"I'm President and not king"

[bigtree]

excerpt from President Obama's interview with progressive bloggers (White House transcript): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/obamas-interview-with-progressive-bloggers_n_775112.html


10-27-10
Roosevelt Room

Q I want to go back to the idea of working with Republicans. And given the comments from McConnell and -- well, all of them -- I think that what a lot of people find frustrating is that our side compromises and continues to compromise just to get that one Republican on . . . How are you going to get Democrats to understand that compromise means the other side has to give something sometimes, one day?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, obviously I share your frustrations. I've got to deal with this every day . . . But I guess I'd make two points. The first is, I'm President and not king. And so I've got to get a majority in the House and I've got to get 60 votes in the Senate to move any legislative initiative forward.

Now, during the course -- the 21 months of my presidency so far, I think we had 60 votes in the Senate for seven months, six? I mean, it was after Franken finally got seated and Arlen had flipped, but before Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. So that's a fairly narrow window. So we're right at the number, and that presumes that there is uniformity within the Democratic caucus in the Senate -- which, Barbara, you've been around a while. You know that not every Democrat in the Democratic caucus agrees with me or agrees with each other in terms of complicated issues like health care.

So it is important for me, then, to work every angle I can to get as much done as I can. If we had a parliamentary system, then this critique would make sense to me because you do as much as you can to negotiate with the other side, but at a certain point you've got your platform and you move it forward and your party votes for it.

But that's not the system of government we have. We've got a different system. I will say that the damage that the filibuster I think has done to the workings of our democracy are at this point pretty profound. The rate at which it's used just to delay and obstruct is unprecedented. But that's the reality right now.

So I guess my answer is that there has not been, I think, any issue that we've worked in which I have been willing to sign on to a compromise that I didn't feel was a strong improvement over the status quo and was not the best that we could do, given the political alignments that we've got.

And, yes, it leaves some folks dissatisfied. I understand that . . .


read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/obamas-interview-with-progressive-bloggers_n_775112.html


President Barack Obama walks back into the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, October 27, 2010 (REUTERS/Jim Young)

[ixion]

1. This is a good example of why we're sliding into fascism.

Rethugs implement fascist policies (pretending they're dictators) and when a Dem gets elected he acts, in essence, as caretaker until the next rethug can come along and take it up another notch.

Thus you see why we have moved to the right.

[bigtree]

3. It sounds like you're advocating the same type of fascism for our President

I do think we'll see many more unilateral actions by the President as his term progresses; especially in appointments. But, it's clear this president isn't going to be satisfied in just enacting something by Executive fiat which will spark a certain legislative backlash.

That may not be the stance which some activists and advocates might want him to take, but it's certainly responsible democratic governance under our constitution; something which we rightly complained that the Bush administration was abusing and neglecting to adhere to.

[leftstreet]

4. The poster did no such thing

The poster advocated nothing

Jeez, what is wrong with people lately?

:eyes:

[QC]

5. It gets weirder every day, doesn't it? n/t

[bigtree]

6. The problem is the cryptic remarks stand for themselves

Let the poster defend their own remarks.

[ixion]

9. Clinton continued Reagan and Bush era policies, just like Obama

continues Bush era policies. What's to defend? It's a fact.

[bigtree]

14. some policies were indeed continued

Many, many more progressive policies and initiatives were enacted independent from any republican desire or effort.

[treestar]

45. Social security continues through Republican administrations

the civil rights laws are still there.

YOur position is fucking ridiculous.

[ixion]

48. civill rights are still there?

You need to crawl out from under your rock.

YOUR position is delusional, in my opinion. But you are most certainly entitled to it.

[JuniperLea]

65. Which civil rights legislations have been reversed?

I'm not aware of any and would welcome the enlightenment.

[countrydad58]

51. They

are constantly under assault, when the pubes have power.

[ixion]

56. It was a Dem majority that passed the unPATRIOTic Act

and the so-called Consumer Protection Act, so....

[FiveGoodMen]

64. "when the pubes have power"

Clearly, they always have power.

Sometimes they have Congressional majorities as well.

[earth mom]

77. You mean the Social Security that Obama appointed the Cat Food Commission to destroy?

Just wait until after the elections,: Social Security will be on the chopping block again but this time, the dems will be the ones to kill it while the rethugs laugh their asses off that they got the other side to do their dirty work for them.

