Sigh: I'll ask again, what could Obama LEGALLY do to a senator to FORCE senator to vote his way?

[uponit7771]

Please post facts about what Obama could do to LAWFULLY FORCE (****NOT PERSUADE***) a senator to vote for what he wants them to vote and against their pocketbooks

Please post facts not:

- Unclear directives like "fight" (whatever the fuck that means) or "make more speeches" (as if Lieberman or Nelson would give a damn) or kick someone in the face
- Your perspective of what he couldv'e done, again we're interested in lawful facts
- What you HEARD he didn't do...(again)

What bothers me the most is ALL of the conservatives I talk to are NOT blaming Obama for the left not getting EVERYTHING we wanted out of HCR reform but progressives are more than willing to.

Thx in advance for your input

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

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

[WT Fuheck]

2. what does "legally" have to do with anything?

We're talking about DC politics. If Obama cared, he could pressure Senators in ways we can't even imagine here.

[uponit7771]

4. ...good, what are those LEGAL ways of preasuring a senator to vote against their pocketbook? TIA

[WT Fuheck]

27. declare him or her an "enemy combatant,"

have them renditioned to Syria and tortured until they agree,

or do that to their spouse or children.

Obama has worked hard to ensure that capability is still technically "legal."

Obama is the nominal head of the Democratic Party. He has incredible legal power to control party campaign funds. He also could work with Harry Reid to use committee chairmanships and other Senatorial positions either as sticks or as carrots.

He could use his office to call out recalcitrant Senators by name and explain to the people how that Senator is harming the American people.

There are THOUSANDS of ways.

He has to CARE first, and he has shown himself so far to really care about very little that he campaigned on.

[uponit7771]

29. lofl!!! good one, this is the reason I come to back DU....

[kctim]

3. The ONLY legal thing

President Obama can do is try to convince the voters to replace them with lockstep progressives.

[uponit7771]

5. AMEN!!!

[boston bean]

7. how old are you, and how long have you been following politics?

[uponit7771]

9. Long enough to know Obama can't FORCE a senator to vote against his pocketbook and old enough

...to recognize when people address straight froward questions with non answers

[boston bean]

10. it was obvious, i was replying to your "AMEN" comment not your OP.

But if you can't figure out the ways a president can pressure any member of his party into doing something he wants, you don't know shit.

They will vote against their pocket book if they aint ever going to have another chance to access it.

[uponit7771]

12. "...you don't know shit...." Yeap, should've added no demeaning replys to my not list. How bout...

...your answer the question of what Obama could do legally or are you going to be one of MANY people who are assigning Obama abilities that he doesn't have in order to blame him for what he can't do?

Thx

[Capn Sunshine]

107. OK, how about "Your question is slightly disingenuous"

But so are the assumptions that the progressive wing of the party exerts any power at this point except on websites.

This is not to be construed as an implication they should give up.

But the reality of the systemic approaches to an issue and Presidential politics and the beginning and end of when to expend such power , that eludes most of the general fan base here at DU.

[Raineyb]

61. I suppose getting the DSCC to cut the son of a bitch off would be asking too much huh?

You know actively work against them in a primary? Too much to threaten? Why would that be unseemly? It certainly never seems so when it comes time to threatening progressives.

[gleaner]

120. Who defines "non answers" ...

Is it you? Because it seems like a lot of what you say is simply repetition, your subjective opinion and trying to deny others their opinions. People never learn anything listening to themselves. You keep repeating "legally" as if it were some new meme.

You know what a meme is if you have been following politics. It is repetition of a statement or a set of statements or talking points until they become so pervasive that people accept them as facts when they may not be.

It is legal for Obama to tell Lieberman that he will be stripped of his committee chairmanship if he does not cooperate with Democrats and keeps obstructing. It is legal to tell Harry Reid that the Democrats could lose big in 2010 if he doesn't stop waffling and become more proactive. It is legal for Obama to tell the truth instead of denying that he said something that he was video taped saying. It is legal for Obama to take the lead in crafting domestic legislation that will benefit the majority of the people instead of only a few of the people and then meet with the Senate and House to explain it, either in private or in public.

It is legal for Obama to address the public and tell them exactly what he wants and what he plans to do to try and enforce it. It is even legal to send representatives of his administration to the Supreme Court to write Bush's torture policies and remove Habeas Corpas. Mind you it is unconstitutional, but it is "legal."

Hey, that's an idea. Why don't we all list something unconstitutional that Obama has done. I don't think flushing the constitution down the toilet is either desirable or "legal." Lastly, what have you as an individual done to try to make this country a place where we are safe and the constitution is protected. Specific actions please, and no more memes.

[asdjrocky]

54. Man, I've wanted to ask that question for a long time.

Wonder if you'll get a straight or honest answer.

[RaleighNCDUer]

50. "lockstep progressives" is an oxymoron.

