Obama’s Wins in Congress (Higher Than LBJ)

[kpete]

Source: Congressional Quarterly

Obama’s Wins in Congress
By Ryan Teague Beckwith, Congress.org

President Obama set a new record last year for getting Congress to vote his way, clinching 96.7 percent of the votes on which he had clearly staked a position

That was a bit less than 4 percentage points higher than the previous record, set by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, according to an annual study by Congressional Quarterly.

Congressional Quarterly has compiled statistics on presidential support since 1953. Editors select the votes based on clear statements by the president or authorized spokesmen before the vote.

In all, Congress took 151 votes in which Obama had taken a position ahead of time.

His wins in his first year in office included votes for creating a massive economic stimulus package, bailing out the auto industry, allowing the Food and Drug Administration regulate tobacco and confirming Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Read more: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003276768

[Solly Mack]

1. k/r

[DesertFlower]

2. K&R

[nyy1998]

3. That's surprising considering how people are saying that controlling

two branches of government and the Dems are screwing it up. Nicely done Obama!

[dflprincess]

4. It's also surprising given the number of people here who claim

Obama has no power to influence Congress when it comes to the insurance bill.

[winyanstaz]

8. exactly.....

[goclark]

76. exactly K and R

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[salguine]

51. Awww, SNAP! Iowa, I like the cut of your jib. You got style.

[ooglymoogly]

83. Unless you forgot the sarcasm button

"I like the cut of your jib"? Ye gads thats corny. Sounds like some old wannabe fart in a blue blazer and white slacks and yachting shoes on the banks of some yachting basin, planting nautical flags of when cocktails will be served (only to those who can read them of course), hoping some old duffer will dock and come ashore for some hales, hearty's, well mets, the cuts of their jibs and further unedifying conversation of how important it is to win at all costs; Without a flake of interest or intellect in what it is they've won; And of the grand old party, even though these types are usually registered democrats; And a few snorts of gin to dull the pain of who they really are.

[No Elephants]

86. Jeebus. That must have been one bad dockside party you went to.

So, all the "incurious" yacht owners you know are Democrats, huh?

What're the odds?

[Iowa]

100. Nah...

Anyone with some years on them has heard or used that phrase before. I heard it growing up on an Iowa farm. The use of such a phrase is more likely to be tied to being educated and/or well-read. You're over-reaching here.

[salguine]

119. Yeah, like saying "You got Moxie, Kid!"

[salguine]

118. Sorry, I seem to be one of the few people left who can write without the assistance

of animated emoticons. I'll leave you to decide whether it was sarcastic or not.

[Iowa]

101. Thanks salguine.

I should probably just ignore the liberal-haters. But damn... they make it so easy.

[liberation]

62. Interesting indeed...

... I love how the DLC types feel entitled to insult liberals, while expecting us to toe in line regardless of the utter contempt they have for us.


So keep at it, DLCers.... keep using the left as the perennial scape goats for your hubris. Keep using us as the punching bag for your misplaced aggression, since you are too chickenshit to duke it out with your ideological brethren on the right. And I can't say I blame you DLCers... you rightwingers tend to be meaner than a sack of pissed off weasels, so it makes sense you guys go for the nicer classier contingent when it comes to place your aggression and disdain.

[No Elephants]

90. I don't know if everyone here who rails at "the left" is even DLC.

I don't see evidence of much ideology. It seems more like being an avid sports fan.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[TheEuclideanOne]

27. You don't like liberals and have almost 1000 posts here on DU?

Now that is pretty sad. What do you do, just add posts like this and wait for people to argue with you? Pretty pathetic to be "THAT GUY". I came across people like you during the last election. You would just jump into conversations that you were not a part of, say a bunch of idiotic things and everybody would roll their eyes at what an asshole you are. Some people just have the need to lash out when they don't get enough attention. Perhaps your parents did not hug you enough?

Okay, so you are going to laugh at them with your "friends". Yes, of course.... your "friends". Too funny! Unfortunately, it is really sad and pathetic, but to each his own. Must suck to be you. Just glad I am not "THAT GUY".

