GIVE THE PRESIDENT A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS

[nadinbrzezinski]

this meme is not just insulting but ignores history.

In 2006 the Dems retook the house... in 2008 they increased their lead... House Speaker was Nancy Pelosi, a DEMOCRAT, a WOMAN from San Francisco.

I have no idea why people insist on this talking point.

There is more... she was a very EFFECTIVE SPEAKER... During her term the HOUSE passed a lot of legislation that went to die in the US SENATE. IN fact, that was the first break... and the WH did NOT use the bully pulpit to PUSH Leader REEED, a very ineffective leader, to make that legislation advance.

It was partly the disfunction, but this is also on purpose. So don't preach about giving the POTUS a democratic house. He needs to want to use it as well.

Oh and for the record you thin Medicare and Civil Rights were not divisive? Why is it that LBJ managed to make sure it got through?

[LaydeeBug]

1. b..b..but KENT CONRAD won't be nice and Obama is too scared to stand up to him and 5 of his friends.

nt

[Recovered Repug]

2. But, there are more than 6 republicans east of the Mississippi.

No one could overcome such obstacles.

[TheWraith]

3. Oh please, not the "bully pulpit" crap again.

Nobody can yet explain how the President being angrier changes the number of votes needed to end a filibuster, particularly when the opposing party has NO inclination to bend to public pressure. Ever.

As for LBJ, he passed Medicare with a Democratic majority of SIXTY EIGHT SEATS in the Senate. The numbers in the House were 295 to 140.

[Andy823]

7. +1,000,000,000 nt

[SusanaMontana41]

8. So politics today is more divisive than 1960s racial politics?

That's hard for me to believe, even knowing how awful D.C. is now.

As for LBJ's Democrats, weren't many of them boll weevils?

[TheWraith]

24. Don't ask me: Ask Jimmy Carter.

Who was already in politics back then, and who has repeatedly said that in his view, the level and lock-step nature of opposition to Obama is unprecedented in modern American history.

[SusanaMontana41]

27. I"ll take his opinion, and that of others, too.

Thanks for sharing. He was a principled president and still is a principled man.

[Claudia Jones]

65. that is a vulnerability

"The level and lock-step nature of opposition" is a vulnerability of the Republicans, not a strength. It only works when the other side is easily intimidated (or compromised.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. The 1948 do nothing Congress is instructive

oh and welcome to DU

:hi:

[quaker bill]

87. +1

[hifiguy]

25. They certainly were.

Those who were southern conservadem types then, and there were a lot of them in those days, are all repukes now. Their politics didn't change, just the label. LBJ had to EARN every one of his major domestic accomplishments and he wasn't afraid of calling on the public and doing the heavy lifting himself. No one could ever say that Lyndon Johnson was afraid of diving into the process and doing what was necessary, whether it was cajoling, arm-twisting or just plain busting heads.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. So you are telling me the power of the presidency

evaporated when he was sworn in?

Gotcha. I don;t know what is worst, to think that he does not have it to begin with, or that it evaporated when he was sworn in.

Actually I don't think he wants either a Democratic House or Democratic Senate... but that is just me.

[TheWraith]

20. The President does not have the power to make laws out of whole cloth.

Never has.

[SusanaMontana41]

32. I am completely lost.

You won't defend his smog policy, but you defend him. Why? What else do we know about a president, except what the president's policies are?

Is it because the Repigs are attacking and you think he needs the support? That's where I was, for a long time. Then it became either defend the principles, or defend a president who won't defend the principles.

Not starting a word war here. I'm assuming we agree on Democratic principles. I just want to understand. Really. PM me if you want. :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. No but the president has a soft power to set an agenda

it only increased with the rise of the Imperial Presidency. At some point in the early 19th century presidents were this powerless... most of those leaders are no longer remembered except by history fans... but even in the early republic Presidents still had power to set agendas. starting wiht Adams and he was nowhere close to the power of a MODERN DAY President.

[Marr]

54. So why worry about Obama losing the office?

Who gives a shit? I mean, the Republicans aren't going to get big majorities in Congress, so if all the information I've heard about policy and compromise in the last two years is accurate, a President Bachmann would have to pass legislation far to her left. Hell, it'd have to be downright liberal-- right?