And that 'convincing' could include himself and his chosen spokespersons actively campaigning for candidates who challenge sitting senators who are openly opposing his agenda. Putting the whole weight of the bully pulpit against recalcitrant Senators, cutting them off of his coattails, would be a VERY powerful, legal recourse.

Not to mention, as the Executive, controlling the flow of federal funding to those Senators' states.

It happens every day - it just usually happens behind closed doors so WE don't see it.

[kctim]

56. No it is not

The progressives all upset at President Obama for not "doing enough" are really mad at the Senators who are not voting how they want them to. They are mad because those Democrats dare to think for their constituents rather than follow the progressive agenda in lockstep.

The bully pulpit doesn't mean crap when you are trying to convince conservative Dems and moderates to vote for a progressive. The majority of moderates will vote for a moderate Republican before they would ever vote for a "progressive."
President Obama is a smart man and understands this reality of the situation. He also understands that it will take steps, not leaps, to get the people on board with his ideas.

Threatening the holding of federal funds or blackmailing is not how I expect the Democratic Party behave. The people vote for a Senator to vote for them and if those people are not happy with how that Senator votes, they can replace him/her. Until that happens, the majority of people in that Senators area want that Senator to fight against govt involvement in their healthcare.

[RaleighNCDUer]

64. Is that deliberate misinformation, or complete lack of understanding?

"They are mad because those Democrats dare to think for their constituents rather than follow the progressive agenda in lockstep."

There are TWO lies in this statement: 1) that 'those Democrats' are thinking about their constituents, rather than their corporate donors; and 2) that there is any such thing as a 'lockstep' progressive agenda.

1) The majority of Nebraska voters want healthcare reform. They want a public option. Although the media has done its best to muddy the issue, calling it socialism, when asked in neutral terms, such as 'would you favor expanded Medicare for people who cannot afford private insurance' they say yes. Nelson is disregarding the will of his constituents to favor the insurance industry donors he works for. The majority of Nebraska voters favor a woman's right to choose. The media, again, tries to muddy the waters by calling any kind of restriction a vote against the right to choose, when the truth is the only anti-choice vote that exists is the absolute, anti-choice no exceptions vote, favored by a minority of voters. Any other option is, by definition, a choice. Nelson held up the anti-choice rhetoric as his reason, but it was a lie.

2) Ever hear the term 'herding cats'? That is the definition of progressive politics. WTF do you get authoritarian, restrictive, controlling 'lockstep' out of that? By your own example above, of Sanders and Franken, are THEY in 'lockstep', goosestepping the progressive agenda through the halls of congress? I mean, what the fuck? The term 'lockstep' applies to the right, being the good little authoritarians they are, not to the left. About the only thing the left ever agrees on is that the will of the PEOPLE is paramount - something being ignored by the corporate senators.

If a Senator is obeying the wishes of his corporate masters above the wishes of his constituency, by all means threaten and blackmail him into doing the right thing. If, after he votes for progressive legislation, his constituency objects to being better off, they are free to elect someone else - but the dirty little secret is, no politician ever got himself unelected by doing what the voters want.

[kctim]

106. Neither misinformation or a lack of understanding

It is called sticking to what is known and claiming things are lies because they do not conform with an opinion is nothing but politics as usual.

1. Do they majority of Nebraska voters who want HCR believe the public option is the ONLY kind of reform? 99.99 percent of all Americans want HCR, but we both know not all of them are speaking of a public option or single payer. And of course everybody is going to say yes to helping those who cannot afford private insurance, but again, we both know that number drops when higher taxes and involuntary participation is brought up. If you want an accurate response, ask in neutral terms that are truthful, such as: "would you favor paying higher taxes for people who cannot afford private insurance while also paying for your own private insurance?" AND "would you favor paying much higher taxes to be a part of a government single payer plan?"
Truth be told, we won't know what the majority of voters really want until we see the election results.

2. From what I know of Sanders and Franken, yes, they are in lockstep in pushing the progressive agenda on this issue. IF the only thing the left ever agrees on is that the will of the people is paramount, then why does the far-left always make excuses when the peoples reps represent them? Media bias. Corporate influence. Voting against their interests. All excuses created to avoid the fact that many of their fellow Democrats do not agree with their progressive agenda. Things shouted at moderate Democrats who dare to think for themselves rather than in lockstep.

Your last paragraph is very interesting and is totally reliant on WHO gets to decide what the right thing is. Tell me, why promote breaking the law when a Senator does not vote how you believe they should? Why not, if after he votes for moderate legislation and his constituency objects to being better off with less govt in their lives, they are free to elect a progressive?
Want to kow another dirty little secret? No politician ever got himself elected or re-elected by ignoring those who vote for him and doing what the voters in other districts wanted him to do.