[No Elephants]

31. What's your definition of "left wing?" Hint: The right is the Republicans.

Second hint: the definition of "the left" is anyone who criticizes Obama.

It's also weird that all you ever seem to get worked up about is what gets posted here.

This is a message board. Most who post here are Democrats. There is a real world out there, where real things are happening that actually affect us, often very adversely. Nothing that gets posted on any message board does that. And your fellow Democratic voters are not the ones doing things that actually hurt this country and the people in it.

BTW, when people here post about Obama's powers, it's usually to respond to other people here who have already posted that we can't hold Obama responsible for anything bc it's all Congresses fault and Obama, POTUS and head of the Democratic Party just washed the Democratic Congress and can't do a thing with it. And now, those same folk want to praise Obama for getting just what he wants out of Congress. Double think much?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Larry Ogg]

61. It seems as though the perilous ineptitude of authoritarian thinking fogs your mind,

as you cling too the failed conservative values rotting deep within your demented psyche; dogmatism, outdated corrupt paradigms and pathological lies are now your only guide; so I doubt that you could ever understand the truth objectively, even if it was presented at second grade level I think it would be to much for you to bare; alas, all you can offer is censor and disdain towards anyone who dares question the views or actions of your not so infallible leaders, who would for the right price, herd you and your type into corrals and box cars without blinking an eye; and like sheep ripe for the slaughter, such an end would be the first time you ever had a clue…

[No Elephants]

85. Don't hold back like that, Larry. You'll end up with an ulcer. Tell us how you really feel.

(j/k)

[Phlem]

68. whaaaa, sniffle, whaaaa

you mean like this one?

"Now let me hear the 2nd grader attacks! I will read them with my friends and laugh but do not expect me to respond to a bunch of left wing Tea Baggers like comments!"

[ooglymoogly]

79. You are odd! please! no reply requred! nt!

[Autonomy]

26. That's fallacious reasoning

because it's the 3.3% that has defeated HCR as Obama would have wanted it. It only took one Dem to turn -- and the insurance companies bagged at least two: Lieberman and Nelson.

I would bet he had a visit from a group of Dem Senators early in his administration, and they told him what they will NOT vote for in a health care bill, and that if he did not pursue a public option, which he would never get anyway (because those senators are bought and paid for), he will receive guaranteed support on many of his other goals.

[No Elephants]

29. And your bet is based on what? Doctors who wanted single payer

traveled to Washington from all over the country. Obama refused to meet with them, staging instead a photo op with doctors of his own choosing.

The Progressive Caucus was begging for a meeting with him. He ignored them or stood them up until very late in the process, when he met with them to talk them down from what they wanted.

He started his meetings on the bill with health insurers, drug companies and big medical providers.

He praised Baucus from the summer until after the Senate finished the bill on Christmas Eve.

Oh, yeah, Obama's been just a helpless piece of flotsam and jetsam in all this, a real victim.

So, you pull a non-existent event out of your imagination to make him look better--you think. However, if he is a helpless victim of the Senate--which I don't believe--then maybe he's just too weak and ineffectual to be President.

So, be careful of which scenarios you create to try to save face for him. You're not doing him any favors.

[Autonomy]

103. The math is really simple

NO republicans were/are going to vote for ANYTHING regarding HCR. So it only takes one Dem to cross over and blow the whole thing. Those Dems who were NEVER going to vote for the public option had all the power to make demands. It's how our system is designed, for better and worse.

So, given that, what makes me think Obama was EVER for the public option? First, he said so. Second, here's a man who dedicated his career to helping the less fortunate, when he could have taken a far more profitable career. He has identified with the poor and underrepresented in our society. But now he has to govern as president, and make hard choices. I am sure he wrestled with the decision of a 'bill without a public option' vs 'no HCR whatsoever', and decided on the former.

I see nothing in your argument to persuade me that Obama is a "corporate-ocrat", and that his whole career was a deception to get liberals to vote for him in his eventual presidential run. There's nothing in your anecdotes about who he met with and when that has any bearing on the congressional mathematics.

