Johnson passed Medicare with a Democratic Senate majority of SIXTY EIGHT SEATS.

[TheWraith]

The Democratic margin in the House at the time was 295 to 140 Republicans.

FDR had SEVENTY SIX Democratic Senators, versus 16 Republicans, when they established the Civilian Conservation Corps. And a Democratic House majority of 334 to just 88 Republicans.

So don't give me the nonsense that huge programs are just a matter of making a decision, or "using the bully pulpit" to change the number of votes needed, or that the Republicans are reasonable people who will vote for things diametrically against their ideology simply because it's good for America. If you want to have legislation to do things, you need to have the votes. There is NO other way around that, and pretending that previous presidents passed sweeping reforms just on force of personality is either dishonest or clueless. Particularly when even LBJ and FDR were widely savaged at the time for compromises made, and claims that their plans weren't nearly radical enough, even to the point of the NAACP saying that Social Security would be worthless.

[Richardo]

1. Thank you for the reality check.

:patriot:

[TheWraith]

8. Thanks.

I'm sure it'll be promptly unrecced into the ground, of course. Drive-by unrecs, since the people who want to scream and gripe don't want to have to deal with the real-world realities.

[roguevalley]

29. hate to rain on your 'reality parade' but Harry Truman, a REAL DEMOCRATIC

president integrated the armed forces in 1948 and the composition of the congress was 45 dems to 51 pugs in the senate and 188 dems to 246 pugs in the house.

He used the bully pulpit and a cast iron pair of balls to do it. This is what a REAL Democratic president sounds like:

"Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive. And don't ever apologize for anything." — Harry S. Truman

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."

"Fame is a vapor, popularity is an accident, riches take wings, those who cheer today may curse tomorrow and only one thing endures - character."— Harry S. Truman

"America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination, and unbeatable determination to do the job at hand." — Harry S. Truman

Once a decision was made, I didn't worry about it afterward..." — Harry S. Truman

Hary Truman, American Democratic President. Barak Obama? Not so much.

[William769]

42. Thats a dose of reality some refuse to take.

[TheWraith]

46. Some reality would do you good. Truman didn't need to pass anything through Congress.

The segregation of the military was an administrative policy, which had NO basis in law of any kind. It did not require an act of Congress to eliminate.

Meanwhile, Truman's real-world accomplishments of things passed through Congress are practically nonexistant. Fewer, in fact, than Obama's, even though Obama has had far worse opposition.

[SwampG8r]

86. like DADT is an administration policy?n/t

[SidDithers]

90. No, DADT was law passed by Congress...

jeezus, don't people know nothing 'round here?

Sid

[TheWraith]

93. Actual facts would get in the way of the bashing.

Although it's no wonder people have such unrealistic expectations of Obama when they don't know what's law and what isn't, what the powers of the President are, or even the historical context that's behind the kind of major changes they want emulated.

[SidDithers]

48. Harry Truman integrated the Armed Forces with an Executive Order...

Which, you may be surprised to learn, has nothing to do with the make-up of Congress.

So, your comparison is meaningless.

Sid

[Ineeda]

2. Excellent points that have gotten lost in the rhetoric. Thanks. n/t

[xchrom]

3. pointing out the helplessness of obama does your point no good.

aggressive 'lobbying' of your own party -- & vulnerable members of the other party goes a long way.

you guys build a strong case for the impotence of the president.

[TheWraith]

6. Your attempt to spin the facts in order to blame Obama is noted.

Thanks for the kick. ;)

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[TheWraith]

12. I'm not the one who seems to believe he should be able to singlehandedly create legislation.

Nor am I the one who thinks the power of his voice will cause steadfast Republicans to have an epiphany that will cause them to vote for single-payer healthcare and 90% taxes on the richest 1%.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[TheWraith]

24. How does that change the number of votes you need?

People have all these colorful images: "bully pulpit," "go to the mat," etcetera, to justify their belief that the President can just order Congress to pass something. But nobody explains how that changes the numbers. If you need 60 votes in the Senate, and you have 59 for, and 40 against, that last one is going to have unlimited power as to whether or not the bill passes. If they decide there's something in it they don't like, it's gone. You can't "arm twist" that, you can't pressure Democrats which simply DON'T EXIST.