[snagglepuss]

122. Well said. This should be its own thread.

:applause:

[Ohio Joe]

6. Well...

I believe he can tell them something along the lines of... Here is what not only I but the majority of Americans want, anything less gets a veto. I will then work to get a real progressive on board come 2010.

I think that might do it.

[uponit7771]

8. That sounds doable, but the probability that a REAL progressive in Nelsons district comes about is..

...slim to none.

[JVS]

105. Then you threaten to replace him with another conservative that just isn't him.

[kctim]

11. The Senator doesn't represent

the majority of Americans, he/she represents those they are elected to represent, and in most cases, those people do not want some type of govt plan.
President Obama can work on getting a so-called "real progressive" on board in those places come 2010, but he would just be wasting his time and he knows it.

[yurbud]

43. in the case of health care reform, you are wrong. Most voters support a public option

or Medicare buy in.

Politicians like Nelson and Lieberman and shoe-horned into office with corporate money, especially in poorer and smaller states where it doesn't take much money to swamp the system. So if Nelson had a progressive challenger in the primaries, that person would be outspent as much as it takes to drown them out. Then in the general election, the voters would have a choice between a nakedly corporate-owned Republican and a Democrat wearing a bikini that barely hides the corporate brand on his ass.

[uponit7771]

49. If the senators seat isn't up next year why would a senator like Lieberman care?

[RaleighNCDUer]

52. I'm sure there must be someone in the Senate who would like the

chairmanships he holds.

[kctim]

63. They don't support it

if they have to pay for it and at least half of those who say they support a public option are not willing to pay even $9 a month for it.

I do not give voters a pass. It is up to them to know who a candidate is and what they stand for, and no amount of money is more powerful than their vote. If they vote for a candidate who does not support HCR, they do not support HCR.

[goclark]

39. Don't think that would do it

I'm sure that is standard procedure for step @1 and Obama would surely know how to do that because he was a Senator and knows how the game works.

I believe the crooks that need a talking too probably need a 12 Step Program and that would not work either because they are evil to the core.

[no_hypocrisy]

13. Allocate funds that are within the Administration's control to another state.

[uponit7771]

16. Please answer factually, this is a claim of ability without facts that it can be done to back it up

[no_hypocrisy]

31. Indirect Executive Branch funding via its agencies.

It's never been done?

[uponit7771]

34. no

[no_hypocrisy]

44. OK, this is a teachable moment.

Agencies are entirely independent of the Executive Branch? The President delegates and has no influence or control on them whatsoever?

[uponit7771]

47. Some are, only the agencies the president oversess and what makes you think Nelson or Lieberman

...care about their state?

If the people in their state hurt and they get their campaign funds why should they care?

Again, on the face of it there's little to NOTHING Obama could've done to make those 2 senators vote against their pocketbooks

[JVS]

86. +1

[uponit7771]

87. Again, this is not legally compelling someone to do something this is usuing persuasion as if

...it works on someone who doesn't get funded by the public.

[JVS]

94. You're shifting the goal posts.

You asked "I'll ask again, what could Obama LEGALLY do to a senator to FORCE senator to vote his way?" All that means is that he has to get them to do what he wants without breaking the law.

Now you want "legally compelling someone to do something". This would require laws that force the person to do something, and is impossible. But many people in this thread have shown how through legal (or accepted as legal in the post Bush era) means, Obama could convince them to voluntarily do what he wants.

[dionysus]

96. yeah, because punishing the population of entire states will go over well. jesus christ people have

a tin ear for politics around here...

[Edweird]

14. It's called 'leadership'.

leadership
Definition (1)
1.

In its essence, leadership in an organizational role involves (1) establishing a clear vision, (2) sharing (communicating) that vision with others so that they will follow willingly, (3) providing the information, knowledge, and methods to realize that vision, and (4) coordinating and balancing the conflicting interests of all members or stakeholders. A leader comes to the forefront in case of crisis, and is able to think and act in creative ways in difficult situations. Unlike management, leadership flows from the core of a personality and cannot be taught, although it may be learnt and may be enhanced through coaching or mentoring.

[uponit7771]

18. Please answer factually, there are no legal facts in your reply

[Edweird]

22. Er... leadership is apparently very rare, but still legal the last time I checked.

[uponit7771]

24. The question is what Obama could leaglly do to FORCE not persuade a senator to vote

...his way.

[Hoopla Phil]

15. Not a damn thing but campaign against that person in the next primary. We have

three separate branches of government. One is not superior over the other and has no legal authority to tell the other what to do with respect to their constitutional powers/obligations. The president has no more authority to tell Nancy how to vote than Nancy has to tell the President where to send the Navy.

I remember these discussions in my High School civics class. The reality of course is that Congress has the most power if they are united. A united congress has the power to force the president to do pretty much anything they want. They can make all kinds of laws, that override a presidents veto power, that makes things very difficult on the president. They can defend any program or project of the presidents. They can come up with new regulations and requirements that would effectively kill any of the presidents projects. The list goes on and on but the real sticker is that the entire congress must be united.