[polmaven]

93. Umm...

Because the president does have the ability to VETO legislation any that does get passed? And because it takes a 2/3 majority to override a presidential veto? Hmmm! I wonder if that might be why!

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. But the power of the Presidency goes well beyond that

which are in the CONSTITUTION. You deny the POTUS has a soft power to push for things in ways that are NOT in the founding documents?

[polmaven]

110. I never said that..

read the question to which I was responding....Do you want Michele Bachmann, or Rick Perry, etc. vetoing bills with a less than 2/3 majority Democratic Senate?

Really?

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. So if I understand that Presidential power

goes well beyond what is specified in the Constitution means I want Bachman? We call that a Red Herring.

[polmaven]

118. Please READ

the question to which I was responding!!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

119. I read it, and I understood why it was asked

read why that was posted.

[polmaven]

125. Well, if you don't understand

my answer to that question, I can't do anything further to help you. ....LATER!

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. I guess it is mutual

:hi:

[Creideiki]

148. But he could, say, impose tighter ozone controls. Oh, wait.

He might lose Republican votes.

Well how about stopping Keystone XL and destroying the climate?

Yeah. He might lose Republican votes.

Okay...try this--he could negotiate with drug companies for Medicare.

Damn! Those darned Republican supporters of Obama keep getting in the way!

Ummm...how about...not opening the coal to development in Wyoming (thereby further destabilizing the climate and ensuring worse air quality)?

Drat! Republicans MIGHT NOT VOTE FOR HIM!

And that's the point--the Republicans are NEVER going to vote for him.

[Marr]

49. The President is almost powerless.

Really. He's just a guy at a desk who signs or vetoes legislation when it reaches him. He has almost zero say in the process leading up to that moment.

Unless we're talking about the Perry/Palin/Bachmann bogeyman. Then the presidency is omnipotent. Rolls right over the Congress. Can't blame them for not stopping him/her.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. I know it is incredible right?

Obama fans... he is a poor little man and has no say int he process.

Bachman types... he is a dictator...

Reality is... the President has a lot of real and implied power, and that man needs to want to use it.

By the way, both are caricatures. thank you

[Creideiki]

149. Then why should we care who sits behind the desk?

[Claudia Jones]

31. angrier?

What does "angrier" have to do with anything? Are either compromising or else "being angrier" the only two imaginable alternatives? It appears to me that the president is not so much avoiding being angry as he is avoiding angering the opposition.

Republicans refusing to budge to public pressure is no excuse for bending to them. If what you say is true, then standing fast against the Republicans would increase, not decrease public support for the Democrats.

[Angry Dragon]

60. Americans love their fighters and heros

even the ones that die in a fight
Look at the Alamo

Maybe Obama needs to look there of ideas
A small group fought to the death for ideals and principles
and America loves them for that

[Claudia Jones]

63. fighting is one thing

"Angry" is another. Clearly it could backfire if the president appeared to be angry. One need not appear angry in order to fight back.

[Angry Dragon]

127. All kinds of levels of anger

I guess folding is his top level

Fighting is a form of anger

Anger is a more powerful force than love
This President has no idea what anger is or how to use it..............

[Angry Dragon]

58. Imagine the President has 280 democrats in the House

62 democrats in the Senate

Do we get single payer/public option??
Do we get a AG going after the banks and wall street for fraud??
Do we get a Dodd-Frank with teeth??
Are we really getting out of the wars and stop building bases around the world??
Would have the foreclosure mess been stopped until it was figured out what the hell was going on??
Would bp and other polluters been brought to justice??
Would we have tighter regulations for clean air, water and soil??
Would we have a more honest reform of education, assuming there were problems to begin with??
Would we get a more honest approach to legal drugs??
Would we stop selling government??
Would we reign in big pharma??
Would we get higher taxes on the more wealthy??
Would we reign in medical costs and insurance company abuses??
Would people be able to find jobs that paid a living wage??
Would the abusive ceo salaries been stopped and reversed??
Would more appointments for the executive branch been more in favor of the people than the corporations??
Would the people be more important than corporations??
Would free trade been reduced to fair trade??
Would there be bankers, polluters, and wall street gamblers be in jail??

