The Republicans have been effective due to smart use of the power that they do have. The President has been ineffective despite having more power and more of a bully pulpit. He’s good enough to win elections, but not good enough to actually do anything legislatively. There’s always been the excuse that republicans are more obstructive than ever, but I think it’s because this President doesn’t know how to persuade or lead. Clinton was hated with an intense passion and faced a lot of obstruction himself. He figured out how to do good for the country despite that, and he did it with a smile. All we’ve seen from Obama since 2011 is scolding, tantrums, and aloofness. He has no relationship with any Republicans in congress and has sought to beat them politically rather than work with them. His offers and his meetings only come when the media turns on him, so he does the minimum he has to do to appear reasonable, then stops talking to Republicans whenever the media gets off his back.
Supposedly he’s seeking a grand bargain, yet he’s only met with Paul Ryan, head of the House budget Committee, one time, and that was highly publicized and only after three years.
No, they’ve been more willing to hurt the country for political ends than any minority part in modern history.
Other congresses had enough class to not use the filibuster like a screaming child. Electing Tea-Party reactionaries has reduced this amount of class.
He has faced unprecedented obstructionism and still gotten much of his policy agenda through. Your framing of this is so utterly at odds with reality, I assume you’re just being flippant.
Nowhere near this much.
No, all you’ve seen of FOX News is people telling you that.
Again, you are simply repeating FOX News drivel. Obama has offered much in good faith. Republicans have literally gotten what they wanted and then walked away. It’s because of the misinformation of right wing media that this has come to pass. The Republican Base literally believes that Obama is actively trying to destroy the country. Working with him would outrage those people intensely, so few Republicans can manage it.
Nonsense.
Again, the Republicans have a set of conspiracy theories they’ve internalized about him. They can’t work with Obama, but Obama still tries.
You need to take a step away from the liars that had you believing in “Skewed Polls” and try to assess the situation rationally.
their record isn’t perfect, but they’ve done some worthwhile things, such as halt the growth in spending dead in its tracks and reform earmarks.
I agree Republicans overuse the filibuster, but the Democrats also engaged in unprecedented acts against the minority, taking away the right to propose amendments. I don’t know who went first, but the recent filibuster compromise was a big step forward and shows they can work together in good faith.
All of it in his first two years. What has he done since the 2010 election?
Part of what you’re saying is absolutely true, the Republicans have categorically rejected new revenues no matter what they get in return, so that even if Obama is the primary problem, we never find out because the Republicans don’t deal. They need to call his bluff, say, “Okay, we’ll give you ALL the tax increases you’re asking for, you give us $4 trillion in spending reductions over the next 10 years”.
However, it is also true that the President has cultivated no relationships with the GOP leadership as Clinton did and doesn’t even really talk to them much. actually, he doesn’t even talk to the Democratic leadership much, a strange way to govern given that his agenda is so reliant on new legislation. So maybe he’s not so much intransigent as just too aloof. And according to books I’ve read, his idea of talking to Democratic Congressional leaders is to give speeches rather than back and forth, give and take. Which is why Pelosi just let him drone on over the phone at one point while she turned the speaker off and resumed the actual business of making a deal.
I don’t agree that these actions constitute a “tantrum.”
But for you to deny their effectiveness is pretty funny, since the gun bill just famously died, the immigration bill looks like it’s on life support, and the President just gave a sorrowful speech from the Rose Garden about how upset he is at the failure of Congress to enact his preferred legislation.
In your rush to throw in a partisan neener neener, you haven’t understood the conversation.
I said that tantrums can be ineffective. Adaher said that the Republican actions can’t constitute a tantrum because tantrums are by definition ineffective.
I’m glad you’re proud that the lying, scumbag tactics that previous congresses had enough class to not abuse have won partisan gain while at the same time increasing the amount of human misery in the country.
Personally I think hurting human beings is a bad thing, and shouldn’t be done for something like political gain.
I don’t think that’s what’s going on. I think that what’s actually happened is that the two sides don’t trust each other and that’s poisoned the well. Reid did a lot to make filibusters happen. There’s just no reason to not let republicans offer up amendments. Much like the use of the filibuster, Reid’s tactic was unprecedented, at least as far as doing it nearly every time a bill came up.
Like I said, I don’t know who started it, but the Republicans don’t just filibuster for obstruction. They also did it in protest against Reid’s hamhanded control of procedure.
The agreement made at the start of the most recent session solved that problem. Besides, this whole argument over the filibuster in regards to the gun bill is nonsense. The Democrats could have passed their background check amendment with a simply majority. They chose a 60-vote threshold because pro-gun amendments were also getting majority support. they figured defeat was more politically advantageous than a pro-gun bill with background checks passing the Senate.
I’m sure there is bad blood on both sides. I’m not sure that the fifty vote thing is a hundred percent accurate. Couldn’t the Republicans still filibuster the vote? Or, not vote for cloture, to be more accurate.
The final bill could have been filibustered, yes, but we never got to that point because Reid moved on to other business once the background check amendment was defeated. Other amendments the President wanted, like an assault weapons ban and regulations on cartridge sizes, didn’t even muster a majority.
the final bill would have been background checks and a bunch of stuff the NRA wanted. It’s quite possible it wouldn’t even have been filibustered. It also would have put the President in a very difficult situation.
There’s a pro-gun majority in the Senate. The plan was for them to get 60 votes for background checks since the public overwhelmingly supports them, and let the difficult amendments die for lack of 60 votes But the NRA turned the screws and that changed some votes. Once the background check bill failed, the bill was worthless to Reid and the President, so it was shelved.
It’s a consequence of gerrymandering. There are hundreds of “safe” districts, both Republican and Democratic. A congressman from one of these districts can only be defeated by a challenger from his or her own party in a primary. This means the best way to retain the seat is to be the best party member possible, because any compromise with the other side is going to make you look bad during a primary battle.
There’s no need to attract voters from the other party, they’ve been gerrymandered to the point of insignificance.
I don’t think it’s been that important. Congress has seen more turnover lately than was present in the past, when Democrats had a rock solid majority for 40 years despite the Presidency and the Senate changing hands. THAT was some serious gerrymandering.
It doesn’t make that claim. It says the 4.5 million number is inflated. I am giving the NRA the benefit of the doubt and assuming that the discrepancy is the result of the inclusion of lapsed members rather than misrepresentation.