If FDR had required EVERY SINGLE ONE of his Democratic Senators to vote yes in order to pass ANYTHING, how much legislation do you think he'd have gotten through? On the Social Security Act of 1935, he lost NINE Democratic Senators. If Johnson had had the lock-step Republican opposition Obama has faced, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have lost by a margin of 46 yays to 54 nays.

[xchrom]

66. He didn't try, did he?

What presidential, head of the democratic party did he try?

Your 'impotence profile' is more spot on than you realize.

When did he pull in baucus for a come to Jesus meeting?

Why did he lobby against drug re-importation from Canada?

Why act like Cheney & meet w/ pharmacy cos behind closeddoors?

It goes on & on w/ him & you keep pointing out his impotence & excusing it.

[TheWraith]

96. Again, explain how "just fight!" changes the required number of votes.

No amount of talk is going to change the fact that when you have 60 Democrats, and you need EVERY SINGLE ONE to pass anything at all, each one of them is going to exercise the equivalent of a veto on the legislation.

[Brickbat]

4. A majority is a majority. Johnson also had the Johnson Treatment.

[TheWraith]

7. No, any majority is not equal to any other.

Having 51% is not the same as having 70%. That's particularly true when you need ONE more vote to break a filibuster: if that Senator knows they're the only one you can go to, they can basically run the table or say "no deal." If they know there's five or six other people that could do it, they'll be much more likely to support you.

[Brickbat]

11. It is if you're not afraid to make the other side fillibuster what you think is right.

That's where the Johnson Treatment comes in.

[TheWraith]

14. Newsflash: the Republicans filibustered almost every other day during 2009-2011.

It didn't help.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. No, they THREATENED to fillibuster

Big difference.

If I had been in the Senate leadership, I would have handed them a pitcher of ice water and some glasses and said, "Go filibuster then, and we'll turn the CSPAN cameras on you so that the American people can see what idiots you are."

[TheWraith]

26. Yes, they ACTUALLY filibustered. What you describe is not how filibusters work.

It hasn't been for a long time, specifically to eliminate the ability of a handful of Senators to sit on the floor and stop business.

[SusanaMontana41]

27. This is a pointless argument, IMO.

Regardless of which party is in power, the corporatists of all political stripes are wagging the dog. Take a stand, Mr. President, and have the GOP fight it. We'll be watching.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. Then the Dems should have changed the Senate rules when they had the chance

and stopped these pro forma filibusters. A system that allows a few soreheads to block needed legislation is sick.

[TheWraith]

50. I agree. Although to be realistic, there was no way to know ahead of time how badly they'd abuse it.

And by the time we did know, it was too late to set new rules, which is done at the beginning of the Senate's term. But the Senate as in institution decidedly favors the status-quo, due to the filibuster, the longer terms in comparison to the House, and the statewide elections.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. Did you miss Senator Reid promising to do exactly that

for THIS CONGRESS? What happened that promise? I will tell you what happened... down memory hole we go

[TheWraith]

94. It's fairly obvious. What happened was, we lost the House.

Without a Democratic House, there wouldn't be any more Democratic legislation coming to the Senate. The filibuster then became valuable to US, to help control anything coming from the Republicans, until such time as we have a Democratic House again.

From a gamesmanship perspective, Reid did exactly the the right thing to maximize Democratic power.

[FLPanhandle]

32. Johnson knew how to fight.

I don't like to criticize Obama as much as most DU'ers but Obama could learn from Johnson.

[TheWraith]

41. No, he couldn't.

Johnson's "signature achievement," the Civil Rights Act, would have failed to make 50 votes if he'd been forced to fight under the restrictions that Obama has.

[treestar]

78. LOL, he was taller than those guys in the photos

What fight? He has 68 Dem Senators and so there was no need.

[treestar]

77. Are people saying a President should intimidate others

1. We don't know what is going on there
2. Johnson looks stupid in those photos
3. There is no way a President should threaten Congress members to vote any other way than as they and their constituents want.

[leeroysphitz]

81. Love me some LBJ. N/T

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

5. Most of the Southern Democrats became Republicans

And that's how we got to where we are today. They are a party dominated by the South.

[liberal N proud]

9. A good reminder for those who think a simple majority is enough

[Rex]

13. I have to admit that is one thing that drives me crazy!

When people blame Obama for things only Congress or the SCOTUS can do! Yes he can encourage...but not force the other branches to do something. He is not a dictator, he is an elected official expected to carry out the will of the People.

