"Obama had the country in his hands and the Republicans at his mercy"

[Better Believe It]

February 10, 2009

What Obama Might Have Learned From Chavez and Populist-Style Mobilization
The Stimulus Imbroglio
By NIKOLAS KOZLOFF

When historians look back, they will point to Obama’s inauguration as a missed opportunity. At the zenith of his popularity, the new President might have used his bully pulpit to declare the need for a good economic stimulus, one which would have aided people who were strapped for cash. Instead of delivering a cliché-ridden, mundane and thoroughly unmemorable speech, Obama should have talked forcefully about the need to expand programs such as unemployment insurance and food stamps. He might have made a poignant plea for providing relief to state and local government which had been pummeled by the ever deepening recession. If he had gone back to campaign mode, eloquently rallying the crowd on the Washington mall for an equitable stimulus to reverse worsening inequality brought on by the GOP, he would have really gotten his presidency off to a bang.

Obama had the country in his hands and the Republicans at his mercy. But now, it looks like the GOP has the upper hand. What happened? In an effort to attract House Republican support for the stimulus, Obama fashioned about one third of the package out of tax cuts, which the GOP loves. For all his gracious overtures, Obama was rewarded with a complete and total rebuke: not a sole Republican Representative voted for the $819 billion bill, which passed 244-189.

Having been snubbed in the House, Obama now got clobbered in the Senate. For a week at least the GOP went on the offensive on the cable news shows, talking about the need to rein in wasteful spending. The momentum started to shift, and Obama found that he had to beg for every last vote. At the end of the day he managed to attract three moderate Republicans and the Senate reached a tentative deal, but only at a tremendous political price: the final bill amounting to $780 billion shaved off more spending, “much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan” according to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. The deal was particularly damaging, Krugman adds, because it cut out $40 billion in aid to desperate, cash-strapped state governments.

At long last Obama seems to have realized the gravity of his situation and has turned up his rhetoric somewhat by attacking the Republicans and Wall Street. This coming week, he will embark on a PR blitz by traveling to Elkhart, Indiana, and Fort Myers, Florida, where he will conduct town hall meetings to whip up support for the recovery package. Imagine for a moment however if Obama had hit the ground running and carried out a poverty tour immediately following his inauguration. He could have staged a number of high profile rallies in public parks or stadiums across the country, talking about the need for a good stimulus. Imagine the psychological impact had Obama held a couple of mass marches through poor neighborhoods where people faced housing foreclosures. The President would have dominated the cable news cycle for a week or more through this type of strategy, making the GOP’s messaging campaign that much more difficult.

He could have rammed a better stimulus bill through the House, perhaps even amounting to more than a trillion dollars, and then dared the GOP to filibuster in the Senate. At this point, with the country tilting in his direction, it would have proved problematic to say the least for the Republicans to be obstructionist. Best of all, if Obama had gotten a good stimulus he would have been better positioned to take on future political battles such as health care. Instead, however, he finds that he must defend a very lukewarm bill that will probably not succeed in getting the country out of recession.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff02102009.html

[damonm]

1. Kozloff's missing the point.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/damonm/8

He's grinding the Rethugs into dust, and making them use their OWN BOOT to do it. THEN we move with a more leftist agenda.

[Jennicut]

2. Exactly.

[DKRC]

7. President Obama has the country at his back

He's given the Repugs enough rope to hang themselves and they're searching out good strong limbs to swing from as we go forward without them.

:evilgrin:

:fistbump:

[PurityOfEssence]

61. HUGE leap of logic

What makes you think he's any more to the left than he's portraying himself at the moment? There doesn't seem to be much indication of that. Yes, his labor policies are refreshing, and some of his environmental ones are too, but his economic and health tastes are decidedly corporatist.

There's a significant split among people on this board at the moment: some still claim, as do you, that he's just playing politics and there'll be a bright day when he steps into the phone booth and dons his superhero tights to burst forth as Leftyman, whereas others are slapping down people who are disappointed by his decidedly centrist actions by saying that he always was a centrist, and those who thought otherwise were not paying attention. (The latter approach, coming as it does from the right to disgruntled leftists, comes with the standard conservative derision of calling people whiners and lightweights who weren't paying attention.)