[uponit7771]

19. AMEN!!

[vi5]

17. By all of this logic on here...

Bush was not a horrible president at all. I mean he didn't LEGALLY FORCE any Senator do do anything. Not LEGALLY FORCING them to vote for the war. Not LEGALLY FORCING THEM to cut funding for areas that needed it. Not LEGALLY FORCING THEM to cut taxes on the wealthy. Not LEGALLY FORCING them to approve any of his judicial nominees or cabinet appointments. Not LEGALLY FORCING them to pass horrible legislation left and right. I mean if he didn't LEGALLY FORCE any senator to vote any particular way so how can we blame him for anything? I mean he was apparently just this powerless fellow sitting in a white house in Washington DC, right?

So to answer your question unequivically: "Why no. You are 100% right. There is and there was nothing that President Barak Obama could have done or can do to get a Senator to vote a particular way."

But if you expect the people who you are clearly baiting on here repeatedly to follow that up with "So he's a great democratic president who has done everything within the realm of his power to communicate to the general public and to get things done that are unequivically in line with not only what the base of his political party (Unions, the poor, the middle class, etc.) but also a majority of Americans want" then I'm afraid you'll be shit out of luck. But I'm sure you'll get over our collective dissapointment.

[uponit7771]

21. Harry Reid "I don't work for Obama" (link). Again, Lieberman is a red herring Reids the asshole here

Bush was horrible because he would be told of impending danger and do little to nothing to mitigate the negative outcome of said danger.

I understand Bush couldn't control the world or hurricanes and shit like that but he could've blunted the negative effects of them...

Also, Bush had Tom Delay..a very crooked man Obama has milk toast Harry Reid...a person who on the outside doesn't appear like he wants to twist arms.

Thx for you input and answer the question

[vi5]

40. There's no doubt that....

Lieberman, Nelson, etc. are most to blame. Then Reid for being a horrible Majority Leader. But Obama is not blameless and has in many of our estimations shown what is either inept, naive, and tone deaf leadership (the still bad but more generous option), or for the more cynical among us willful negligence and abdication of key duties and leadership. Neither one is particularly promising or compelling.

And yeah, if someone says "OBAMA IS THE MOST TO BLAME FOR ALL OF IT!!!!" then I call bullshit. But if someone says that Obama doesn't bear a large chunk of the blame for shitty legislation and things that happen under his watch, then I call equal amounts of bullshit.

[uponit7771]

45. "There's no doubt that Lieberman, Nelson, etc. are most to blame." That's NOT what I get out of

...reading 99% of the post on DU when it comes to HCR

[vi5]

60. Well, we all have our own lenses.....

I read 99% of the posts on here and it seems to me that they are all cheerleading Obama and acting like the Freepers did during Bush's term and putting a priority on making sure nobody says anything bad about dear leader and that he can't possibly be held responsible for anything and how anything going less than optimally or less than perfect is always someone's fault other than Obama.

The truth is the majority of them on both sides of the debate are more than reasonable and somewhere probably in the middle of all of this. But we all allow ourselves to get heated up and see what we want to see when we want to see it.

[OHdem10]

20. I find it interesting that Republican Presidents can lead their party

and when there is a piece of legislation they really want
they get. This is fact. Yes, their policies are wrongheaded,
but they lead and get even bad things done.

Is it that the Democratic Party has problems that appear
unsolvable .

[uponit7771]

23. Many conservatives I know don't think rationally based off facts so it's easy to follow anything ..

....they're comfortable with.

FDR had an 80% dem congress, Obama doesn't even have a 60% progressive congress....

[OHdem10]

51. FDR had Southern Democrats in Congress who gave him as much

pain very often as Republicans.

FDR was not a Pragmatist in his beliefs. He knew he wanted
Liberal Policies. He was pragmatic in being willing to try
and test and change if it did not work. The reason he was
successful he believed in something.

Today they do not even seem to know where Center Is.

Obama seems to think Center is somewhere between Joe Lieberman
and Tom DeLay.

[snagglepuss]

123. Spot on nt

[elocs]

25. An UnRec for what I see as a condescending "sigh"

as well as your polite demand that your question be answered and answered to your satisfaction.

[uponit7771]

28. The sigh is from is of grief from people who can't answer a straight froward question

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

30. Rec for what I see as a very noncondescending "sigh"

There's just something about the way it was typed that put me at ease with it. Maybe it's the font. I don't know.

[Obamanaut]

26. So you are suggesting that a senator should not be representing the

constituents of his/her state but bowing to the wishes of the president?

I realize that the system is flawed and doesn't really work the way it was designed, but if this is what you are suggesting, it seems even more screwn to me.

