I don’t understand. I said to “a large extant.” I think that’s accurate because any first term President who face an opposition majority in Congress will realize that Congress wants to make him look bad so that he only gets one term. Obama’s was hardly a unique position.
If you are arguing that Obama faced the hardest and most concerted effort in all of history by a congress to ensure that he had only one term, than I’d say that’s a pretty strong statement. It may be true. I have not studied all the times a first term President has faced an opposing Congress. Have you?
I don’t really care or think it’s important, but to say that Obama had it the toughest of all is the kind of thing that requires backing if you want me to believe it. For all I know Grover Cleveland faced some hardcore mofos that make the tea part look like… A tea party.
Congress, regardless of Party affiliation, is not obligated to cooperate with the President (let alone actively promote his agenda) regardless of his Party. Congress passes the laws, and the President can sign them or veto them. That’s it.
Checks and balances. And that’s a feature, not a bug. We don’t elect a Dear Leader in this country.
So counting the two independants, this is the few months in which Obama was supposed to enact everything in his agenda? You do know I was responding to Shodan’s ridiculous post right? I don’t think you and I are in disagreement here.
I see your point. However, look at all the criticism that gets heaped on the President for not accomplishing x, y, or z. If his only responsibility is to sign or veto bills (and he has vetoed very few), then he should get more of a break from the critics.
Congress is under obligation to govern. If they do not want to do it then why are they running for office? Holding their breath and pouting like 3 year olds who aren’t getting their way is not governing. Its a tantrum.
Although his race has something to do with it I think that the left overestimates the degree to which it was racial. I think it more had to do with the D after his name. I’m not sure that a white Democratic president could have done much better.
If this was all that he was up against you might have a point. But the Republicans early on decided that it was in their political interest to make sure that Obama presidency could have no successes. The clearest example of this is the way they reacted to the ACA once it passed. As the loyal opposition their goals should have been to do what they can to make the best of a bad situation and do what they can to make the program work towards their view of prosperity.
Instead they did everything in their power to make sure it caused as much harm to their constituents, with the hope that this would lead them to blame Obama. To see this look at the number of Governors who refused federal assistance to expand medicare, or joined law suits to prevent subsidies that were the only way that those with poor income could afford the mandated programs. This goes beyond simply a different view of what policy is best for the American people. This is actively trying to hurt the American people in the hopes that Obama would be blamed. To my mind the most blatant example is their suing him for delaying the employee mandate. If they really thought that mandates were bad policy why wouldn’t they accept the delay. The only reason is that they realized that the employers weren’t ready and so following the original schedule would be a big clusterfuck that they could use against Obama.
I honestly feel if in 2012 the Republicans were given a magic wand that would crash the economy and raise unemployment to 15%, they wouldn’t have hesitated to use it.
There is no doubt about that, and I wonder if they would even deny it. ("We had to crash the economy so we could win the election and save the country from for more years of [insert made up problem here])
Couldn’t be. As soon as a white Democrat becomes President all the Republicans will do whatever they want. Especially if Hillary becomes President. You’ll see.
It is the nature of a two party system where the goal is personal power. You honestly believe the political class and government employees are motivated by altruism? And it’s absurd to think that Democrats want to do what’s best for the country. That’s hopelessly naive. And you are very educated which makes this even more confusing.
Then it will be cause she’s a woman even though the republicans fought against Bill Clinton with a fervor. And what explains the lefts fight against Bush? Oh… That’s different. ambush was objectively bad.
Who knows? If the Democrats had ever controlled both houses of Congress during Obama’s presidency then they might have passed the most sweeping overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system in nearly half a century–though given the Republican Party’s intransigence, I suppose they might have had to do it without a single Republican vote, and given the arcane and extra-constitutional nature of the U.S. Senate’s rules (“the filibuster”) such an effort might still have been messy and compromised.
Neither side has a monopoly on accelerationism, which arguably isn’t even a bad thing. Remember during the Bush years when Republicans accused the Dems of hoping for America to fail? That narrative flipped real fast after Obama won. It’ll flip again if Trump wins. The ride never ends.
Sometimes compromise is worse than either extreme, especially when it ends up just being the worst of both worlds. Or half a baby.
To stop, in their mind, terrible Dem policies. Your idea of governing is self serving. As long as they show up and tell their constituents they stopped the Dems they’ve done their job. They run on the idea of tearing down the government and drinking liberal tears, so it doesn’t make any sense to expect them to go along on a joy ride with you. The ones who did got voted out right quick.
Too bad the Dems didn’t have a tantrum during the Bush years. Maybe the economy wouldn’t have imploded. Sometimes I think the Dem rank and file are jealous of GOP discipline. Like always complaining about trying to repeal Obamacare a billion times. If only the Dems believed in anything that much.
The Republicans don’t have to offer a replacement bill. Their stated position is that things were mostly peachy keen before Obama ruined everything. If they could they’d repeal the whole New Deal. Less bills, not more.
Or they could punch the Dems in the mouth and take their lunch money, then tell the teacher the poor Dems tripped. Politics is a gentlemen’s duel between sectors of capital, not a church singalong. How is helping Democrats supposed to advance Republican policy goals? Reminds me when Blue Dogs kept deflecting from voting with the GOP on everything. They’d say you gotta keep the powder dry, build the political capital, you peasants just don’t understand the nuances of horse trading, etc. That powder is still in an armory somewhere.
Well, for starters, when the Democrats are pushing Republican policy goals. Remember, the Republicans in Congress, every single one of them, voted against a health care plan designed by Newt Gingrich, just because the Democratic president agreed with them. Either the ACA advances Republican policy goals, or it doesn’t. If it does, then the Republicans forsook their own policies by voting against it. If it doesn’t, then they forsook their own policies by creating it.
Compromise can only work in both sides are willing to give it a try. The Republicans in Congress made in clear they had no interest in any compromise, even one favorable to their agenda. Their policy was obstruction as an ends not a means.
At some point, Obama should have stopped offering carrots and started threatened with sticks. At some point he could have pulled a Truman and gone to the people and run against Congress. Tell people what his agenda was and tell them if they wanted it, they needed to put new people in Congress.
Obama’s popularity was generally higher than Congress’s. If he had made it a contest of the President vs Congress, he had a good chance of winning. And that prospect might have scared some Congressmen into a willingness to start negotiating in good faith.
And if Congress won and the voters rejected Obama, he wouldn’t have been much worse off.
Yes, it is. It’s right there in the preamble: establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.
Thoreau used to go home every weekend so his mother could do his laundry and make meals for him. He demonstrated how easy it was to talk about being self-supporting and free as long as you didn’t have to actually live that way.