[Pholus]

15. So what? Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Poppy never had house control. Seems to me they did enough.

Or were they just more skilled at 42 dimensional chess then?

[dawg]

17. If he hadn't have had those votes ...

do you think he would've still made the case to the American people and tried to use it against the Republicans when they voted it down? Or would he have told the American people that Medicare was not a realistic option, that we need to compromise and settle for some tax credits instead?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. And half of them were already angry with him for supporting Civil Rights

So your point is?

[Stinky The Clown]

20. You know, if he had at least tried, you would have no need to post what you just posted

[TheWraith]

28. If who had tried what?

If you're referring to the President, I would draw your attention to the giant stack of bills which died in the Senate 2009-2011. Including a public option for healthcare, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, DREAM Act, and on, and on...

[Stinky The Clown]

54. I rest my case

[mopinko]

21. lbj was sent by the oil men, too.

he had the silent support of those that stay up nights thinking of ways to tank obama.

[MilesColtrane]

22. History shows that progressive legislation doesn't get passed unless...

there is a Democrat in the WH and overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress.

Let's make it happen, folks.

[TheWraith]

35. Exactly. This is also why progress USUALLY comes in small bites.

It's why you only get Social Security, or Medicare, once in a great while, because those massive single-party majorities are too often once in a lifetime events. It took the Great Depression to create the situation for the New Deal. It took Kennedy getting murdered to create the opportunity for Johnson's programs.

I suppose we could sit around and wait for some right-winger to fulfill Glen Beck's wishes and murder Obama, then President Biden will pass some awesome legislation. But I would prefer to roll up my sleeves and work to accomplish a lasting Democratic victory.

[CBHagman]

80. Hear, hear.

The make-up of the Supreme Court alone is something everyone at DU ought to be thinking about. That's a wake-up call, maybe even a slap across the face. Focuses the mind very well.

I'm going to hang up a sign that says, "Don't kibitz, organize."

[SwampG8r]

87. best message all thread

this is a better message than "well at least he aint that guy "
this i can support thanks for saying it

[johnaries]

23. Thank you! GIVE THE PRESIDENT A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. He had one and wasted the opportunity

I expect that my Dem Congressman, a member of the Progressive Caucus, will be reelected. But I can't vote in more than one district.

[TheWraith]

57. You don't seem to be able to explain HOW he "wasted the opportunity."

Assuming that you don't mean he "wasted it" by passing Wall Street reform, healthcare reform, repealing DADT, passing Lily Ledbetter, financial reform, stimulus, etcetera.

Again, I'm still not seeing an argument that causes more Democrats to materialize in the Senate to break a filibuster.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. Tepid Wall Street reform and insurance company corporate welfare

outweigh all the other things on The List.

And the financial reform bill failed to deal with the WORST aspect of the current credit system: interest rates that would have brought criminal charges before the Reagan administration

[treestar]

79. Oh BS!

And it was not nearly as Democratic as the ones LBJ and FDR had!

And what kind of attitude is this? If we didn't get enough from the 111th, then we need more Democrats than that Congress had, not less. Or giving up as your post seems to indicate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. I've got a member of the Progressive Caucus as my Congressman

I can't vote for any others.

[SusanaMontana41]

25. How many of those senators were boll weevils? nt

[TheWraith]

30. Two dozen or so.

Which is why if Johnson had faced the total Republican opposition Obama has, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have failed to pass.

[hifiguy]

31. Many of those Democratic senators and representatives

were southern mossbacks who were as reactionary as any modern teatalitarian and heartily disliked LBJ's crusades for civil rights and Medicare. Johnson still got the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and Medicare.

[humblebum]

33. Having a BOLD president who sets the tone is half the battle.

We do not have that. Obama set the tone when he was elected and then he went silent when challenged.

[TheWraith]

36. Explain how the President's attitude materializes more Democrats in the Senate.

Otherwise, you're relying on the belief that the Republicans are really, under everything, just reasonable people who are willing to vote for liberal policy goals if you're aggressive enough.

[humblebum]

71. When a president connects with and inspires people with bigger than

life goals, people respond by voting and calling their elected representatives, which in turn affects those in the house and senate. Kennedy, FDR, Teddy Rooseveldt did it, Lincoln did it.

[MadHound]

34. Yeah, he also broke a massive filibuster of the Civil Rights Act

You know how he did it? By fighting, by going out into the districts of recalcitrant Congressmen and calling them out on their obstruction. It took days, weeks, but you know what, LBJ fought for, and got, the Civil Rights Act passed.