[uponit7771]

32. No, I'm suggesting there are people who are assigning abilities to Obama that he doesn't have or...

...never claimed to have and FORCING someone to vote against their pocket book is one of those assignments.

It's starting to look ........irrational...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

33. I don't think that was the point....

This board has been full of statements to the effect that Obama could/should have "done more" to get more Senate votes. The OP is asking, other than persuasion (assuming he can't persuade Mitch McConnell to change his vote), what options are open to the President?

I'm pretty sure it's a rhetorical quuestion.

[uponit7771]

36. It's somewhat retorical, I'd like to think DU'rs can think rationaly and theirs SOMETHING Obama...

...could've done legally...

Otherwise it's starting to get a lil irrational around here...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

38. Starting? Little?

I think we passed that checkpoint last week...

[uponit7771]

42. yeap

[guruoo]

35. He could offer bribes, threaten their families with IRS audits, trumped up charges, ect...

And if anyone tries to call his hand on it, he can just accuse
his accusers of attempting to "criminalize politics".

Oh wait...

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. ALL of the conservatives you talk to?

Sheesh, how many do you know? I avoid them like the plague.

[uponit7771]

41. I work with a ton of former military officers, my political perspectives don't help

...with keeping this job

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. Sorry to hear that

I honestly avoid them and try not to talk politics with them. It's a complete waste of time.

[uponit7771]

48. Some here are rational and that's what ticks the hard cores off, you give the rational ones facts an

...the irrationals can't stand it.

[walldude]

53. Gee they could take away chairmanships, they could cut off

re-election funding, they could push primary candidates for Blue Dog seats. There are a number of things they could do. There are only three things politicians care about. Money, power and getting re-elected so they can keep their money and power.

Frankly I would expect a DU'er not to have to ask such a lame question. Unless it was meant to be flamebait.

[uponit7771]

65. None of what you suggested would FORCE Lieberman to vote against his pocket book. Also, I have to as

...ask this question about FORCING LEGAL facts because people who address this question and want to blame Obama rarely give them.

[walldude]

112. Lieberman will never do the right thing.. and it's a damn shame that you

didn't really want a serious answr to a loaded question. My answer is correct. It won't work on Lieberman, but it would work on the DEMOCRATS. Lieberman is not a Democrat. He is an Independent.

I gave you facts. Things that would work. Instead of admitting that I am right you used an Independent as an example of how it will not work. You might as well have asked how to get the Republicans in line.

I'm not placing the blame on Obama alone, the blame also belongs to Pelosi, Reid, and all the so called leaders of the party.

[Lance_Boyle]

55. torture 'em?

Sorry, "harshly interrogate" 'em.

By the administration's dealings on the issue, it seems they've retained that power for some reason. But he'll probably just keep that powder dry, like a good democrat.

[blindpig]

57. And what, pray tell, is "his way"?

Looks to me that he's getting what his backers want.

[uponit7771]

66. Government ran price controls outside of CHCs'

[RB TexLa]

58. All kinds of things. Use the EPA to halt projects, the FBI, IRS, ATF on their friends, family and

donors. You can let them know that you control the federal government and can destroy their lives. You then destroy a family member, friend or donors life to let them see.

[uponit7771]

67. K,...keyword people is legal...

[RB TexLa]

110. there is nothing illegal about enforcing the law or regulations.

[dhpgetsit]

59. What is the point of your post?

Why don't you list the legal ways you can force me to be a cheerleader like you.

[uponit7771]

69. To get a straight froward answer on what Obama can do legally to FORCE a senator to vote

...for what he wants.

I'm really looking for rational replies and not what people THINK Obama can do

[Kansas Wyatt]

62. Well Senator....

I've got this fancy new spotlight, and while playing with it, I noticed a lot of skeletons in your closet the American People do not know about. Shit, you might actually have a graveyard in there that the folks back home wouldn't like. Hmm... If I could only get this Health Care Reform passed, everything wouldn't be so stalled and I wouldn't have time to play with my new toy anymore. Wink & Nod, and glad to see you get on board with the American People!

Sure, that is so much worse than... Senator, here are several billion dollars for your state if you vote for this. NOT!

And yes, all politicians have dirty secrets to hide, especially fat bastards who have been in Washington for awhile, and information is power.

Does Obama think spying on Americans is ILLEGAL?
When has he reversed what Bush did?
Oh the slippery slope you tread.

[uponit7771]

70. ...what if Liebermans squeaky clean? Again, none of what you suggested would legally COMPELL a ...

...senator to vote against his pocket book.

I'm not looking for persuasion I'm talking about legally COMPELLING someone to do something

[riderinthestorm]

72. Yup, first threaten to out the skeletons

Because virtually everyone else in the "club" knows them and honors the secrecy pact but the public doesn't. First threaten to expose them publicly. Or threaten family members' exposure for malfeasance.

