,
Shodan
Complete transcript of 2015 SOTU address.
Highlights:
Obama promises to veto any bill that would repeal the ACA, repeal the new Wall Street rules, or “refight past battles on immigration.”
Proposes a budget that will lower middle-class taxes and allow tax credits for costs of children’s medical care.
Asks Congress to pass a paid-sick-leave bill.
Asks Congress to pass an equal-pay-for-women law.
Asks for a higher minimum wage (amount not specified).
Asks Congress to authorize free community college.
Calls for a “bipartisan infrastructure plan” to upgrade America’s ports, bridges, etc.
Asks for “trade promotion authority.”
Announces a new Precision Medicine Initiative, which appears to be mostly about funding new medical research.
Promises to “protect a free and open Internet.”
Calls on Congress to close tax loopholes regarding outsourcing/offshoring.
Asks for an AUMF against ISIL.
Calls on Congress to end the embargo on Cuba.
Promises to continue negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear program, and to veto any bill imposing new sanctions.
Asks Congress to pass legislation to stop cyber-attacks and identity theft.
Discusses his Admin’s efforts to combat global warming, including deal with China; promises he will not let Congress “turn back the clock” on that.
Says he is determined to shut down Gitmo.
Concludes by generally calling for a “better politics” where “we appeal to each other’s basic decency instead of our basest fears.”
So instead of complaining that he wasn’t able to keep all his promises, why aren’t you openly celebrating the fact that the Republicans were able to stop him from doing so?
From here, it looks like you’re tossing tacks onto the road while bitching at the driver about his driving. If you’re happy about all the obstructionism that has gone on and you know it, clap your hands!
Can you take this thing too?
See post #125. What specific points do you object to, and why?
Interesting that he didn’t mention that the current deficit is higher than under any other President, nor of any spending cuts, entitlements reform.
And that little turd about “not refighting immigration battles” is rather spectacularly smarmy.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s my point, and I must not be expressing it well. Not passing the President’s agenda isn’t obstructionism.
So if he supposedly failed in fulfilling his promises, then you supposedly should have absolutely nothing to complain about, right?
edited to add: It’s not obstructionism if you disagree with 100% of his agenda.
Probably because the deficit has actually dropped significantly under Obama.
Um, yeah, it is, actually, that’s pretty much what the word means.
Not passing the President’s agenda because it’s the President’s agenda is obstructionism.
If we the people, in Congress assembled, want to do those things, he shouldn’t obstruct us.
By taxing other people. How about spending cuts, instead?
There already is such a law. It’s called the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. None of its provisions allow discrimination based on sex.
Ain’t nothing free in this world. Besides, the students (and their children and grandchildren) will have to pay for it through higher taxes in the future.
And that’s just a few from your list.
Seriously, where do you get this idea from? Certainly not the Constitution. The three branches are supposed to be co-equal. Why should Congress be beholden to any President’s agenda?
Are there any items on last night’s agenda that you agree with?
Yes.
At least he’s asking, as the law arguably requires, instead of doing it on his own.
Anything else on that long list?
Well the feint is clearly aimed at allowing Obama to be a lightning rod for the conservatives by advancing actual progressive causes. It’s not a pproblem for him HE’S not running for election in 2016, and Hillary and the other Dem candidates can run AGAINST him if the progressive moves prove unpopular, or WITH him if they prove popular. Works either way. But given the polling on progressive ideas, most Americans will like these policies.
I’ve also heard that this is Obama’s way of countering the Republican’s strategy of undoing everything he has done, by making them fight agaisnt real progressive ideas. Otherwise, the goalposts keep moving to the right. Took them long enough to figure this out.