[JTFrog]

146. Indeed.

[HereSince1628]

4. GIVE THE PRESIDENT A PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS

Excuse me, I've got to quit day-dreaming in the mid-afternoon.

[mitchtv]

11. that will be difficult, First Obama has to start blaming

the Republicans in Congress and shut up about "those in Congress". It's the republicans , baboso. Then the Dems have to simultaneously grow backbones.

[jmodden]

22. First Obama has to start blaming ...

"First Obama has to start blaming the Republicans in Congress and shut up about "those in Congress"."

When will indies realize that R's are "the enemy of The People"?

[Initech]

5. We had one if you remember. The GOP fucked it up, like they always do.

[markpkessinger]

34. ...with no small amount of help from the President n/t

[Brickbat]

6. .

[Autumn]

9. I see no evidence that he wants one

Here in CO we had Andrew Romanoff running against Michael F. Bennet, a blue dog at best, an asshole (in my experience) at worse. Obama came here and campaigned for Bennet. Bennet won.

[SusanaMontana41]

15. Aw, geez. I loved Romanoff.

Well, Obama the candidate sure was droping hints. We just didn't pick up on them.

[Mojambo]

16. This, exactly.

Time and time again, Obama has stood against progressives.

He likes and prefers working with the Blanche Lincolns and Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. I don't think they want one either

any kind of control takes away some of the excuses. Yes, I am that cynical.

[Missy Vixen]

88. It also takes away fundraising opportunities.

I'll see your cynical and raise it.

I haven't felt this pessimistic about politics (and politicians,) in my lifetime.

[Raine]

123. That's what I believe too

not having a majority gives a good excuse for giving it all up and saying your hands were tied.

[muffin1]

10. He would just squander it AGAIN.

K&R

[Poll_Blind]

13. ^ This

PB

[SusanaMontana41]

12. Kicked and recommended. nt

[Hart2008]

14. K & R! We've been there and done that. No excuses and no more whining. NT

[Little Star]

18. k&r

[Cronus Protagonist]

19. Again? What would be different?

Details....?

[hifiguy]

21. Pelosi was terrific as Speaker

and passed more legislation than any other speaker has in years, if not decades. I can't seem to recall the POTUS getting out in front and trying to mobilize the public to call for action in the Senate.

Hell, Chimpo got 90% of what he wanted after the Dems took both houses in 2006.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Alas Bush knew how to use the bully pulpit

many defects and all, but he knew how to...

At times I have to consider the POSSIBILITY that our current president does not want to...

[johnaries]

23. So you're saying we SHOULDN'T work for a Democratic Congress?

Or, just as bad, that it wouldn't make any difference?

Oh, and we never had a veto-proof majority in the Senate. Remember why we don't have a Public Option? Because Lieberman (an Independent) wouldn't vote for it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. No, I am saying the talking point is a lousy one

and it assumes people do not know very recent history

[spin]

26. We need to elect a congress that is not bought and owned by the rich ...

and the big corporations. And a President who represents the people who voted him into office rather than the rich who paid for his campaign. In order to achieve this, we need to overhaul our election laws.

In my personal opinion, the concept of building a billion dollar campaign chest to finance a run for the Presidency is obscene.

[Claudia Jones]

66. there we go

Well said.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Agreed and there are several changes I can think

to the electoral system that would do that.

The chances of them ever being implemented are near zero. No way the current beneficiaries will shoot themselves. Change will come... but the method to that should scare people.

[Obamanaut]

83. Congress IS the rich. Nearly half are millionaires, some are multi. They

will not do anything counter to the wishes of their country club buddies.

[spin]

101. If we are ever to live in a great country ...

we have to figure out a way to force a change in our election law.

Perhaps we need a Democratic version of the Tea Party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. Yes, yes we do...