2. Threaten to cut off DLC funding for their campaigns.

3. Campaign against them, actively. Support their primary opponent.

4. Get their chairmanships stripped for infractions and malfeasance that's a part of the everyday life of a politician. "Look Senator Lieberman accepted tickets to a ball game innapropriately!" Institute an ethics investigation and get them to resign....

I mean, there are a LOT Of ways to pressure a person that are perfectly legal. The president also has legal access to wiretapping and other stuff which is absolutely legal but perhaps not very moral.

Ah, but you said only legal stuff so now we are into the shady moral parts that are perfectly legal but perhaps grimly immoral like getting the congressperson to engage in risky sexual affairs with lobbyists, or getting a friend to institute a massive Swift Boat campaign against that congressperson. The possibilities are endless imho.

[uponit7771]

77. The quetsion is about compelling someone to do something not persuading them via outside...

...legal put not compulsive means.

All of the aforementioned might be forceful but it doesn't compel the senators to do anything especially when their seat isn't up for reelection in a couple of years or they can't be primarried from the left.

[riderinthestorm]

93. Semantics. Compelling, persuading, pushing...

There's no 100% effective method anyway. I'm not sure what you are asking. Legal or illegal, there is no 100% effective method to persuade anyone but I'll tell you, any or all of the above should work. If none of the above legal methods would work however, then fine. I'm just pretty certain Obama hasn't used any of them - we'd know it if he had. Here in Chicago, it's pretty damn quick when Mayor Daley needs his Dems to step into place. The parking scandals come up, the contractor kick-backs are exposed and voila! $10 million is coughed up for Millennium Park by the city council.

Obama knows what to do.

"Persuading from the outside" means what exactly? Pehaps I don't get what you mean.

[uponit7771]

98. Legally compelling != persuading

[Tailormyst]

68. I'm sorry- why did he bother running on issues then?

He should have been honest and just said "I want to be commander in chief of the military and I will probably sign some stuff that congress passes"

[uponit7771]

71. I thought the same damn thing this morning, why didn't he get a whip count on his platform...

...before opening his mouth to the public during the campaign.

The PubOption was something well known about to the general public IMHO and waiting till you get into office to see if you have the support is ...well...

I can see him ASSUMING that he would have the support of dem caucus members and thinking if they didn't like his platform they'd call him on it during the campaign.

Bush did the same thing with SS reform though...

[donco6]

73. Dumb question.

Are there people saying Obama should force Senators to vote his way? I haven't seen any.

[uponit7771]

No, they're just assigning Obama abilities that someone told them he had and blaming Obama for

...not using them and then ignore this question all together.

That's been my experience when I've asked it previously

[Tailormyst]

79. He told them he had those abilities- all through the campaign

Since he ran on a wide range of issues you now claim he is helpless to do anything about, doesn't that piss you off a bit?

[uponit7771]

82. Obama said he had the ability to legally compell a senator to vote his way? Link and quote pls

...tia

[Tailormyst]

83. Why did Obama run on the issues if he was impodent in regards to implementing them?

[uponit7771]

85. Because he was talking to smart people who set their expectations reasonably? TIA

[Tailormyst]

88. Good lord- aren't you dizzy from all the spinning?

It's okay that he lied because he was really only talking to smart people who knew they were being lied to.

That is exactly what you are saying if you are basing your argument on the fact that Obama is helpless to do anything to implement his promises.

[uponit7771]

89. No, I'm not saying Obama is helpless just not all powerfull like some, IMHO, have been convinced of

...irrationally

[Tailormyst]

92. So which issues does he have the power to help make a reality

and of those that he ran on and does not have any power, why was it okay for him to make promises for things he couldn't legally do anything about?

[uponit7771]

97. It's not okay, it prolly would've been better for him to get a whip count on his platform before...

...running on it but I can also imagine Obama didn't foresee such an non progressive congress either.

"So which issues does he have the power to help make a reality"

A whole lot less than what I thought on Jan 20th, I honestly thought a senate 60 count would mean folk were on board but Lieberman and Nelson saved the GOP's ass.

Obama can STILL push for cost controls via reconciliation but he can do nothing to compel Reid (Mr I dont' work for him) to allow the vote...

[Tailormyst]

108. On that we do agree

I am far, far angrier at the congress then I am at Obama. They took me for a ride, along with millions of others. We were told, just get us the majority, then we can really get things done. So we did. Then it was "get us to 60 and a Dem President and THEN we can really get things done".

They lied and frankly, I think Obama did too. I don't see him fighting for anything or speaking for our causes, and that angers me. I would rather have seen him fight for a public option and lose then to watch him do nothing except backpedal on almost every aspect.

I am so incredibly angry, frustrated, betrayed and demoralized, not by the Republicans, but by my own damn former party.