He's definitely not a victim: he's a competent executive officer.

[Zhade]

107. Yep, he said it. Then he LIED about saying it.

NT!

[No Elephants]

111. So many straw men, so little time. Enjoy knocking down arguments I never made in the 1st place?

I never said he never wanted a public option. I'm not sure that I even mentioned a public option. I also never said his entire career was a sham. In fact, I never said anything at all about his entire careeer, although, now that you bring it up, I do think a lot of it was calculated. Nothing wrong, IMO, simply with knowing what you want and going after it, though, assuming you go after it honestly.


"There's nothing in your anecdotes about who he met with and when that has any bearing on the congressional mathematics"

Thinking Congress is a matter of math and nothing more is silly. Hundreds of human beings in Congress and another hundred human beings in the Senate

We don't know how people would have voted if the entire matter had been approached differently--and I don't mean just the meetings. I mean if Obama had gone into Congress with a relatively bill, as he did with the stimulus bill, but in a different way than Hillary did. (And lest we forget, Hillary was neither popular nor the POTUS when she did that, which may have accounted for the way the bill she wrote was received.) And, at the same time, as Congress began working on the bill--the quicker the better--the administration explained and sold the hell out of a specific, simple bill to the American public.

We don't know what would have happened if Harry Reid and the DNC had then put out the carrots and sticks for a bill written by the POTUS instead of the insurance companies. .

And we sure don't know what would have happened if he had put it all on C-Span, as he promised while campaigning.

Instead, he met first with all the people that-coincidence of coincidences--ended up profiting most from the bill and refused to meet with the Progressive Caucus until after the Senate Bill was fairly solidifed. Meanwhile, the right had the chance to organize tea parties, and Senators and Reps had to spend August defending a bill that insurance companies wrote, but whose final specifics were unknown to anyone. It was an impossible situation.

We don't know what would have happened if, at the first sign of resistance from the public in August, the POTUS and head of hte Democratic Party had not thrown the public option under the bus, calling it a detail or a trifle or whatever word he used

Did Obama set it up that way? I don't know. I don't think so, but his unconditional fans are always claiming threee dimensional chess, so who knows? IMO, it all just blew up bc it had been so badly mishandled. If it had been handled smoothly and voted on before the August recess, who knows what would have happened? If the public had it explained to them clearly, they may have embraced it and the Blue Dogs would have had to bow to their own constituents, or at least not be seen as the ones who denied the nation health care.

We also don't know what would have happened if reconciliation had been used (separating the budget issues from the other issues), or even the nuclear option. (I think health care reform would have been worth that. And, I am coming to believe the Senate should never require 60 votes anyway.) But no one, including Obama, was willing to rock the boat.

Finally.I think who Obama met with, in what order he met with them, and who he refused to meet with is not at all random. To he contrary, I think it very telling as to what his priorities were and what he was or was not willing to entertain. And I bear in mind that the white house was, at that same time, fighting to keep from releasing the White House visitor logs in response to FOIA requests from groups trying to track the progress of the health care negotiations because Obama broke his promise to put them all on C-Span.

If you don't see any significance in any of that, if you don't see his meetings as I originally described them as totally consistent with the final result, so be it. I'll think you're wrong and you'll think I'm wrong. I have no problem whatever with that.

[dflprincess]

78. "it's the 3.3% that has defeated HCR as Obama would have wanted it"

Bull.

Obama is getting just the Insurance bill he, Rahm and the rest of the DLC wanted.

[Autonomy]

104. I think you have to blame Obama

rather than Lieberman because there has to be some overriding conspiracy involved, and that, rather than come close to a public option and yet fall short, believe that it was never going to happen in the first place.

[dflprincess]

108. There's plenty of blame to go around

and a good part of it does go to the man Obama picked as his mentor when he he got to the Senate.

If Obama hadn't back pedaled on his position or even been willing to listen to single payer advocates (not to mention lying about what he said about the public option in the past) I might fall for the idea that he just couldn't persuade anyone to go along with the idea of meaningful reform. But the fact that he thinks protecting health insurance company profits is "reform" and expects us to go along with the idea that coverage equals access to care tells me all I need to know about how concerned he is with the people who elected him.