+1

[Proud Liberal Dem]

28. Give the President a FUNCTIONAL Congress!

Nothing more is going to get done, I fear, in this country until the Republican Tea Party is vanquished and their extremism rejected by a majority of the public. Until the right-wing fringe no longer sets the tone for the rest of the GOP and the GOP pols are no longer allowing them to dictate the agenda/policies of the GOP, I'm afraid that nothing more will get done. Unfortunately, it will take all of us plus getting enough other people to recognize the true problem going on right now in government and voting the right-wing fringe and the right-wing fringe-followers out of Congress. There are SOME Republicans, albeit quite diminished in numbers, whom President Obama and other Democrats could potentially reason with but as long as the Republican Tea Party is pulling the strings within the GOP even the reliably "moderate" Republicans are unreachable. Criticize President Obama all you want but everybody needs to face the facts that:

a.)the next POTUS is either going to be President Obama or a Republican Tea Party a**hat. It won't some milquetoast "moderate" Republican POTUS like Huntsman or Romney either who ultimately wins the nomination next year. The teabaggers will NOT allow it IMHO. It will be a Bachmann or, more likely, a Perry.
b.)the next POTUS is going to need a Congress to be able to do anything, which means either we need to hope and pray that President Obama not only gets re-elected but that he has enough people, be they Democrats or even some "moderate" reasonable Republicans, to be able to actually do something. If that isn't the case, then we're probably going to have to deal with a Tea Party POTUS AND Congress and the consequences thereof for at least two years before we can effectively counteract it.

So, which outcome(s) do we want to work towards???? :shrug:

[Karmadillo]

29. Then we'd have divided government.

nt

[doc03]

30. We had one and what did it get us? n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Read the OP, exactly my point

We had one... and as a talking point to shut people up is a lousy one.

[markpkessinger]

33. Uh, we did in 2008. ...

He squandered it then. What makes you think anything would be different this time around?

[Tx4obama]

35. Obama wasn't sworn in until January 2009. And...

Senator Franken wasn't sworn in until July 2009, and Senator Kennedy died in August 2009.
Scott Brown (R-MA) took over Kennedy's seat January 2010.

The dems had 60 dems in The Senate needed to invoke cloture for only a VERY SHORT TIME.

The reason that just about everything Obama wants done isn't getting done is because The GOP is obstructing everything and we do NOT have 60 democratic senators.

We MUST get 60 dems in the Senate and take the House back - otherwise nothing will ever get done in a timely manner and most won't get done at all!

[markpkessinger]

42. Yes, I know that...

... but the election was in November 2008.

[Tx4obama]

53. What does the date of the election have anything to do with anything?

Bush was still president until the afternoon of January 20, 2009.

[markpkessinger]

57. Because that is when people make the decision to "give the President a Democratic congress" n/t

[polmaven]

104. and in reality, Tx4,

Senator Kennedy was too ill to be actually in attendance and voting during that time period, so the 49 days was, in effect, moot.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Re-read what I wrote... the body of the mesasge

you will find I agree with you. It is a lousy meme.

[markpkessinger]

45. You're absollutely right (sorry!)

I was a little to quick to hit the reply button. I'll be more careful next time! Cheers!

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Oh no problem is that I am as tired of the meme

as I suspect you are.

:hi:

[treestar]

72. He did not "squander" it

And the only solution is to make it even more Democratic, especially the Senate.

It is ridiculous to give up hope regarding the Democrats.

[abelenkpe]

39. Give the president a larger democratic congress

Pretty sure FDR had a bigger majority. Didn't LBJ too? Could be wrong about that tho...wasn't around then.

Not that I'm not disappointed but I'd prefer Obama and more dems in congress than say Obama and more reps or worse flushing our entire country down the tubes with tea party lunatics taking over.

Should we not be hoping for more dems in congress?

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. He had one... why the TP sucks

the LEGISLATION passed by that house went to die in a democratic Senate... that is the problem.

We need more than control. We need people WILLING to use it. IMO neither the President or Reed wanted to.

[Tx4obama]

51. You can't invoke cloture in the Senate without 60 votes.

It seems as if you're missing that important fact.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. And he had the option of changing that factoid

the first day of the current senate. He even said they'd do it but they chose not to.

Why is that?

Look at this point we are all getting tired, or are tired of the excuses.

I'll be blunt, they do not want those majorities... period.

[Raine]

129. I really hate to come to that conclusion but

I can't conclude anything else, they don't want a majority. A majority would mean they have no excuse for not doing what they were put into office by the people to do.