:puke:

[leftstreet]

15. Cryptic? lol

I've seen some stretchy-reachy stuff here at DU but this is just lame

:eyes:

But yes, I'll defer to the poster to "defend" his/her "cryptic" statements.

LOL

[bigtree]

17. all the buttinsky stuff is really helpful

good for you

[Hannah Bell]

46. lol. parsing your sentence: the opaque, mysterious remarks stand for mysterious, opaque remarks.

wtf are you talking about?

[bigtree]

62. wtf are you talking about?

More importantly, why are you butting into a conversation between me and the other poster, that's OVER? The poster gave a more succinct response and it looks like we understand each other now, so, butt out.

[Hannah Bell]

63. i don't see any indication the poster understood your cryptic sentence.

[bigtree]

66. I don't see any indication that the poster cared enough

. . . to question my use of the word 'cryptic'.

I can't understand why you're so interested in continuing a discussion that you butted into the middle of, and, has concluded without any of the baiting you're engaging in here.

[Hannah Bell]

70. i don't understand why you keep responding.

[bigtree]

73. I'm doing it mainly

. . . just for kicks.

[Hannah Bell]

75. couldn't stay away, huh.

[bigtree]

76. I never really leave

[ixion]

7. Not in the least. I'm advocating the opposite.

You don't have to cheat to make change happen. You have to be a populist as opposed to a corporatist.

[bigtree]

12. ok

To me, that just sounds like another version of what he's doing now.

Sure, he could take more 'protest' type stances where he's certain to be opposed with the risk that the issue festers and dies on the floor. Or, he can do as he's doing, and work to advance our Democratic agenda when and where he's able, given the political balance of power he's facing.

[ixion]

21. With the biggest Dem majority in years

It's not going to get any sweeter. He should have chosen to be a Man of the People. It was a golden opportunity shucked aside, in my opinion.

[bigtree]

26. I think any more of a populist stance

. . . would have resulted in a certain bloodbath at the polls.

I think the amount of water the administration had to carry for Bush's economic catastrophe limited his ability to come right out with a more confrontational agenda. The Democratic 'majority' is a false mantle. There isn't a progressive majority yet - which is what we're looking to effect whatever populism the President positions for into action or law. That failure to elect a progressive majority is the responsibility of voters more than it is the fault of the White House.

All of that posturing (as opposed to coalition politics) is meaningless without some legislative goal. It's never a surety that all of that political maneuvering will move the opposition to relent, or carry over into the next political cycle with a compliant new batch of legislators to move our agenda forward.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ixion]

10. Oh please. It has nothing to do with race.

I voted for change, not the status quo. It's really that simple.

[butterfly77]

25. Who in the hell is talking about you...

they are greedy and racist...

[rury]

34. The hell it has nothing to do with race

It ALWAYS has something to with race...ALWAYS!!!!!!

[CBR]

60. It is about race to an extent. To deny that proves the point.

Race is ingrained in every part of our society.

[emilyg]

13. B.S.

[butterfly77]

28. Yes,you are talking bullshit..

one of the its not race deniers what in the hell is it then some things can't be denied. Some are but many are because if it were Clinton either one of them many of these so called Dems would be on board. No,all aren't but many are and the media and many here on DU try to pretend its not,BULLSHIT,HORSESHIT,NONSENSE!!!

[rury]

37. Absolutely right butterfly 77

EOM

[ixion]

49. Well, no, not really... and playing the race card everytime someone is critical of Obama

will get you nowhere fast.

[ecstatic]

59. I'm curious...did blue dog dems in the senate and congress

block Clinton at every turn? Or is this a new development?

[ixion]

61. Clinton brought the blue dogs into their own

so I'm not sure why they would have stood against them. Clinton is King of the Blue Dogs.

[grantcart]

11. all moves into facism have been the result of significant economic security eroding

for middle classes and not because of political machinations.

[ixion]

16. all moves into fascism are invoked by the government

irregardless of the motivation. I agree that instability in a society is how fascism gets a foothold, but it's always the government that implements it.

[grantcart]

33. That wasn't the case in Germany, Italy, or Argentina but it was the case of Japan.

You are obviously making an emotional declaration so facts are immaterial.

[ixion]

44. well, no, not really

It's not an emotional declaration, just a simple matter of logistics.

It's the government that governs by definition, and therefore it's the government that implements the fascist state.