I think the latter group is more accurate. The problem is that he has played both sides of the street and many people think he's standing with them when he isn't. Many people thought that his constant reminder of having been against the Iraq incursion meant that he was a pacifist, while he was saber-rattling about Afghanistan from quite early on. The pacifists are disappointed and they should have paid attention, but they were somewhat led on and if that has a reciprocation of being somewhat disappointed, that's just simple causality.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but if so, it will have to happen soon; he's given all sorts of concessions upon which they've spat, and we're in a true economic crisis. If he truly KNOWS that he has the right idea, and the reactionaries won't go along with him, he should shove it down their throats with everything he has. There are two problems with this: that kind of aggressiveness isn't his strong suit, and he would then have NO COVER for his policies, and THAT is extremely out-of-character.

To be fair, I don't think anyone can really be sure about anything here: this is a wholly unprecedented clusterfuck. For the Republicans to play pissy political games with our future is despicable, but for the Administration to hedge its bets is hardly what one could call courage. We need courage.

The guy deserves a lot of breaks because he's REALLY trying to get this right; the problem is that I think he's still patching a system that doesn't really work. Wall Street needs to be aggressively regulated, we need to step in with governmental market substitution, and we need to not be afraid to hire directly and not CONSTANTLY remind everyone that this all needs to be done through private industry because it's infinitely superior to government, gag, retch, puke. He said that again in his big address. He thinks he HAS to say it, and I think he somewhat believes it, but I don't think it's correct or that he is with this assumption.

The guy's somewhat to the right of center, which is precisely where Bill Clinton was and is, and is probably about the best we can hope for. I accept that, and I'm glad we could get at least that after almost three decades of headlong atavistic flight back to feudalism, but I'm not particularly in the mood to get all misty-eyed about some oft-cited fantasy day when he suddenly goes all liberal on us and jabs his finger in the eye of the big banking and financial interests or Medicine Incorporated. Huge leap of logic. Unfounded leap of logic. He's no more going to do that than he is to indict Bush and the Junta for their war crimes.

This is the time for bold action that pisses people off, and that runs contrary to his political instincts. I think he'll learn here and there, but he's been VERY successful with the soft-soaping and being cagey about what side he's on on various issues, and old habits die hard, especially when they've worked so well.

Let's hope he's an astute broker of the center course and he can stand fast where he needs to so the country doesn't just go straight to hell, because holding out hopes for him to be some firebrand of a progressive doesn't seem very realistic.

Man, aren't you glad you don't have his gig right now? Break a leg, Mr. President; in fact, break a bunch.

[damonm]

76. Not so much.

You see, as POTUS, he is President of EVERYBODY, and thus SHOULD be centrist.
However, he can enable a left-leaning Congress by making the opposition crush itself. That's where this is heading, IMO. Once we've a filibuster-proof majority (and we're 3 SEATS AWAY, mind you) Congress can take the left turn we'd like.

One thing I DO agree with you about - I wouldn't trade places with President Obama if you paid me EVERY CENT of money in the Stimulus Package...personally, I'm betting that, (if it hasn't happened already)sometime in the next 6 months, the Prez turns to Michelle in sheer frustration and says "I'm gonna give this damned job to McCain." He'd be in good company if he did - Kennedy said the same sort of thing to Kenny O'Donnell just before he got word of the missiles in Cuba.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Fuck the doubting Thomas naysayers on all sides.......

and their messengers who deliberately drop the turds wherever they go.

If they ain't part of the solution, then they are part of the problem!

We didn't elect Chavez or DK.

Ram that!

[Better Believe It]

8. So you prefer sitting around and doing nothing in the name of "bi-partisanship"?

With three Republicans in Congress!!!

Oh ya, that'll do it .... a great prescription for defeat and demoralization!

Keep it up and we might even see one Republican member of Congress support the EFCA and/or meaningful health care legislation.

It's time to mobilize the "troops" and you prefer having people sit on their hands or perhaps attend a "house party" at most?

Wow!

That'll get the job done FrenchieCat!

[Avalux]

9. WTF??

I guess I understand why you don't like Obama's style. You are reactionary while he clearly is not. Thanks heavens for that.

[DevonRex]

14. Yes, thank heavens. I'm pretty sick of this kind of BS.

[Hutzpa]

77. You know,

no one invited you right, we all tend to invite ourselves and if we
see something we don't like we live, I'm just saying, thats what I'll
do.

[damonm]

15. And a swing and miss on the point!

Read my artice.