[abelenkpe]

62. Yeah

you're probably right. Just hoping that maybe more dems would encourage them to exert more control. Or maybe become full on progressive meanies pushing the needle back to Liberal and away from Fascism.

I can dream can't I?

[polmaven]

78. You're absolutely correct.

FDR had 59 Democrats to 36 Republicans (keep in mind there were 48 states) for his first 2 years, and in 1935 that grew to 70 Democrats and 23 Republicans with 3 in other parties.

LBJ had 66 Democrats, 34 Republicans and 1 Independent.

Those differences make a BIG difference and that is why LBJ could get legislation passed.

[Tx4obama]

44. Yes, a lot did die in the Senate because we did NOT have 60 dems in the Senate

in order to invoke cloture on the bills. (Remember that - In the Senate Franken wasn't sworn in until July 2009, and Kennedy died in August 2009.)

Since the time that Obama was sworn in there has been LESS THAN 4 months that Congress was in session (Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec of 2009 minus the X-mas break in December) that Obama actually had a filibuster-proof Congress.

This is WHY we need a filibuster-proof DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS.

So, yes I WILL preach about giving the POTUS a democratic House and Senate.

[markpkessinger]

47. Yes, and a lot of folks were urging him to press ahead during that time...

...but he chose instead to focus on a futile solicitation of GOP love.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Why I said REID SUCKS AS A LEADER

he also said they'd take care of this first day of this congress and they did not. He sucks as a leader, PERIOD

[Broderick]

50. Who is Reed?

[Tx4obama]

52. She meant Sen. Harry REID. n/t

[Broderick]

55. Thanks for the clarification

[Tx4obama]

64. You're welcome. n/t

[newfie11]

69. On this I can agree. n/t

[Fuddnik]

70. Dissolve Congress.

It's beyond redemption.
It's too corrupt.
It is completely dysfunctional.
Time to start over again from scratch.

[Broderick]

74. And seize all assets of the corporate execs

Wall street evildoers, and the Banksters.

Take back our stuff, our country, and start anew. The constitution is a good one. It just needs a reboot.

[treestar]

71. Of course we need that

It's a reality. We need a very Democratic Senate. That's what we need. We need as few Republicans as possible in Congress, especially the Senate.

I don't see how pointing that out is anything but correct.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

76. Why in the world do you think it WAS democratic enough? How many seats do you think FDR and LBJ had?

Hint: look at the post directly below yours.

[BzaDem]

77. Why in the world do you think it WAS democratic enough? How many seats do you think FDR and LBJ had?

Hint: look at the post directly below yours.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Yup...

They have a small point, but not as big as they think they do

[Broderick]

81. I predict a super majority in the house and senate

on Obama's coattails. He is the greatest campaigner ever.

[BzaDem]

75. LBJ had 68 Senate seats. FDR had 76 Senate seats. THAT is why Medicare and Civil Rights passed.

Perhaps the solution to get FDR legislation is to get FDR majorities. What a concept.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Yup it wasn;t democratic enough

(tm)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. Thank you--I also fault the DNC for, in some cases, favoring Third Way candidates for the Senate

The idea was, "Oh, we need to run conservative candidates in the red states."

But in talking to actual right wingers, you find that while most of them are socially conservative, many have a sense that they are being screwed over by corporate interests.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Yep, truman comes to mind

if you run a republican light they will vote for the real deal

[upi402]

85. Obama just announced he wont enforce the Clean Air Act anymore

Greenpeace emailed this announcement. Can this be true?

[Broderick]

86. Gotta be more bullshit

he said she said crap.

[upi402]

95. Better put your Obama blinders on again... this may be uncomfortable for you;

Obama’s smog backdown won’t help sick U.S. economy
Sep 2, 2011 17:44 EDT
inShare By Christopher Swann


President Barack Obama’s environmentally-minded backers have every reason to feel let down. In blocking a new Environmental Protection Agency rule on smog, the White House has bowed to critics in Congress and industry who said new air quality rules would kill jobs.



http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/2011/09/02/obamas-smog-backdown-wont-help-sick-u-s-economy/

I think the bullshit is elsewhere, not in reality regarding this Republicrat President.