[No Elephants]

28. Or DADT, or DOMA, or anything else. BABO.

Blame anyone but Obama.

[ooglymoogly]

80. Who say dat? It is not the number of your wins but the quality

and who they benefit. Johnson's wins (completions of JFK policy) benefited the elderly middle and poor classes and upwards of 90% of the public; So this is a silly comparison.

[No Elephants]

91. Good perspective.

[johnfunk]

5. It's even more surprising in that the corporate media spin pegs Obama as a failure

i hope Gibbs rubs the press's nose in this stat tomorrow -- then mocks their depiction of the administration as somehow wanting.

I know, I know -- health care reform, health care reform, health care reform. We will get it, though it may take a series of bills.

[No Elephants]

30. Your faith in a series of bills that may not exist is not very comforting.. Besides, by that time,

we will already have given away the store.

We are not going to have 60 Senators, the House and the Oval Office all at the same time again any time soon. If this POS is the best we can do with all those things, then why would anyone believe we will improve this POS in the meaningful future, if ever?

Are Democrats even trying to pull the country further left, or have they been trying to convince Independents and Republicans that Democrats are not all that different from Republicans, except you can be gay (to a point, maybe) and have choice (to a point maybe) and we won't mention God during government functions quite as much as Bushco did (to a point, sometimes, maybe). (Yes, lines are getting blurred, even on the wedge issues that have been used to distract us for the past 4 decades.)

Are Democrats even trying to get more moderate candidates than the Liebermans and the Blue Dogs of the world? Or are they making sure that incumbents don't get primaried?

So, even if we get the Oval Office, the House and 60 in the Senate in the future, what makes anyone thing there will be fewer Blue Dogs and corporatists when that happens again, instead of more?

Yeah, I don't think too many people are going to be counting on the corporatists of either Party blessing us with all those future imaginary future goodies.

[valerief]

75. Faith-based legislation, I guess. nt

[Lil Missy]

6. Guess he knows what the hell he is doing.

[Hekate]

7. Once again, No-drama Obama just keeps chugging along, doesn't he?

Guess he doesn't read DU, after all. If he did, he'd be suicidal by now.

Hekate

[No Elephants]

37. You must think very little of him if you think he would commit suicide over what Democrats post

about him at DU.

Heck, look at the shat that got flung at Dummya and Clinton, from within both Parties, and not just on message board, but IRL. (Sure, a lot of it was a result of their own acts or omissions, but that is equally true of Obama.) Yet, no one ever suggested puting either Dummya or Clinton might need to be put suicide watch.

I wonder if some of Obama's unconditional supporters ever stop to think about whether some of their comments hurt his image a lot more than they help it.

BTW, I wouldn't be too sure that no one under the aegis of the WH isn't charged with keeping an eye on what gets posted at boards like DU. They got money via places like this. It was a drop in the bucket for that campaign, but they know we vote and talk to other Democrats who vote.

[Hekate]

56. It's an expression, a figure of speech, not to be taken literally.

:eyes:

I'm sure there's some intern who's tasked with DU, though.

H

[No Elephants]

92. I didn't take it literally. But I think it relevant that that that is the expression that occurred

to you.

[Robb]

47. Yep.

Although again it appears "Ignored" is all over the thread complaining. :D

[Hekate]

57. Yes

I can see that -- now. :eyes:

Hekate

[PSPS]

9. "of the votes on which he had clearly staked a position"

President Obama set a new record last year for getting Congress to vote his way, clinching 96.7 percent of the votes on which he had clearly staked a position.

That's the "fine print." It's easy to "win" in congress when you "stake your position" according to what the GOP & Lieberman demand. Obama has never "clearly staked a position" that could be described as progressive. Well, at least not since his campaign speeches anyway.

[MessiahRp]

11. +1

No joke.

If he actually staked a Democratic position and not a Blue Dog/Republican position on any major sweeping legislation changes, this number would be far lower.

Agreeing with the assholes just makes you look agreeable... and an asshole.