He's forcing the Rethugs further into unreason, and then calling them on it. His popularity soars, while they weaken. This is TEXTBOOK political Jiuitsu - make them the authors of their own downfall, thus removing them from the scene.

[paulk]

63. 38 out of 41 Republicans voted "yes" on the DeMint amendment

to the stimulus bill - which was for 3 trillion in permanent tax cuts over the next ten years.

I don't see how it's possible to be any "further into unreason" than that.

If Obama's strategy is indeed the one you've have outlined, then he is even more naive than you...

[damonm]

73. If you don't see how Rethugs can go further into unreason,

Then you don't know rethugs.
Moreover, when it comes to naivete, I suggest you look in a mirror. This policy that you deride is WORKING. Polls show people catching on to the GOP because of Obama's political Jiujitsu. He will make them marginalize themselves, and soon we will have the 60+ seat majority in the Senate. History is repeating itself. By 1936, a Congressional Republican was hard to find - and they're heading down the same path at a dead run.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulk]

79. you really think polls matter to people who would vote

for a three trillion dollar tax cut in the face of our current economy?

PS - we can't wait two years. The unemployment rate in 1930 was 8.7. In three years it was up to 25%. This situation needs to be dealt with now.

[damonm]

80. They will come election time.

Bear in mind, all we need is a 3-seat gain in the Senate to make the Rethugs irrelevant. We're likely to get more than that.
Note that the stimulus has PASSED - likely will be law by the end of the month, so these steps ARE being taken. Note further that the tax cut you rail against was DEFEATED.

[paulk]

81. I'm not "railing" against the tax cut

I'm pointing out, with that amendment as an example, how intransigent these people are and the fruitlessness of bipartisanship.

[damonm]

83. *Sigh*

Determined to miss the whole point, I guess.

It is NOT about bipartisanship as you understand it.
It is about giving them rope to hang themselves - and they're tying the noose all by themselves.

[paulk]

84. I would say that you are missing the point

I understand what you are saying - I just think you are wrong.

I also think that, if giving them enough rope is indeed Obama's strategy, then he, too, is wrong.

We don't have two years for them to hang themselves in.

We need effective legislation now, not this watered down peice of bi-partisan crap that's currently making it's way through Congress.

[damonm]

85. So we'll disagree.

Because I am equally certain you are wrong.

And you may want to check your facts on "watered down peice of bi-partisan crap" - everything I've read points to Obama getting most all that he wanted. To wit:
"Obama has been criticized for failing to forge a bipartisan consensus, for not safeguarding his priorities, and for not taking a sufficiently aggressive role in the negotiations on the Hill. So it's worth stepping back to take note of the fact that the final package looks remarkably like what Obama has wanted all along. In fact, it's closer to that original proposal than to either the House or Senate versions of the bill. Remarkable.

Whether or not it's the right package is a whole separate topic. But as a legislative achievement, coming so early in the term, this is astonishing.
Whole thing at:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/02/a_win_is_a_win.php

[SidneyCarton]

31. I'd prefer not to have elected Chavez, thank you very much.

When Mr. Chavez finally leaves, or is ejected from office in Venezuela, there will be hell to pay, and instability will follow.

[DevonRex]

13. +1. This OP is nothing but bullshit. nt

[Cha]

4. Oh Bullshit..and leave to you to post

more Bullshit. Fucking crystal ball got fucked up.

[Hutzpa]

78. I know, its hard to believe right....

especially if you're not used to this kind of political savvy.

[wyldwolf]

5. Counterpunch... right.

[Avalux]

6. I disagree with the entire premise of this article.

Obama could have been heavy-handed from the gate but that isn't his style. He sees the long view and crafts strategy based on that; it's difficult for the short-sighted to understand or even counter him. Obama is more often than not underestimated - just as the author is doing in this article.

I witnessed a pack of Republican senators whine on national TV a few minutes ago - to the point that it was comical. They lost this battle yet continue to cling to their failed ideologies with a 58% disapproval rating.

Obama is doing exactly what he needs to do.

[Better Believe It]

11. Have you ever organized a mass movement? Do you know what a mass movement ....

is and what it can acomplish.

If you're under 50 years old you have to answer no.

That's not your fault.

Study mass movements such as the labor movement of the 1930's, the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's, the anti-war, women's rights and gay movements of the 1960's and 70's and you'll understand the writers points.

Only a very small percentage of DU'ers have had experience in building mass movements or even participating in such movements.