[Broderick]

99. Those blinders are great

Reuters is nothing more than GOP propaganda! SEE!

[upi402]

126. please post a link that refutes it

i'd love to know your evidence

[Broderick]

144. Twas being facetious

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. What he said he won't do is ask EPA

to enforce the regulation on air around oil producers, you know oil processing facilities. The GOP won this one, and this will produce oodles of jobs... you just watch...









:sarcasm:

[Broderick]

90. Just like the millions of jobs

created by the Bush Tax Cuts, and the Stimulus plan that costs 800,000 per job created.

Just think where this country would be right now without those things.... Can someone say Depression? Thank our lucky stars Obama is president.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. I elect representative government, not leaders

I do not thank any god or stars for any president.

That said... while the stim was good... it did not go far enough.

And the current policies that the GOP are SUCCESSFULLY PUSHING... will destroy any stim effect still left.

But whatever.

[Broderick]

92. At 800,000 per job

What could go wrong? If that actually translated to real wages, at least we could tax the ever loving fuck out of that type of wage earner.

Oh, my bad. The Bush Tax cuts still are in force.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. And they should have been taken off the equation

with the lame duck session.

All we have taught the GOP is that hostage talking is succestul as a political tactic

[Broderick]

97. OMG

and that is the key.


hostage TALKING.

They don't even get the chance to take hostages. That is the REAL dilemma!!!!

Well said. +1

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. How? Look you think they have not done

any political mistakes. Historians will have all kinds of fun... and it will not be pleasant for EITHER the President or the Republicans...

Worst case scenario, and if this is a decision made by the upper echelons of the RNC, if the plan is to crash the government, they are well other way to do it. And if the President does not get ahead of this... I have no sympathy.

Whatever your +1 is you can shove it. History won't be kind.

[Broderick]

105. No, I agree with you

Shove it or not. I think that was a great comment. Hostage "talking". Obama seems to succumb to the talk of congress going against him. Even in the first two years. He capitulated to what was 'talked about' but really never let the war begin, which he has so much power with the bully pulpit to enforce his ideas. It seems that he gets the hint of a battle and compromises. Maybe you made another mistake in words or spelling but I took it as a great insight. I don't know the reason, although your thread today was interesting (it got yanked).

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. It got yanked because we really do not have the maturity

to talk about that. Suffice it to say journals are doing that, as well as the media, but not here. Too sensitive and divisive. Not good. It is part of the problem.

[Broderick]

108. I wanted to comment on the observation and I did rec

Without going too deep into the convo that got pulled, I think your revelation was really interesting and perhaps spot on. I told you we agree on things sometimes. We can't know for sure why it is what it is, but there is a reason; just like your brilliant "talk" in the post. We got MAJOR common ground there. Major.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Well that is good to know

perhaps we can agree to disagree in a less disagreeable way in the future. (And that is on both sides)

:hi:

[Broderick]

114. I have commented kindly on many a thread you start

and I only disagreed strongly in the last episode.

I think it is healthy to disagree on things and if we were lockstep it would be scary.


The things you posted today have me going "OMG". you have insight.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. I am partially still outside the box

from another country's history this is a good window... into this dynamic. Juarez was the ONLY President with Indian blood. People avoid talking about that... with a passion... it makes people uncomfortable. I see the same pattern here.

When I was a kid, I learned of the wars of Reforma... and his role in it. Oh you would have loved how quiet my teacher got when I mentioned that he was an Indian... I was what ten? I innocently asked why he avoided that, and why more indigenous people were not elected?

Now people do talk of the racism... but that particular President... one of the greatest mind you... it is like a memo went out. I foresee something similar here.

[EOTE]

98. How about we give congress a democratic president?

I would think that would be far more helpful.

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. Well to do that, and it will take a generation... we first

need to face facts. The PARTY moved right, over the last thirty years... to the point that modern day DLC dems are what once was called a Rockefeller Republican and Republicans are so far right they are in crazee territory. To do that we need to infiltrate our own party and take it... from the school board, to the dog catcher and on up.

[spin]

106. You are probably right. Maybe we need to start now ...

I may not be alive to see the day that we succeed but my grandchildren will.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. That is exactly what Labor is threatening to do

I call it Granger Movement 2.0... we are back in 1880 in so many ways.