[donco6]

80. Who said Obama could force Senators to vote his way?

Because that's the premise you're flamebait is built upon.

[uponit7771]

84. I never said someone did say those words but there are PLENTY who said he didn't "do enough" as if

...he could've done more and that would've legally compelled a senator to vote his way.

Flapping your arms faster while jumping off a building without a parachute isn't going to save you...

[johnaries]

74. Invite him down to Cheney's secret basement chamber?

(cue screams and organ music)

Oh, sorry - that was the LAST administration.

[uponit7771]

75. lol....It seems some folk are convinced that Obama has abilities that he doesn't have and have based

...and unreasonable expectation off that.

[Greyhound]

76. I'll ask again, is it possible for the turd polishers to engage in discussion w/o resorting to

false premise, circular, red herrings, straw man, etc., arguments?

[uponit7771]

78. Only if someone answers a straight forward question with an factual legal answer

...there are many on DU who can't do that when it comes to Obama's abilties.

[Greyhound]

91. This "straight forward" question is so absurd on its face that it is rhetorical. n/t

[uponit7771]

99. No...not really,....i'm still holding out for the rational folk who don't exepect Obama can flap his

...arms faster to save himself from a crashing plane.

The persuading suggestions listed in this thread would do the same as the aforementioned when it comes to making the hold out senators vote Obama's way....nothing.

There may be a legal way, I'm waiting...

Obama can "push" for price controls via reconciliation but then Reid would have to be on board and he's not the most persuasive fella IMHO

[Greyhound]

125. The issue is not what can he do now, the answer to that is obvious, nothing.

Even if he wanted to, which all indications deny, it's too late, the deal is done.

The issue is why he purposely set this up to happen. He is a brilliant man and the results of his actions were obvious, so the question is why did he want to screw this up? What's his agenda?

[Tailormyst]

81. No- instead they use the "when did you stop beating your wife" angle

in response to every single person who gave them an answer they didn't agree with.

[backscatter712]

90. The art of politics.

Usually, it amounts to those things discussed in the smoke-filled back rooms with quotes like...

"If you vote for my bill, I'll see to it you get an extra three million from the DCCC/DSCC for your reelection campaign!"

OK, that's technically bribery, but it happens all the time in the Beltway because it's impossible to prove actual quid pro quo.

or

"If you vote for my bill, you'll get tasty earmarks for your state or district..."

which might be considered bribery, but might also be considered regular horsetrading on the Hill.

Then it comes to

"If you don't vote for my bill, you'll get nasty attack ads run against you next election season." That is a common threat, and one that gets a Congresscritter or Senator snapping to attention right quick.

or

"If you don't vote for my amendment, I'll get my buddies to vote to strip out your amendments and your pork!"

Unfortunately, industry lobbyists also make those threats, and they have lots of money to back them up. They're the ones saying "If you vote for the public option, we'll pay to run ten million dollars of attack ads against you next election!"

And the lobbyist groups have 527s to do the dirty work for them, so it's far harder to prove quid pro quo against them, than if Obama tried something like that.

Realistically, Obama could pull strings, collect favors, offer to broker votes for a favorable amendment to a recalcitrant Senator in exchange for his vote for something he doesn't really want to vote for, but he can't blatently send millions of bucks towards Lieberman (or his opponents) as consequences of a vote without the GOP howling and demanding impeachment. He has to be more subtle, and more careful.

And people wonder why I'm in favor of campaign finance reform...

[dionysus]

95. he could "lead" anther one of ther vague favorites...

[uponit7771]

100. yeah....I'm starting to give up on expecting a rational non snark answer

[Posteritatis]

116. Yeah, there's a reason you should. (nt)

[Enrique]

101. so what's all this about his brilliance?

he's "brilliant" at signing the bill that he had nothing to do with developing?

What about all the strategy? The multidimensional chess?

[uponit7771]

103. ...you forgot to mention his red cape and the laser beams coming out of his eyes. Come on people...

...some folk didn't keep a good perspective of what he could or couldn't do due to have 52 progressives in congress but there's no reason to place majority onus on Obama.

[Sunnyshine]

102. I will try:

1. Anti-Trust should have preceded everything listed below. Start with the obvious.

2. Have open hearings on public air waves- not "off the table" antics that awards AHIP 15 chairs and tells single payer advocates to get lost. Even if the industry leaders don't like it- it is a form of putting pressure on them (instead of us) and would be a great tool for disseminating honest information. Public perception would be overwhelmingly supportive after seeing the industries nightmare numbers and home constituents would be able to better decipher exactly who is doing what wrong when it comes to health care and the cost of the systems.

*Comparing the two modes - laid bare for all to see with their own eyes- as in for profit vs non profit - and letting the evidence speak for itself would have been the number one thing to do. The compromise could be - we keep 2 private insurers and open up a Universal exchange with a mandate to participate in one, the other, or both. Those Senators would not- I repeat- would NOT be able to go home to a crowd cheering for more private insurers.