There is a lot to learn.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Have you ever fucking organized a mass movement?

Hell the fuck naw!

Like who do you think you are, and what have you done to believe that
you can moralize to others about what they have or haven't "done"? :wtf:

[Avalux]

20. Thank you.

I was trying to calm down before I replied.

[Better Believe It]

22. YES! Successful ones and successful union organizing drives

[FrenchieCat]

24. Yeah ok.

You must be some kind of folk hero! Do you have a website....or do you just yell into a megaphone to get this "Mass" organizing done?

[damonm]

25. Specifics and scale , please.

And then tell us how your experience is superior to that of someone who came out of nowhere to defeat the powerful Clinton machine and then the entire Republican attack machine in order to become POTUS.
Tell us how your experience and know-how is superior to that of a man who cut his political teeth in CHICAGO - possibly the most cutthroat environment in American politics - and not only survived, but positively THRIVED.

I shan't hold my breath.

[DevonRex]

28. And how did we miss that "mass movement?" Seems to me that if there were

a mass movement, we would have known about it. Was I in a coma that week or something?

[Occam Bandage]

33. Really? You've organized a successful "mass movement?"

How big and how successful are we talking about here? Certainly it must be so large and powerful as to rival Obama's, for you have gained expertise he still lacks.

[Better Believe It]

37. So why hasn't anyone here disputed or challenged the writers proposal?

In some cases, posters have, as usual, commented on articles they haven't read.

Do you fit in that category?

Now the subject of the article isn't about me, it's about Obama.

Now, why are you so opposed to the writers proposal that Obama reach out, organize his base and build a mass movement in support of
actions that can prevent a depression?

As an aside, your comments clearly demonstrate that you have never helped organize and probably never participated in any mass movement. Is that correct?

If you have any experience in such movements you would know that a single individual HAS NEVER built a mass movement, but have participated with many others in helping to build such movements in the past.

That's news to you?

[Occam Bandage]

38. Ah, so now you have retreated to the claim, "I have participated in a mass movement."

Obviously no person has ever built a mass movement single-handedly, and precious few could fairly be credited with organizing one. That is why so many people thought your claim was outlandish bragging.

Don't dare whimper about people talking about you instead of the article after you turned the subject to yourself (in a strange attempt to justify a ridiculous thesis through a claim of privileged knowledge unavailable to all under fifty years of age, no less)

[damonm]

39. I find it interesting...

that you haven't read my 1st reply to you, where I do PRECISELY that, and then condemn others for doing the same thing you're guilty of.

Then you claim experience in organizing mass movements and when requested for specifics, go back to "hasn't anybody read the article?", thus avoiding the question.

Your Troll Fu is WEAK, Grasshopper.

[damonm]

21. And EACH of these

had a tipping point where the opposition made itself look foolish. The beatings and fire-hosings of non-violent protestors in the civil rights movement spring IMMEDIATELY to mind. Once these images got out, the segregationists were doomed.
Obama is forcing the rethugs to make themselves look foolish, thus accelerating their demise. He is playing a long-term game against the shortsighted - much like swatting a fly with a '52 Buick.

[SidneyCarton]

34. Have you ever seen a mass movement go bad?

Mass movements are risky, whip up a mob and you can terrorize anyone into passing your agenda, but you have to be able to effectively ride the mob, and sometimes they don't follow your guidance, undersuch circumstances you end up going where they want to go. This may sound very democratic to you, but all too often they want to go in the direction of the Guillotine.

[Danger Mouse]

47. I've never understood people's fascination with the French Revolution here...

as it is the perfect example of a mass movement gone horribly wrong.

[SidneyCarton]

67. Such is my point.

[leftstreet]

52. The movement is in place. It just needs a leader

Sounds like that was the point of the article.

[KittyWampus]

70. Actually, Obama DID study mass movements. He hired professional organizers for his POTUS run

guess what? It worked.

[opihimoimoi]

10. Its over and done with...President Obama did a masterful job....no one threw eggs at his limo

He and Michelle walked to the White House as people applauded and cried...8 years ago, Bush had to hide in his speeding car...

Obama has the makings of turning the course of Human Events from dire to better....

[Better Believe It]

19. What's "over and done with"?

Do you think this stimulus package is the beginning and end of what the Obama administration needs to do to stop a full scale economic depression?

You're dead wrong.

A great deal more needs to be done soon, including spending few trillion dollars more to stop the economic collapse.