[placton]

111. been there, tried that

but we had Obama at the top. Yawn.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. And that my friend is the point

we need to elect them, but not to have an expectation that the Office of the President will USE IT.

[lynne]

115. Why? He didn't use the one he had -

- this thread reminds me of a lame, old joke:

Wife to Husband: What are you getting my mother for Christmas?

Husband to Wife: NOTHING!

Wife to Husband: WHY won't you give my mother a Christmas present?

Husband to Wife: Why should I? I got her a grave plot last year and she never used it!

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. I know... and why the talking point is quite lame

isn't it?

That does not mean I don;t want a majority... but I just don't expect THIS PARTICULAR PRESIDENT to use it. Especially if this is a professional left majority (tm)

[we can do it]

121. Again?

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. 'xactly, read the whole OP...

I made that point.

Don't get me wrong, I want a majority... but that does not mean I expect THIS president to use it... especially if they are the profesional lefty types

[FrenchieCat]

124. Strange that you don't mention the Blue Dogs that you've railed about

back in 2009 and 2010. You know, the ones who lost their seats
in the 2010 election, thereby giving the majority to the Republicans?

Why is that? :shrug:

Still all in all, like you said though....the house did pass 400 bills which couldn't get through the senate's filibustering, and who weren't to be moved by any bully pulpit but rather moved by special interest....

Are you selectively omitting information that
might allow one to render a different conclusion than the one that you have decided
to frame in this particular OP?

Shouldn't we work harder at being intellectually honest, and act like we truly understand
politics , instead of simply railing like an old man screaming at the moon?

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. Was she the most effective House Speaker in recent memory

yes...

Did the senate, on purpose, sit on that legislation, yes.

What part of intellectual honesty do you want?

The fact is that the talking point, given evidence is pretty stupid.

Oh and I do want a majority, but I am not counting on such majority being used by this president, especially if it pushes professional left legislation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

131. And they deservedly lost their seats, because they voted like Republicans

By voting like Republicans on economic issues, they were, in effect, saying that Republican positions were OK.

[FrenchieCat]

133. But what about those 400+ Bills that did pass?

at that time?

Are some still believing that Republicans as the same as Blue Dog Democrats,
cause I believe that it is now Boehner that decides what bills come to the floor,
yet the entire time during 2009-10, all I read about here was how terrible the
blue dogs were. But no, they still weren't Republicans. That was a myth that worked
to our detriment, even if we don't care to admit it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. The break for many of them was the US Senate

and the President did not use the bully pulpit... either he did not know how to... ( doubt it) or he chose NOT TO...

You believe Presidents cannot cajole and pressure to get things done?

Oh and of course he is not alone. Leader Reid IS the most ineffective leader in modern history. He is no LBJ... for example.

Either he is ineffective because he should not be in that position, always possible, or it was on purpose. The truth lies somewhere in between.

[FrenchieCat]

138. I tend to criticize the ones who actually do the dirty deeds,

rather than the ones who get blamed for 'em...especially if the two are not the same.

If you believe that Pres. Obama didn't push the 400+ personally, you are probably right.
However, I will add that I don't think WE did enough to help at allr, as we were the ones that were
supposed to help push things by communicating forcefully in every way we could
with our Representative and the media, etc... in order to get some "We the People"
type of action. It must then be said that WE failed doing what it is that we could have done,
and what it is that as grown folks, we should have known to do without daddy making us do it.

Instead, most of us were right here too busy criticizing the President and the Democrats
and laughing at the Tea Party and Sarah Palin at the time, and so we had no time to actually
do anything else, like help make shit happen. And frankly, we probably will continue that
all the way until election day, and then we will act shocked when the screws like we never
imagined (when we should have) are totally turned on us.

We were supposed to be the ones that we were waiting for....and we did show up early,
but left like 5 minutes later. And the more complaining we do while not doing anything
else constructive for our causes, unfortunately, we will be held accountable for that behavior,
one way or another....no matter how righteous we believe ourselves to be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. Well since I have been there since the man was sworn in

...

It is gotten to the pont that I send letters that I expect, FULLY to go to a shredder... without being read.