Rp

[Jim Sagle]

12. Except here.

[Iowa]

20. +1

[No Elephants]

32. 151 bills, but there is no list. Congress passea a lot of meaningless billa every year.

And, it's one thing to say he wanted a recovery (stimulus spending) bill passed, or a health care bill passed, and got it. It's quite another thing to say that the bill got passed pretty much as he wanted it. The stimulus spending bill got larded with pork and the health care bill, well.....

But, if we can really stop holding Obama blameless for legislation because a President--this President--has absolutely nothing to do with legislation, that will be a positive step. Why do I think, though, the WH is going to want to have it both ways?

[scentopine]

49. keep corporations, wall street, right wing happy, attack liberals and win, just like Bush -nt

[HughMoran]

124. anti-Democrat much?

It's your MO.

Leave.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

64. + another 1

[FLAprogressive]

94. +1

[Go2Peace]

117. Exactly, tail wagging the dog

I'm sorry, but the President rarely takes a position that challenges the status quo. So this number is not surprising.

[Vidar]

10. Of course nothing he did was of consequence except to his corporate friends,

but he can buy votes with the best of them.

[berni_mccoy]

15. "nothing of consequence"... like saving the world from economic meltdown?

Which, even conservatives admit, Obama was successful in doing by taking a strong stance on a legislative initiative.

[No Elephants]

33. Sane conservatives, of whom there are few. The other conservatives just

talk about how much debt he got us into and send Teabaggers to Washington.

But, the TARP was a great part of what worked, too, and that was Paulson/Bush. Though, again, the "unsane" conservatives will add tha figure to Obama's stimulus bill.

Could both the TARP and stimulus spending bills been more effective for citizens and not just for banks/Wall Street/Washington, D.C. Damned straight they could have.

[girl gone mad]

42. How did he save the world from economic meltdown?

Do tell. Spare no details. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary supporting evidence.

[mopinko]

52. .

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,1946375,00.html

[No Elephants]

96. Wasn't Bernanke Bush's appointee? I know that Obama has re-nominated him, but

while Bernanke was allegedly saving the economy, he was Bush's appointee.

(And I disagree with Time's assessment anyway, but that is a separate issue.

[girl gone mad]

112. I take it you're a fan of the flawed money multipler theory..

which has been consistently proven wrong by empirical evidence. As a matter of fact, we're currently in the midst of a real world test of this theory, and it's failing on an epic scale. Excess reserves are not being lent out and credit is still contracting at a record pace, despite the trillions the Fed has poured into Wall Street. Bernanke is a fool trying to push on a string. He has saved nothing but the bonuses of a few thousand employees of zombie banks.

If you want to know how macroeconomics really works, stop listening to morons like Bernanke who spent years promoting wrongheaded monetary policies and failed to see or admit the extent of our national economic malaise, and start reading the work of an economist who has gotten every single aspect of the crisis right so far:

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/

[mopinko]

115. i'm not so much a fan of anything. i am just a realist.

banks are a reality. money is a reality. rich people are a reality. the bell curve has some skinny parts.
i agree with the theory that the great depression was deepened by people who took a moral stance on economic issues. i dislike people who take a moral view of the poor. i dislike people who take a moral view of the rich. eat the rich is quite popular here on du, but not so much in the real world. it is a view of no value in examining the state of the world economy.

[girl gone mad]

120. What part of my comment had anything to do with morality?

I'm talking about pure economics. Bernanke has been a screw up at the Fed and he continues to follow outdated economic theories.

[mopinko]

121. i don't think there is such a thing as pure economics.

no human endeavor is void of judgements.
however- no, you did not mention morality. bernanke did. at any rate, the brink of worldwide economic collapse is not really the time to overthrow the whole economic system.
i don't have time to read the whole link. i will look later. but i find those that claim to know better than the whole of collected knowledge on a subject at rarely in full control of their faculties. even if they do have a point.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[berni_mccoy]

67. If you have to ask, you need serious help. Get it.

[Larry Ogg]

77. He used his superior intellect

and had our monolithic banking system counterfeit trillions and trillions of e-dollars so as generations of unborn peons will work their asses of as debt slaves too the banksters and corporations that are in the business of buying off governments and politicians so as they can go about their business of fleecing and looting national treasures around the globe.