[lonestarnot]

23. So allowing the bushit tax cuts, is that a political machination or just economic security erosion

?

[mzmolly]

41. Absolute

bull crap.

[fascisthunter]

71. history proves you right.... look at the last 30 years

[DeSwiss]

2. K&R

"When it comes to voting, we only have two choices, you got to grow up and realize there's a big difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy. Of course the Democrats are disappointing. That's what makes them Democrats. If they were any more frustrating they'd be your relatives. But in this country they are all that stands between you and darkest night. You know why their symbol is the letter 'D'? Because it's a grade that means good enough, but just barely. You know why the Republican symbol is 'R'? Because it's the noise a pirate makes when he robs you and feeds you to a shark." ~ Bill Maher, http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/2010/10/bill-maher-calls-gop-%E2%80%98a-deadly-enemy/">Link

[coti]

18. That's a transparent, blithe excuse I would expect from lesser Presidents.

I want to know why he actively supported a senator like Blanche Lincoln, who just as actively opposed the most important piece of his legislative agenda, healthcare reform, in the Democratic primary.

A senator who is now going to lose bigtime in the general election, because she was a terrible representative.

In fact, I'd like to know why he didn't tell her in no uncertain terms, when she stonewalled, that he would campaign against her if she didn't get on board.

Sure, a President isn't a "king." But we're not exactly asking him to rule by fiat.

[countrydad58]

53. Exactly!

Thank you for expressing my thoughts!

[BlueCheese]

19. George W. Bush never had more than 55 senators...

... and he got a lot of things (un)done.

I'm more than a little tired of this 60 votes excuse. These are the largest majorities a president has had in a long time. Part of the president's job is to move public opinion, which moves elected officials to vote the way he wants them to. It's what politics is all about. Rally the public against the people who stand in the way of a bigger stimulus, the companies that want to profit off of health care, the Wall Street firms that wrecked the economy and haven't learned their lesson. Do you think Snowe and Collins would still vote against you if their constituents were all on your side?

Does this mean we're not going to get anything done from now on? Because we're not going to have 60 after January and up through the end of Obama's first term. A bit more of a fighting spirit would do a lot towards rallying the Democratic base.

[bigtree]

30. the republican party has never had the same number of compliant members

. . . who are willing to vote with our Democrats. There are very few defections.

On the other hand, our Democratic membership includes a sufficient number of Democrats willing to bend to the republican agenda and thwart our legislation.

[rury]

32. 60 votes is NOT an "excuse"

It's a reality the president has to deal with.
And Bush got what he wanted because everything he wanted to do preserved the status quo and rewarded the rich, the powerful, the lobbyists, the corporations, the defense contractors, etc.
President Obama is trying to fight the system and bring about change for the little guy.
No, he's not a king and cannot rule by fiat.
He's a president and he's doing a damn good job with the difficult, conservative, brought-and-paid-for Congress he has do deal with.
Put on your big boy or girl panties and realize that!

[depakid]

38. It's certainly an excuse if it's held up as the reason one doesn't even try

and fails to call out, confront or otherwise wield one's power to reward and punish (i.e. arm twist. See LBJ) in order to get one's purported policies through.

[depakid]

20. Memo to Obama: you declared that you had the RIGHT to kill an American citizen

based solely on YOUR determination of their being an "enemy."

With no due process- and without even affording the person to be killed the ability to challenge YOUR opinion.

If that's not behaving like a king....

Now, back to the excuses.

[coti]

22. Ouch.

Yeah, it's hard to imagine that not being something only a king is allowed to do.

[BlueCheese]

24. Touche. n/t

[leftstreet]

29. +1

[ixion]

50. Exactly...

and it's the continuation of this neocon era logic that disappoints me most.

[avaistheone1]

68. True

So unbelievable, but unfortunately true.

[FiveGoodMen]

69. Amen.

First thing I thought of as well.

[jgraz]

79. End. Of. Thread.

[rucky]

K&R

[rucky]

27. K&R

[The Philosopher]

31. Good God

Q: ...And one of the things I'd like to ask you -- and I think it's a simple yes or no question too -- is do you think that "don't ask, don't tell" is unconstitutional?

THE PRESIDENT: It's not a simple yes or no question, because I'm not sitting on the Supreme Court. And I've got to be careful, as President of the United States, to make sure that when I'm making pronouncements about laws that Congress passed I don't do so just off the top of my head.