Don't tell us that LBJ didn't fight, he did. Something that Obama has yet to do.

[TheWraith]

38. And if he'd been required to deal with the circumstances Obama has, he would have LOST.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have failed, 54 nays to 46 ayes. That's what would have happened if Johnson had been forced to deal with a Republican Party in lock-step against anything he proposed, the way Obama has.

More to the point, the filibuster today does not work the same way it did then, specifically to PREVENT a sub-minority of twenty-some Senators from stopping legislation.

[MadHound]

47. Really? You think so? You're wrong.

Unlike Obama, LBJ knew how to not only get his own party in behind him, but 'Pugs as well. He knew that he wasn't going to get any Southern vote, so he went out and brought in twenty seven Republican votes instead.

No, the filibuster today has been changed to allow the opposition minority to kill a bill without holding up the rest of Congress. Frankly we would be better off under the old filibuster rules, but hey, those wacky Dems back in the seventies just had to go and open that door.

Get your facts straight, stop trying to spread bullshit, thanks.

[TheWraith]

51. So you think that the Republicans today are really just reasonable people?

That they would vote for Obama's proposals, but that Obama hasn't done enough to be bipartisan?

Seriously?

:rofl:

[MadHound]

53. So you think that Obama shouldn't even try to fight

Because *gasp* the 'Pugs might call him a bad name?

C'mon, you are just making excuses for Obama's inability and/or unwillingness to fight. It can be done, it should be done, but Obama, for whatever reason, isn't going to do it.

[TheWraith]

58. I think that you're attributing magical abilities to this "just FIGHT!" idea.

I think that "just fight!" is the substitute for having to come up against the reality of what happens when you have lock-step opposition and pass bills by razor thin margins in the absolute best cases.

[MadHound]

72. That's nice,

I think you are trying to rationalize away a Presidency that many correctly perceive as weak.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[OHdem10]

37. During Johnson Adm. there was no DLC and Blue Dogs were not

as pwoerful as they are now. The Democratic Party
was a Democratic Party. This made the difference.

[TheWraith]

39. So you're saying 1960s Southern Democrats are more liberal than Democrats today?

What color is the sky where you are? Just curious.

[SidDithers]

40. K&R. Facts are good...nt

Sid

[leftstreet]

43. IRRELEVANT! Obama & Dems aren't proposing any FDR style legislation

Next?

[MrTriumph]

59. Instead of fun in Martha's Vinyard, Obama should have visited an Appalachian family like LBJ

If Obama wants to connect with impoverished working people and draw attention to the plight of most Americans, he needs to follow LBJ's example.

[William769]

49. I would like some links to back up your assertions.

You made a post yesterday that I thought incorrect, so I took the time to look up the information and of course you were wrong I replied to your post with the correct information, but you never responded.

So if you want me to take you seriously, please give some links to back up your assertions.

[TheWraith]

55. From someone who said upthread that Truman passed a bill to integrate the armed forces...

You'll forgive me if I have more faith in my own knowledge of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1936
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1962
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1964

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections,_1932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections,_1936
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections,_1962
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections,_1964

[Gormy Cuss]

52. Johnson passed Medicare with bipartisan support.

The final vote was 70 in favor, 24 against and 6 did not vote. Of those 70, 13 were Republicans.

Eleven of the 68 Democrats in the Senate either voted no or did not vote ( 7 nay votes, 4 not voting.) While it's true that he still would have had a simple majority without the Republicans, the fact that 40% of the Repub senators voted in favor made it clearly a bipartisan bill.

[TheWraith]

56. Yep. And if he'd been forced to deal with the lockstep opposition Obama has, he'd have lost. nt

[Gormy Cuss]

60. Maybe, but based on LBJ's reputation I doubt that the GOP would have come away unscathed.

If the Obama and Democratic leadership handled the message correctly the Republican lockstep would bear the brunt of criticism rather than the president. So when are they going to outdo the GOP at message control?

[MrTriumph]

61. Do you think the Civil Rights legislation was easy?! Learn your history.

x

[TheWraith]

67. I know it wouldn't have passed without Republican votes.

Which are the rules Obama has been forced to operate under.

