I keep hearing that if Obama were more like LBJ we would have a stronger bill...

[WI_DEM]

maybe and maybe not.

LBJ was a creature of the senate and he certainly knew what he was doing. I have to give him that. But, also remember that following his 1964 landslide he also had impressive margins in the House and Senate:

Senate
Democratic: 68 (majority)
Republican: 32
TOTAL members: 100

House of Representatives
Democratic: 295 to 294 (majority)
Republican: 140 to 141

Also, the caliber of Republicans was different in the mid 60's. Back then there were many liberal/moderate republicans in the house and senate who cooperated with the president on his agenda. These included people like Clifford Case (NJ), Jacob Javitz (NY), Hugh Scott (PA), Leverett Saltonstall (MA), Margaret Chase Smith (ME), George Aiken (VT).

Compare that to today's GOP where only (possibly) 2 can sometimes be flexible.

P.S.
JFK had a hard time getting his legislation thru a democratic congress because he had much smaller majorities. This is why he put off Civil Rights legislation for two years. The numbers count.

[change_notfinetuning]

1. Yes we would. And if he were more like FDR, there'd be fewer unemployed.

[WI_DEM]

3. don't you think that LBJ was helped by the staggering Dem majorities of the 89th congress?

and the fact that there were many more moderate republicans at that time?

As for FDR--did you know his first year unemployment went up too? It takes time, believe it or not.

[Arkansas Granny]

14. I've always heard that LBJ had served enough time in the Senate that

he knew just what arms he could twist and what favors he could call in when it came to getting civil rights legislation passed. Having a Democratic majority was certainly helpful, but it didn't ensure success.

[change_notfinetuning]

18. The moderate Republicans made up for the Southern cracker senators who

I am sure were so supportive of civil rights for blacks. Kennedy's assassination didn't hurt the cause either.

However, as for FDR's performance in terms of job creation, we should have been so lucky this year. Too bad Obama isn't keen on history or he might have picked up a few pointers from 1933.

[joeybee12]

2. You never know until you try...Obama ain't tryin'...he's sitting back

and trying to give the illusion of progress.

[WI_DEM]

5. Well I also think the numbers that LBJ had certainly helped along with his persausiveness.

[treestar]

8. LBJ and Bush didn't have to try at all

What does "try" mean?

These are Senators. They don't have to answer to the POTUS. That's why we don't have a dictatorship.

[bridgit]

11. People voted for that 'no jacket sleeves rolled up feet on the desk' stuff...

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. I wonder if the holes in the bottom of his shoes was part of the

"look", and his stylist found him a pair at a thrift store?

[BlueCaliDem]

12. That's not what I see, but you're entitled to your opinion

even if it's not backed by facts.

Take the closing of Gitmo, for example.

He signs an order to close it and to bring detainees into the U.S. for trial, Congress, a much weaker one in comparison to what LBJ had, almost unanimously votes down funds to make this happen. Result? Pres. Obama gets blamed.

With the Senate he has (you know, the body of our government that has the real power, not the House or the Executive) and the corporate media we have to tell you so, of course you're inclined to think he's just sitting back.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

4. You're assuming he really wanted a strong bill in the first place.

[BlueCaliDem]

9. As you are assuming he didn't. The knife cuts both ways. eom

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. Actions are speaking louder than words. He met with drug execs, health corp execs and ignored

single payer advocates. He will prove he is no more than a corporate shill if a bill which requires mandates and no caps on insurance premiums passes, and he signs it. Heck, he's pushing it now through his consiglieri, Rahm.

BTW...what good will it be to be able to get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition if you can't pay the premiums. and that was the only thing he said the bill must have.

[treestar]

6. Good point

People want a left wing decider and they're frustrated.

It's like blaming teachers when kids don't get good grades. Just an obvious scapegoat.

[BlueCaliDem]

7. The idyits are unrecing en masse like the sheep they are

but you are absolutely right. However, those "contrarians" here are loathed to read historic truth, so they unrec.

Kneejerk reactions and piling on our President, blaming him for everything from the bad weather to the bread being stale, while giving corporate Congress a pass is so much more fun to some dim bulbs.

I guess they miss Dubya.

[TheWraith]

10. Kicked and recommended. The ignorance on display at DU is sometimes staggering.

About history, about how government works, about the filibuster, and about the idea that if Obama would just shout at the rain long enough it would stop raining, and give us single payer and a pony.

[Demoiselle]

13. Those stats are interesting, WI DEM..

I'd forgotten how lopsided the Dems' edge was in Congress in those days.
But it's important to remember that a big slice of that margin was Southern Democrats...many much more like today's Republicans. On the other hand, they were also more likely to be populists, concerned for the needs of poor Americans, or at least poor WHITE Americans, so they were probably friendlier to "social" legislation.
So I can't quite credit a bigger majority for all of Lyndon Johnson's considerable success. He was pretty astonishing. What a terrible tragedy that he was so wrong about Viet Nam.

[WI_DEM]

15. True, but as I also stated LBJ had many liberal/ moderate republicans

who voted for some impressive liberal legislation like Medicare. And not all of the Southern Dems were conservative across the line. Yes, on civil rights but on some other issues like Medicare and health issues some voted with the president. Lister Hill of Alabama is an example.