I agree with this answer. When a district’s voting base is electing only recalcitrant, non-compromisers who pass the GOP purity test, this is what you get. GOP moderates and those willing to shake hands with those across the aisle to get things done cannot get elected any more.
The job of politicians is not ‘implementing their agenda’. The job of politicians is running the country. This, from the very beginning of the country, was achieved by bringing together intelligent adults with differing agendas, and allowing them to come to a compromise. The Republicans have not been behaving like adults. As has already been noted, they moved the goalposts when Obama offered them more than they asked for. They came right out and said that the country can go f*ck itself; they’re going to oppose everything Obama asks for.
The GOP is a perfect example of the tail wagging the dog, and Trump-Cruz-Carson-Rubio-Huckabee is their reward. (Karma is relentless.) They’re now so concerned that they’ve used their minority SOTU speech to repudiate the rabid Islamophobia and fear-mongering that now characterizes their party. But it’s too little too late.
In any event, there was precious little chance of President Obama developing a constructive dialogue with people groveling before the Tea Party and its ilk.
This analogy works only if you think of our two main parties as adversaries, working towards opposite goals.
In my opinion, the Democratic and Republican parties are more like partners in a three-legged race than opposing basketball teams. In the absence of some modicum of teamwork and compromise, either the weaker partner (at the moment) will be dragged by the stronger one (at the moment) or everyone ends up flat on their face, going nowhere.
The title of the thread asks a different question than the opening post. Obama should have been able to get Congress to work with him. But through no fault of his own, he was not able.
That’s a truly reprehensible view of the political process, and it’s a very large part of the reason why Obama wasn’t able to get Congress to work with him. It is not any politician’s job to try to block everything the other party is trying to do. It is all politicians’ job, in all parties, to do what they think is best for the country. The parties are supposed to be fundamentally allies. But instead, we have one party who wants to do what’s best for the country, and another that wants that first party to fail in everything, to the point that they’ll even reverse their positions whenever that first party agrees with them.
Both of these suffer from two flaws:
- They presuppose congressmen willing to build common ground and get on board; and
- They presuppose that the president had ample time to spend on relatively non-controversial legislation, while the country and much of the globe was in the midst of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression. With unemployment spiraling, banks failing, the auto industry teetering on the brink, etc., etc., how long could the president reasonably spend working on these sideshows without addressing the major and very controversial topics (before he was accused of ignoring the crisis)? NOTHING about the government’s response to the Great Recession can be described as “non-controversial.”
I would try to rephrase the question to get its essence, because there are two variables here. The first is congress’ willingness to work with Obama, and the the second is Obama’s ability to persuade Congress. The first variable is probably going to be a lot more meaningful than the 2nd variable.
Focusing on the 2nd variable, if we rated Congress on its openness to persuasion with a 1 being “we are automatically against everything you say,” and a 10 being “we will rubber stamp anything you say,” I would personally say that this congress has been about a 3.3. That would put it right there at the top as one of if not the most hostile Congresses ever, more importantly, it was consistently so throughout Obama’s entire two terms. One could argue, that because of this Congress’ persuadability never reached a level where Obama had a chance to affect. It doesn’t matter how good a fisherman you are if there are no fish in the pond.
Whether or not this is true to that extreme is debatable, but I think it’s pretty close.
I also think Obama pretty much decided that this was true from square one, and did not decide to spend his presidency slamming his head into the brick wall of congress. It’s hard to fault his thinking on this. Hindsight suggests that his effectiveness was largely a part of his not spending his effort trying to appease Congress. Had he tried, it might have just played into Congress’ hands as he got strung along for 8 years.
Based on this, it’s hard to fault him.
So, no. Obama did not do everything he could to work effectively with Congress. He decided early on it was a losing battle and not worth the effort.
Probably was a pretty smart move.
Obama is famous for not wooing congress. During the Clinton years there was a veritable conga line on Pennsylvania avenue of congressmen going back and forth from the white house. being wined and dined by the white house. being made to feel important by the white house. Obama is not a very skilled schmoozer.
Obama seemed to think that it should be enough that he made rational arguments and reasonable compromises.
How the fuck did he ever win an election?
An interesting thought: I would guess that a black man in America is going to have a lot more experience with people being extremely prejudiced against him than a white man.
Experience with racial prejudice, may have translated very well for Obama in dealing with the partisan, and philosophical prejudices he encountered, and made him more effective than had he been a white guy who may have naively thought he could change stubborn and ingrown attitudes.
To be fair, this going to be true to a large extent any time when the congressional majority and the President are from different parties.
Add to that there were a few times when he would meet with the Speaker and the Tea Party caucus blocked Boehner’s efforts. So really, there was no one for him to work with for a significant period of time. A Speaker who couldn’t deliver his own party’s votes?
He also seems to have a weird view of the role of the President in forming legislation. Obama seems to have the idea that the president can try to set an agenda but the legislature needs to write the actual legislation. That is problem with electing someone who taught the constitution. He was frequently criticized for not doing what many presidents have done but is rightly the role of the majority and minority whip.
Because every metric of how government works and compromises was broken by these past few Republican Congresses. Its literally unprecedented the number of things the GOP has done out of line with the opposition party.