I guess we’re supposed to believe that this genius idea was the best solution and something we couldn’t live without,
or he and congress wouldn’t have done it that way. :shrug:

[avaistheone1]

54. Amazing. How did Obama do that?

[Phlem]

66. Please show me the evidence

The empirical evidence.

-phlem

[Ed76638]

13. What is Obama's way?

He sure as hell didn't express it when the 4 (expletive) senators were doing their grandstanding and what not.

[No Elephants]

34. What? You didn't think he praised Baucus and the rest of the Senate enough?

[totodeinhere]

14. OK fine. But lets hope his presidency doesn't end up like LBJ's did.

The article compares him to LBJ. To me that's kind of scary given the fact that Viet Nam destroyed LBJ. Let's hope that Afghanistan doesn't destroy Obama in a similar fashion.

[daleo]

102. I thought of that too

Let's hope he quits this war soon. Same goes for Iraq.

[flyarm]

17. sorry but using LBJ as a rally point..is just not working for me!!

Gulf of Tonkin and so many in my generation murdered because of LBJ..and his building up a war in Vietnam based on lies..just doesn't sit well with me!!
just saying.........I don't get the warm fuzzies others think i might!

[No Elephants]

36. Yes, but the issue is only the number of bills. BTW, are you happier with Obama's foreign policies

than with LBJ's?

[ProgressOnTheMove]

18. Kind of fascinating when LBJ is held as a get things done kind of guy...

Even Medicare when it was passed under LBJ wasn't all it could be back than. Pres. Obama is on a roll in the slow moving entity that is Congress, let's not slow him down now. We have just taken a political pendulum swing from extreme corporatism to social conservatism in the traditional sense of the term. It can go all the way to liberalism if we stick with it. We can go further, we MUST go further. No stopping us now if we keep up the momentum. Sure LBJ proved the tough approach can get things done, but Pres. Obama will prove that pragmatism can get things done for a longer period.

[Selatius]

24. I wouldn't compare Medicare to anything that happened today.

For one thing, Medicare, in the form it passed in originally, already succeeded in that it contained the idea of social insurance, the heart of what Medicare or any single-payer system found in the world today has. Sure, it's been expanded since then, but that's the point.

People who came after LBJ had a strong foundation to build upon. If the Senate has its way in House-Senate negotiations on the health care bill, there will be no Public Option. Sure, quite a few people here bitched and moaned about how it's only limited to people who are only employed with employers who offer no health insurance, but even in that limited form, the Public Option was still a good idea, if only for the fact that it could be scaled up with future legislation given a progressive legislature.

Without the Public Option, the options for improving health care easily, become small. If you wanted to incorporate social insurance into the private insurance mandate, you'd have to invent the wheel on the spot rather than build on something that already exists. This is why I reject any comparison between LBJ and Medicare to Obama and universal insurance mandates.

[No Elephants]

38. Have you ever looked at all the legislation LBJ got passed? It was far from

only Medicare. If nothing else, check out a wiki on the subject. And, while, as some here are fond of pointing out, LBJ had a lot more Democratic Senators than does Obama, that caucus was "deeply divided," as the article correctly notes, more so than this one.

As far as using LBJ as the benchmark for comparison, LBJ was probably chosen because he and FDr may have rammed through as much as anyone in memory. If the choice of LBJ is somehow faulty, though, take it up with the WH staff, who probably thought this story was a good idea. Just a wild guess.

[Demeter]

21. Color Me Not Impressed

None of them are voting MY way, nor the way of the People.

[Phlem]

74. But, But

and I quote this from another thread

"He's Dreamy"

-phlem

[ddeclue]

22. SO? NOT. A. GOOD. THING. He's selling us out on Health Care

and his "success" is largely based on caving in to corporate hacks in Congress.

I am NOT impressed.