And Obama won't get one bit of help from Republicans and even some Democrats in the Senate and House in securing those badly needed funds .... he needs to go directly to the masses of ordinary people for support and forget about "bi-partisanship" nonsense.

Obama will need 51 votes to get future legislation passed in the Senate unless the Democratic Party Senate leadership refuses to challenge real and actual obstructionist Republican filibusters.

[opihimoimoi]

36. No one said the stim pack was the end....

We all know this will be a big battle for 2 to 4 years....and the cost may be much higher than this measley 1 or 2 trillion....might go as high as 4 trillion

That is a given in my book

But President Obasma is doing what he can with the given....obstinate Pubs and a few blue dog Dems too...but overall...he is doing what I expected him to do...his best

Bush and the GOP has fucked our Nation and that of the World...the damage is HUGH

Failure is not an OPTION.....

[DevonRex]

12. That's the biggest load of bullshit I have seen here in a long while. WTF are

you doing?

[ellacott]

29. This person has never posted a positive thing about Obama

[DevonRex]

30. Yeah, I'm beginning to get that impression. Good grief. nt

[dionysus]

74. no....really???!? i couldn't tell...

:rofl:

[Uzybone]

16. More Monday Morning quarterbacking

by the "experts" on both the far left and right that have gotten everything about Obama wrong from the jump.

Its always easy to say what should have happened after the fact.

[DevonRex]

17. They look pretty desperate, trying to find SOMETHING bad to say. And they sound foolish.

Some people have nothing constructive to say, ever. They like to criticize and divide in order to feel powerful. In fact, they only make themselves laughing stocks.

[Solomon]

23. LOL Just like the republicans. They all look stupid.

No. Make that shtupid. Lol

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. What A Monumentally Moronic Article. Course, Starting With "Learning From Chavez" Was The First

clue.

Hey Nikolas K... You're a friggin moron.

[DevonRex]

27. A-freakin-Men. nt

[Occam Bandage]

32. This is monumentally dumb. Counterpunch combined with "be like Chavez" is hilariously ridiculous.

:rofl:

[K Gardner]

35. What utter bullshit. Got anything else to throw at Obama while you're at it? EPIC FAIL

on that one.

[Better Believe It]

40. This is a terrific article on how to isolate and beat the Republicans

Bravo!

We need more valuable and positive contributions such as this one on how to take on, challenge and defeat the reactionary right.

Of course, people who haven't read the article and yet insist on attacking it can't grasp this.

Some people just don't understand practical politics.

[damonm]

41. "Some people just don't understand practical politics."

And you're one of them.

AGAIN I refer you to http://journals.democraticunderground.com/damonm/8

THAT is how Obama is taking out the Republicans - by turning them into their own worst enemy.
Doing it your way would simply let them play the victim card, and reenergize their base. Obama is operating strategically. You and Kozloff are thinking tactically. Keep underestimating him - hopefully the RW will, also.

[Better Believe It]

42. Be specific now.

"Doing it your way would simply let them play the victim card, and reenergize their base."

Explain how building a mass movement in support of Obama's proposals and challenging any attempted Republican filibusters would "help" the Republicans?

Be specific on how and why the writers proposals will not work.

[damonm]

44. I asked you first.

...and I'm STILL waiting on your firsthand mass movement expertise.

If it isn't painfully obvious to you how the RW will play the victim card to reenergize their base, then you haven't paid ANY attention to how they've operated for the last 35 years. If you haven't done that, then you lack the basic knowledge to continue this discussion.

And you STILL won't read the post I've referred to. I have no more time to waste on you.

[Occam Bandage]

43. Did you really just say "Bravo!" as a reply to your own OP?

:rofl:

[Better Believe It]

45. I didn't write the article so your "response" makes no sense!

But don't let little facts get in the way of your false notions.

I wrote:

"We need more valuable and positive contributions such as this one on how to take on, challenge and defeat the reactionary right.

Of course, people who haven't read the article and yet insist on attacking it can't grasp this.

Some people just don't understand practical politics."

[Occam Bandage]

54. I think it would be pretty obvious that you agree with the sentiment, since your OP was about it.

Seriously, who writes "Bravo!" as a response to their own posts?

[Teaser]

69. WIN!

.

[Baltoman991]

59. I know two

things.......