They’ve blocked more appointmentsthan any Congress. Obama appointees have waited longer than any other appointees by any other recent president.
The 112th had the least number of bills passed.
Under the minority GOP, they’ve essentially instituted a 60 vote barrier to pass anything. Even if the Senate was supposed to work on majority rules, the GOP has used regularly and repeatedly the cloture move. Dems don’t typically play partisan games, so when we know there’s no point in putting a bill through, we generally do not see a point to putting bills to a vote when we know they are going to be blocked. That’s why some GOP pretends that they never filibustered much of Obama’s agenda because the bills technically have never come up for a vote.
Speaking of odd votes, the GOP has so far voted (at least in the House) on the ACA repeal 62 fucking times. Its become a bodily function for them, you wake up, brush your teeth, wash your hair, and vote against the ACA. Its all partisan games. They know Obama will veto it and before this 62nd time, they knew that it would never have gotten past the Senate. Now they finally forced Obama to veto it, and to what end? Just to saythey’ve had the opportunity to do it. Also happening in this Congress: Mitch McConnell filibusters his own damn bill. That right there is iron-clad proof that the GOP does not want to govern, they simply want to deny any victories they can to Obama. Full stop. End of story. They have no other agenda. They don’t vote for their own bill when they submit it, they create fake bills to attack Obama on, and they offer nothing as a replacement. So far, there has not been one single solitary attempt at an ACA replacement bill nor one single solitary word spoken on what will to done to help Americans who depend on that bill from the GOP. Not one. Its as certain as death and taxes that the GOP do not intend to provide health care to people
Under these GOP congresses, the credit rating of the US has been damaged. For probably the first time, the GOP openly side with foreign powers against their own president. They praise Putin when he opposes Obama and also attack Obama for not standing up to him. A sitting Senator is caught taking a bribe from a foreign country to sabotage Obama and somehow this is ok with the GOP when during the reign of GWB, they decried anyone as traitorous who dared to even question Bush.
As far as insane proposals go, its hard to find a crazier proposition to impeach Clinton on her first day as president. And speaking of Hillary Clinton, the country united around Bush for his failure of leadership and absolute incompetent and evil decision to ignore Osama Bin Laden warnings and still gave him the political capital to respond to 9/11. Meanwhile, 4 people in Benghazi died through no fault of anyone in the Obama administration and the GOP has probed that for longer than the 9/11 investigation.
This is a tiny, miniscule sample of the hell the GOP has tried to put Obama through, none of which is justified, for simply disagreeing with them. There’s a huge thread in the Pit on exactly how the GOP has failed to govern and failed as human beings in the last few years. As far as I’m concerned, the fact that Obama hasn’t had them all rounded up and shot is too good for them. The GOP has absolutely no fucking intention to govern, has no intention to lead, and no intention to ever compromise. Actual compromises they’ve done, as far as I’m concerned, have happened on accident or are self-serving. None of them can be reasoned with. Obama expended too much time and effort to try to work with them. The fact that there has not been meaningful compromises is 1000% on the GOP and GOP only. No evidence exists to convince a rational human otherwise
Nope. His skin color has absolutely nothing to do with his total, bumbling incompetence.
Thinking both sides are equal is often a defense mechanism that sane conservatives cultivate in order to rationalize voting for the lunatics of the GOP.
The other reason to think both sides are equal is not paying attention and accepting at face value the arguments of both sides.
Both sides aren’t equal. One is fucking loony.
That’s an absurd assessment.
Uh, no. Not to the extent since January 20, 2009, it hasn’t. :dubious:
Well, consider the source.
July 7 to August 25, 2009, and September 25, 2009, to February 4, 2010. Link.
This is certainly possible under some situations, but in 2009 when the country was in economic meltdown? The first three issues out of the gate were finishing the budget for the year, devising a stimulus package (more on that in a second), and starting the ball rolling on health care reform. Those are three very controversial topics, two of which simply had to be done right away. I don’t think it is reasonable to say that he first should have teed up some other legislation when the government was heading toward a shutdown because of an unfinished budget, and a stimulus was an emergency need because of the economy hemorrhaging jobs.
Well, aside from the fact that involving McCain in anything is an awful idea – he’s a bull in a china shop – Obama nominated three Republicans to be in his cabinet which is unprecedented, though one later withdrew. Plus, Obama had other Republicans in significant positions, like ambassador to China.
This is very true. I think the record shows that attempts at this sort of one-on-one engagement were abortive.
Somewhere between a quarter and a third of the stimulus bill was tax cuts, at a time when Democrats were loudly complaining that including tax cuts in the package was a waste since tax cuts don’t provide a good boost to the economy. And this stimulus was basically the first major bill that Congress dealt with – how much of a more bipartisan start could one ask for?
See above. Plus, after the 2010 elections, there were no moderate Republicans. There were lots of conservative Democrats during Reagan’s term, and many of them went on to switch parties (Phil Gramm, Dick Shelby, etc). Pretty easy to work with someone who is in the opposing party in name only.
Which recent president had the “real experience in crafting legislation on a national level” that you see lacking in Obama?