Is Obama subject to more obstructionism, especially this early, than Bush was? More than the “average” president?
It seems to me that he surely is, but I’m biased. I have no cites. I’m here to learn.
So I pose the question here so more politically learned posters can discuss the idea.
His effectiveness or popularity are not at issue in this thread, please.
Peace,
mangeorge
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/12/84487/senate-republicans-filibuster.html
Senate filibusters are around twice the previous year. It’s almost like they’re childish assholes who don’t care about the country.
Clinton was impeached. It’s hard to say Obama encounters more obstructionism than that…
I think more. Someone will be along shortly with the filibuster record in the Senate, and I’m sure it will show increased use. What I hear is that now pretty much everything has to have 60 votes to pass.
Bush was able to convince half the Senate Democrats to vote for the AUMF in Iraq!
About 1 in 8 judge positions are still unfilled due to repub. filibusters. The repubs have proudly proclaimed their use of the filibuster. It is at an un-heard of rate.They want to prevent Obama from enacting anything they don’t like. Now they can run on a platform that the Dems did not get anything done.
That was in his 2nd term. Give it time!
Considering that Obama has a nice majority in the Congress, shouldn’t he be able to get more done?
No the fact is a president is limited by what he can do because our government is set up this way.
Americans feel they are part of a nation, but the government is still set up as 50 states that look after themselves first. This is WHY you have a Republican from Wyoming and a Democrat from Colorado having similar interests and voting patterns.
You have 37 million Californians represented by 2 senators, while you have 500,000 Wyomoingites represented by 2 sentators. This accounts for the extra influence of agriculture and mining in the USA
If Mr Obama is facing more obstructionism, it’s due to the economy which is awful. States are going to look after themselves. A democrat in any state doesn’t care WHAT Mr Obama thinks if it is going to potentially be harmful to his/her state.
Remember Mr Obama will be gone by 2017 (if he wins re-election) a state senator or state representative can be around for decades and decades.
And what a failure that was. There are still people who wish, well, spilt milk, eh!
That wasn’t milk that was spilled.
And he was good for many pretty good jokes. 
To answer the OP, yes! The 'Pubbies are being even more obstructionist than they were under Clinton, who dared win the election to THEIR presidency. :rolleyes: In contrast, the Congressional Dems gritted their teeth and went along with Reagan.
The gift to the 'Pubbies is that Obama has extremely bi-partisan instincts. For example, he could have pushed pretty much any health care plan through congress in the earliest days of his term, but instead worked to have as many congresscritters on board as possible. Obama started with the plan the 'Pubbies created in the 90s in response to ClintonCare.
So the Congressional Rs say not just “no” but “EFF No!!!1111!!” to Every. Single. Thing. Obama suggests, and Obama listens respectfully and tries to include 'Pubbie ideas into his legislation.
Rahm Emanuel must be having kittens!
Did Obama’s children skip the terrible twos? As the adult, you do not put up with that crap, and you do not encourage it. :mad:
I do wish Obama would get his back up, instead of trying so hard to be a “good” president.
Filibuster rules changed recently to make it easier to do. They don’t have to keep talking for 24 hours, read the phone book out loud, and so forth - they just announce they are filibustering, and that’s that. No doubt that has exacerbated things.
Remember when Republicans were against filibuster.
And insisted on an up-or-down vote of the whole chamber for every nomination?
But that was when it was Eeee-vul Demoncrat fillibustering and nomination holds. Now they want it their way. Waaaaa! Waaaaa!
(I’m sure there are myriad instances of congressional democrats making flip flops like that, but the 'Pubbies have turned the “decent interval” between position changes into something so fast even the National Institute of Standards and Technology can’t measure it.)
Well, back then they were against it because they were going to have a permanent GOPtard majority, remember? Majority damned sure doesn’t want that inconvenient thing - especially a permanent majority.
-Joe
I think the short answer to all this is that Republicans are simply better at obstruction than Democrats.
What this means is that when Democrats are in control, Republicans are the heroes that block liberal policies.
When Republicans are in control, it means they are the heroes that push liberal, er, I mean well, kind of conservative policies.
But it’s okay because you can trust conservative politicians to do what they think is right ™.
I would also say that the Republicans are more motivated by simply gaining power, as an end. To them by obstructing they exert power, and hopefully win the next election, then they are in power. Doing good for the country is secondary.
The Democrats are not as motivated by power for it’s own sake.
They playing 2 different games.
In defense of the republicans (;)), they have much more opportunity to obstruct. They just don’t propose anything for the democrats to obstruct.
If something good comes about, they simply rename it and claim it.
Speaking of which, where are the conservatives? I expected someone to rush in shouting “Clinton-Gore legacy” over and over.
They were against it before they were for it.