[MrTriumph]

68. Obama has had a CAKE WALK compared to LBJ getting Civil Rights legislation passed. LBJ was a fighter

Obama is not a fighter. However when it comes to his base, he belittles them.

[TheWraith]

95. Your assertions don't make false things true. nt

[kentuck]

62. How did the Democrats get a 68 vote majority??

Were they real Democrats? Did they support programs like Medicare and Social Security? How did they ever get elected?

[TheKentuckian]

63. How many Democrats do we need to end the anti-trust exemption?

How many Democrats do we need to not tax benefits?

How many do we have to have to negotiate drug prices, and how many to allow re-importation?

How many Democrats must be onboard to set up ramping to the exchanges so that the American people are not obligated to buy from the company store?

How many Democrats do we have to elect to set some cost controls?

How many will it take to have a national exchange so that we have the largest possible pool?

Exactly how many Democrats do we need to regulate on the national level rather than continuing to cross our fingers that broke, overwhelmed, and largely captured states aren't what we are betting our lives on?

I want single payer and would love at least a government program but we really failed to even secure market based reform, which if is not viable then we were and are dead in the water and should be preparing to fight another day. What is being touted as reform are a few pay to play features and a mandate for most Americans to pay 10% of their wages to the company and providing the Insurance Cartel a key to the treasury to make up the shortfall of their profits once they can squeeze no more from working Americans.

I never asked for magic, I asked for very basic things to allow us to slowly remake our system and we ended up with fake reform that reinforced all the existing profit centers and the fundamental system already in place as well as severely hobbling any effort toward actual structural reform that is decades over due.

[rury]

64. Amen to that. Most on DU here want to conveniently overlook

Those facts and completely ignore the opposition President Obama faces.
They moronically scream nonsense about "bully pulpit" and "sellout" and other bullshit and expect Obama to pull nonexistent congressional votes out of his butt like magic.
A black person in ANY job is always expected to be twice as good as a white person for half the fucking recognition.
Sick of it!!!!!!!!

OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!!

[markpkessinger]

65. And W. got most of his agenda having never had 60 Senate seats ...

... I'm not blind to the GOP's obstructionist tactics, but this particular talking point simply doesn't fly with most voters.

[WinkyDink]

70. LBJ knew a lot on a lot. And he wasn't afraid to let others know who was President and who was not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. That settles it

the POTUS is a weakling... thank you for making that point!














:sarcasm:

The other answer, given W got all he wanted... is that this President is not a progressive and agrees with the agenda at present in DC... in fact he is a center right, moderate American Politician... an average one.

[dbt]

74. Coulda SWORN I just saw this on the Greatest Page!

Must be some Philistines here who do not love you the way that I do!

:hug:

[treestar]

76. Double recommend

Geez, I didn't realize even that it was that extreme. That many Senators, and before the days of the far right and the Blue Dogs, are what is needed to get these things passed.

[dbt]

82. Gotta kick this so it can get more recs!

Needs to go back on the Greatest Page where it so RIGHTFULLY belongs!!!

:bounce:

[loyalsister]

84. It was a totally different time, too

There were at least as many RINOs as Blue Dogs. Today, there are many Blue Dogs, and somewhat rinoish are Snowe, Collins, and Murkowskie

[JackDragna]

85. Wow. Comparisons to politics 150 years ago

Topical, isn't it? I'd also like to add, if I could, that the previous president, through pressuring the opposite party, was able to ramrod through virtually anything he wanted through his political maneuvering. But, apparently, Obama cannot do this..even for two fucking years where he has the majority in BOTH houses of Congress.

[WinkyDink]

91. "150 years ago"???

[JackDragna]

92. The number is meant as a deliberate exaggeration.

Johnson's era was a whole hell of a lot different from ours, where people refuse to compromise and only change positions when their set position becomes completely untenable.

[dbt]

88. Damn, I cannot BELIEVE this is gone from the Greatest Page!

We are obviously up to our collective SCALPS in Philistines who are intellectually unable to absorb the brilliance of your OP. Even my Public Adoration seems to be unable to stand in the face of the Unrec Hatred!

:cry:

[CreekDog]

89. when overcoming a filibuster required 67 votes

looks like he had 1 more.

:shrug:

[cherokeeprogressive]

97. The Affordable Health Care Act passed the Senate with LESS THAN A SUPER-MAJORITY

That puts most of the "President Obama didn't have all three branches at his disposal, so couldn't accomplish anything" arguments to rest.