2. Campaign. Bus Tours. Senators traveling the country and President Obama keeping to his Fired Up and Ready to Go theme going beyond winning an election. Organizing just as if we were still fighting to get elected. Keeping the people engaged and informed by clearly defining the objectives across the board. That way, the words they speak in public are more likely to be held accountable when they get back to their home districts.

3. Forming new alliances, better utilizing the one's who have been shunned for decades (which is long over due) by publicly and boldly backing, organizing, utilizing labor unions, netroots, small businesses, all those most afflicted by the current system. Stop relying on the politics of the past.

4. Health Insurance Reform should be a done as a separate bill.

5. National Health Exchange should have been plastered on the wall of every town hall- competition to bring down cost. Focus the debate on creating an exchange where private and public plans compete for customers. IMHO, that alone would have been the nail to hammer moment. American people need to see us taking measured steps to assure the best possible outcomes for health care reform.

6. Support the majority of America by talking directly to the people in weekly addresses. Those public hearings we never really had- would have provide the required information to expand upon. Teaching America to focus on these bread and butter issues are what we need to embrace. They actually want it and need it. That's been what our leadership is lacking in both Executive and Legislative branches. Retain the voters confidence by listening to the voters and organizing with them to keep the movement going. This would increase our influence at the kitchen table.

These are some of the things my Democratic leaders have failed to do this year- they need to be just as active in engaging voters after the election. Thanks for the question. Hope I didn't come across as whining or bitching. I support President Obama, but I reserve the right to dissent from any politician that I feel is bending the arch towards the top 1-10% and telling me it is a good.

/to add last sentence

[uponit7771]

104. None of that can legally force a senator to vote a certain way

[Sunnyshine]

111. Anti-trust is absolutely a legal force. The reason why I listed it as #1.

Trusts and monopolies are concentrations of economic power in the hands of a few. Economists believe that such control injures both individuals and the public because it leads to anti-competitive practices in an effort to obtain or maintain total control. Anti-competitive practices then lead to price controls and diminished individual initiative. These results in turn cause markets to stagnate and depress economic growth.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Antitrust


Competition Law:Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, has three main elements:

* prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.

* banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.

* supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licenses or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing substance and practice of competition law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Protecting the interests of consumers (consumer welfare) and ensuring that entrepreneurs have an opportunity to compete in the market economy are often treated as important objectives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

The others are not legal forces, but rather political forces that are just as important as the legislative measures to put in place the anti-trust laws which legally forces the industry to comply. After this, it would be hard for any Senator or Congress person to stand up in public to speak against an obvious need for anti-trust measures among private insurers.

[snagglepuss]

124. Really great post. Should definitely be its own thread.

:applause:

[TheWatcher]

109. Why don't we just have a DICTATORSHIP?

I mean, as long as HE'S the Dictator, it will all work out well, right?

I mean, we had a dictatorship the previous eight years, and that worked out like gangbusters.

Oh, Wait....

[Vinnie From Indy]

113. Two words - Jeff Galooly

eom

[Kid Dynamite]

114. Obama is the architect of health care "reform"

Who would you like to blame? Further, you say the left did not get EVERYTHING it wanted. That is true, but a profound understatement. The Left got NOTHING.

[Posteritatis]

115. This is one of the more depressing questions I've seen posted here in awhile. (nt)

[Alenne]

117. Nothing and we all know it. nt

[laughingliberal]

118. It is my opinion after analyzing President Obama's behavior and the reports

I have followed since the health care debate began that he did not ever want a public option in the bill. I also believe had he wanted it he would have had it. I believe, if nothing else, Nelson and Conrad would have gone for the PO with an opt out for states. I believe Lieberman would have voted for it had the President wanted him to. I believe Harry Reid included to the PO with opt out for the states in the blended bill because he, conditionally, had the votes for it. I believe the White House lobbied against it behind the scenes. It's just my opinion. Those who think otherwise have no more evidence for their position than I do for mine.

[closeupready]

119. Stupid thread. In theory, you can't FORCE anyone to ever do anything.

No matter what. Try asking something useful now. :eyes:

[Synicus Maximus]

121. He could threaten to wi thole or withole discretionary moneys from

the senators state but there could be political consequences for the pres for such an action.

[ClassWarrior]

126. IBTL

NGU.

[last1standing]

127. Why not ask us whether we've stopped beating our wives?

If you ask a question then create rules for answering it that make correct answers impossible, you're likely to get the answer you want, but not one that in any way resembles truth. If second grade trickery is what matters to you then you have certainly asked the correct question.

Of course if you had been interested in honesty over manipulation you would never have posted this thread. I'm not quite sure what you're getting out of it but we all have needs that we must fulfill.

Enjoy.