1. You scour the nets to find the biggest bullshit spewing articles you can to slam Obama and,

2. That while you're doing that his popularity numbers are still high.

Tell me, do you ever ask yourself if those articles are indeed just bullshit and no one is buying whats being spewn?

[Terran]

66. You're giving yourself a "Bravo!" for posting that article...?

:shrug:

[Danger Mouse]

46. Remember what I said about you clearly never having anything nice to say about Obama?

Well, here's another example. :P
Obama isn't a reactionary. We had one in the White House for eight years. Obama is SLAUGHTERING the rethugs right now and they don't even realize it. I don't agree with all of his policies and such, but he is doing a fantastic job.

[Bread and Circus]

48. I grew up on food stamps, but I would have cringed if Obama mentioned them in his inaugural.

It's not a time for laundry lists.

[backscatter712]

49. Yawn. Yet another right-wing media shill trying to undermine Obama.

He's under the impression that people actually give a flying fuck about what he has to say.

[damonm]

51. Nah. This is a FAR lefty.

No RW shill worth his 2 brain cells would cite an article favorably referencing Hugo Chavez.

[backscatter712]

56. Politics is kind of like Pacman.

When you go off the reservation and go insanely far to the left, you go offscreen and reappear on the right.

[ProSense]

50. "When historians look back, they will point to Obama’s inauguration as a missed opportunity."

Based on three weeks marked by incredible successes?

These assholes are so desperate for Obama to fail that they're resorting to fact-free rants.

[glitch]

53. Who says it's the zenith of his popularity?? nt

[kwenu]

55. WTF ever! When you win the presidency then you can do it your way. Until then...

[Better Believe It]

58. So we should reject every liberal and radical idea that is not advanced by Obama or ....

using your criteria other presidents such as George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan!

Yet another person who can't present any clear and convincing arguments against the writers article.

Perhaps you can explain why you think building mass movements in support of progressive legislation and causes is the wrong way to go and why you think the "bipartisan" negotiated stimulus cuts is just wonderful.

I have to wonder if you also supported those DLC Democratic "leaders" who functioned as George W. Bush "enablers" during his administration.

I didn't. Did you?

[Wednesdays]

57. A "W" is a "W" and I'll take it, whether it's by 1 vote or by 50%

(And by "W" I mean a win, and not the former squatter of the White House.)

[amborin]

60. looks as if the author cobbled together posts from krugman's blogs over past 6 wks

[anonymous171]

62. This article is pointless. Obama didn't do the right thing at first, now he is. nt

[olegramps]

64. I believe that Kozloff has some valid points, but only in retrospective.

It is my opinion,and I realize it doesn't count for much, that President Obama had sincere intentions of attempting to address some of the concerns of the Republicans by including tax cuts in the package. I think that he envisioned it as a win-win for the American workers.

I don't think that he ever realized until they stabbed him in the back just how damn evil the Republicans in both the House and Senate can be. Perhaps I am too vindictive, but if somehow everyone of those bastards died tomorrow I wouldn't shed on tear. I just don't know how working class Republicans can be so damn stupid that they support their own economic suicide.

[olegramps]

65. I was just thinking, wouldn't it be wonderful if we had another Passover for Democrats.

I would gladly put some blood on my mantel if it did the trick.

[Teaser]

68. Cockpunch is not my favorite magazine.

.

[dionysus]

71. Counterpunch?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[dionysus]

72. hmm, another article bashing obama, surprise surprise...

you sir, are a joke.

[Yavin4]

82. Do People Not Get Basic American Civics?

Do people not understand that Congress will do what it wants to do? Do people not understand that even the Dems in the senate don't walk lockstep behind Obama?

[Better Believe It]

86. You need a new "basic civics lesson" school book

When the Republicans have a majority in the Senate they run the Senate.

When the Democrats have a majority in the Senate the Republicans lead the Senate.

Why is that?

Because when the Republicans run the Senate, the Democrats agree to not filibuster in fear of Republicans using the so-called "nuclear option".

When the Democrats run the Senate, the Republicans threaten to filibuster and the Democrats run for the hills and act like they never heard of the "nuclear option"!

Isn't that how real politics seems to be working over the last four years?

Look that up in your old high school civics lessons book. Bet, you can't find it.

Maybe the writers will include it in the next updated edition of your school book.

:) :) :)

You're never going to learn real politics and understand how things really work in Washington, D.C. if you depend on old high school civic lesson books for your political education.

[damonm]

87. Do you even read the posts you respond to?