No, but you have legal counsel, you yourself are a Constitutional lawyer, and you've had TWO GODDAMN YEARS to look it over; at least a year before that to consider it, considering the repeal was part of your platform. And now you use the excuse, "What, am I a lawyer? I don't know how to read no books!" President Bush was able to do a lot of legal things and he never read any goddamn books, except for that one time. You're smarter than that answer, Mr. President, and by saying it you're calling us stupid to our faces.

So, when you go and say this:

"And so, I'll be honest with you, I don't think that the disillusionment is justified. "

It's just shameful. If you can't utter a real reason for doing the things you do, you shouldn't be doing them in the first place.

So enjoy spitting on our face as you tell us how much you like us. Because one of us should enjoy it.

[coti]

35. Yup. It's insulting. nt

[bigtree]

36. he said a bit more

PRESIDENT:___ I think that -- but here's what I can say. I think "don't ask, don't tell" is wrong. I think it doesn't serve our national security, which is why I want it overturned. I think that the best way to overturn it is for Congress to act. In theory, we should be able to get 60 votes out of the Senate. The House has already passed it. And I've gotten the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to say that they think this policy needs to be overturned -- something that's unprecedented.

And so my hope and expectation is, is that we get this law passed.

On "don't ask, don't tell," I have been as systematic and methodical in trying to move that agenda forward as I could be given my legal constraints, given that Congress had explicitly passed a law designed to tie my hands on the issue.

[The Philosopher]

39. You can't be that obtuse

That's just another excuse. His hands aren't tied, they are folded. He's already shown contempt for us, he doesn't want to risk his Presidency on us. He can't even muster up to say in public to Republicans that even their own are trying to take down DADT, and you can either do it in Congress or in the courts. What's your choice? Then challenge the law like he should, like he could, but makes excuses that he can't. This is not systematic and methodical, it's slow and shameful.

[bigtree]

43. I'm not obtuse

I just acknowledge that the President has a different strategy than you, perhaps, for overturning the law, for now. You assume he's operating in bad faith. I don't, even though I do find his approach lacking in the directness and clarity he promised during the campaign.

[SammyWinstonJack]

52. And there it is!

...he doesn't want to risk his Presidency on us.


:thumbsup:

[obxhead]

40. I'm sick and tired of hearing the 60 vote excuse.

51. That's all they need to pass a bill. Force the filibuster. Read phone books as long as it takes.

I'm sick and tired of this chicken shit excuse.

[McCamy Taylor]

42. What? You mean he ISN'T the Messiah?

[SHRED]

47. Questions that should have been asked

*Does the murdering of innocent families, via Predator Drone attacks, keep us safer or does it encourage more attacks on the USA?

*Why were Single-Payer advocates such as PPHP, excluded from the discussion table when you clearly promised everyone was? And why was corporate insurance given the front seat?

*Do you really think our troops are fighting for "freedom and democracy" overseas?

*Would you advocate transferring the needed $2.2 Trillion from the military budget and placing it into an infrastructure rebuild of this country with strict stipulations that good union scale jobs with benefits would be created to stimulate the economy while rebuilding the middle class? If not why not?

---

[SammyWinstonJack]

54. +1

:thumbsup:

[ixion]

55. excellent questions

That should have been asked long ago. :applause:

[countrydad58]

57. Single payer

advocates were not only ignored ,but arrested during Baucus hearings! I renember some one here posting pics with Kerry & Baucus, with smiles on their faces while these people were being arrested.

[ecstatic]

58. What a photo. I wonder what he's thinking?

If it were me, I'd be pretty annoyed and frustrated. But somehow, I know he probably had a smile on his face. None of this is surprising to him and he's just enjoying the experience.

[JuniperLea]

67. I agree...

The big picture is lost on many. It's just a damn good thing he's not as reactionary as I am!

[fascisthunter]

72. Nobody is asking for a King, we elected you to be a fucking president

now do something other than being a great spokesperson. I'm sick of the excuses....

[JackRiddler]

74. Indeed. So this means he's going to restore habeas corpus and other elements of rule of law, right?

[earth mom]

78. President not King, eh? Then lead & keep your campaign promises instead of kissing up to the thugs!

[jgraz]

80. We know he's not a king. We just want him to stop being a pawn.

And letting us all get rooked.