After all. I am a member of the Professional Left, an insult, I shall you remind you, that came from the WH itself.

We have been here... the few times... (I can count them in the fingers of one hand) that they have asked us to call, people responded to the point of crashing websites and phone circuits.

As this point... while the modern DLC controlled Dems might be better... they are still a center right, business friendly party... for the record, they have left many of us behind. Furthermore we are in 1880 all over again, when we had TWO business friendly parties. Out of this frustration things will happen... things that DC... in that I mean the ruling elite... no matter what party... will be surprised by.

[Kermitt Gribble]

132. Huge K&R!

On purpose. Senator Feingold's comments on HCR and the removal of the public option support the argument:

"It would be unfair to blame Lieberman for its apparent demise... President Barack Obama...could have insisted on a higher standard for the legislation. This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth. I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect."

[joshcryer]

135. The Senate was deadlocked and he got HCR passed despite it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. and in that the President did use the bully pulpit and

a bit of arm twisting... showing that if they wanted to, they could have... but they chose not to for the most part.

[joshcryer]

140. I'm disappointed that he didn't use his 49 days to get a whole bunch of stuff passed.

I think in that vein he wasn't acting strategically and ultimately his lack of experience if not full on naivety showed. This is a guy who stacked his cabinet to build bridges and actually thought it would achieve anything. It's as if Obama never realized how obstructionist they were throughout the Bush years.

49 days to get a crapload of stuff passed (tie Lieberman's back and use the Jewish lobby to get it done). It could've been, in retrospect, an amazing, just utterly amazing experience and could've gone down in the history books.

Regardless I respect Obama as being one of the most consistent and reliable Presidents we've ever had. Anyone could've predicted that he wouldn't pull a 49 day stream of awesome legislation.

Next time we get a Presidential candidate who campaigns on post-partisanship I hope we can completely write them off, I don't care, they need to be written off. By everyone.

[Exilednight]

137. Give me a Democratic President. n/t

[Justina For Justice]

141. But Who Will Give the President a Real Democratic Agenda?

Obama had majorities in both the House and the Senate until 2010. What did he do with them? He passed Republican-esque policies, such as his health insurance "reform" bill, which forced millions of Americans to buy expensive health insurance policies from private insurers. This bill was much worse than the health reform law proposed by Republican Richard Nixon in the 1970's. Indeed, the majority of the bills Obama has supported are to the right of Richard Nixon, and he was certainly not a liberal.

Yes, we do need to elect a really Democratic Congress. Then we have to hope that Obama will not veto their bills!

[Modern_Matthew]

142. FIXED: GIVE THE PRESIDENT A PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS

[kentuck]

143. We really, really, really need a Democratic Congress...

The House of the People can stop an insane right-wing President from doing a lot of damage, if Barack Obama is defeated in his next election. We should stress the importance of getting the Republicans out of the majority in the House. They are dangerous and not good for our country. If Obama is beaten, then we have a policeman at the gate...

[rhett o rick]

145. The Democrats in Washington dont want to be in power. It would reveal that they agree with the

Republican corporatist agenda. Not all but many, enough. Obama had a Democratic Congress and did nothing. Didnt even try.

[supraTruth]

147. EXACTLY!

[JDPriestly]

150. I want a progressive Democratic Congress not to support the president

but to push him.

I would like us to identify challengers especially to Republicans but also to conservative Democrats and then get out there and get true liberals elected.

Nobody is happy with the situation right now. We progressives have as good a chance as the Republicans to elect our Democrats instead of the Republican Democrats. People are really fed up. So we should give an alternative.

The Tea-Baggers pretended to be an alternative, but everybody can see that they were the worst of all. It's not just Democrats who think this way.

Progressive Democrats are for real. The drawbacks we progressives have are that we are overly timid and and not energetic enough. We have to get up and simply call out the truth.

We can gain seats for the Progressive Caucus if we make that our priority and don't get distracted by a lot of irrelevant stuff like scandals happening on Fox News or what Obama is or is not doing.

Maybe if we start getting progressives to run for Congress, we can get a progressive to run against Obama in the primary.

So, I want progressive Democrats in Congress to push Obama, not to support a conservative agenda.