LBJ actually fought for unpopular (at the time) things like Civil Rights and Voting Rights and Medicare and he did NOT cave on these things but twisted Congressmens' arms to get their vote. Obama doesn't even TRY to give anyone the "Johnson treatment".

:eyes:

[avaistheone1]

53. Fully agree.

Can anyone think of a single success of Obama's that has had much impact on the country. I can't.

[Alcibiades]

55. It's hard to quantify what you mean by "much impact"

Though here are a few things that have been successes for the administration:

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act
S-CHIP
Repeal of Bush's stem-cell funding ban
Executive order mandating adherence to US Army Field Guide for interrogations
End of the abortion ban on funding for groups doing family planning overseas
2009 Omnibus Public Land Management Act
Confirmation of Sonya Sotomajor
Increase in cigarette tax to $.62 a pack
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
The auto industry bailout
the stimulus package
Cash for clunkers

Not the Great Society, no, but it's a start. I'll settle for this, though that doesn't mean we ought to stop reminding the administration whose support it will need in the 2010 races and beyond.

[No Elephants]

97. The article is about legislation, not Executive Orders, though.

And a lot of the bills you mention were no effort whatever to get through this Congress, so the comparison to LBJ, who was doing things like creating Medicare and Medicaid and pushing the Voting Rights bill through despite resistance from Southerners of both Parties, is not exactly iimpressive.

[Alcibiades]

123. I was responding to a post that said

"Can anyone think of a single success of Obama's that has had much impact on the country. I can't."

Some of these successes have been executive orders, which certainly are easier than enacting major legislation. They still count. The benchmark shouldn't be "is Obama better than LBJ" but "is he better than McCain," and I think he has been. There are many other variables that explain the variation in outcomes more than simply whether Obama is more or less capable of getting legislation pushed through Congress than LBJ. People forget, for example, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was originally introduced in 1963 as an initiative of President Kennedy. When Kennedy was assassinated, it became much harder for opponents to oppose, simply because public opinion rallied around LBJ after the assassination.



When Medicare was introduced in March, 1965, it was under the 89th Congress. At this point, it might be useful to examine some of the other variables in question. Your hypothesis seems to be that LBJ was impressive and Obama is not. OK, but not really falsifiable. My hypothesis is that legislative success may have something to do with the partisan composition of Congress.

So, you ask, what was the partisan makeup of the 89th Congress?

Democrats: 68
Republicans: 32

House of Representatives

Democratic: 295
Republican: 140

So, was Johnson some sort of Magic Texan, and is our current President really so uniimpressive, or maybe what's really impressive is the fact that LBJ HAD 10 MORE DEMOCRATIC VOTES IN THE SENATE AND 39 MORE DEMOCRATIC VOTES IN THE HOUSE?

[Selatius]

23. If I clearly staked my position on only the minimum wage and raised it, I get a score of 100%

The fine print left a big hole that an eighteen-wheeler could drive through.

[ccharles000]

25. wonderful

[liberal N proud]

35. Yet there are those that say he is a failure

Even here on DU, there are many who are calling Obama's Presidency a failure and calling for a primary candidate in 2012.

Will this shut them down? I doubt it.

[No Elephants]

39. Your desire is that criticism of Obama be shut down? The spirit of the USSR lives on, I guess.

Lest we forget, it's the Democratic Party, not the Obama Party or the lockstep neocon base.

[liberal N proud]

50. People don't know how to be critical any more.

Too many people everything is all or nothing. If you don't get everything you asked for at Christmas, then Santa Clause is a failure.

There is never any glass is half full, it is always empty if the not full. Those are the critics we don't need. We really don't need those critics here on DU.

If that offends you, too bad.

[Phlem]

60. So if I don't like your critique

and the way your understanding the political environment, can I ask you to STFU, I hope that offends you.

Your strong in the Force....of ignorance.

Could we venture a guess that maybe it's because we're all using critical thinking to the best of each person's capacity? Could that be the reason tensions and frustrations are high cause maybe we see a different environment than the rainbows and butterflies that you live in?

[No Elephants]

109. Whether it's silencing criticism or limiting it, it's still the spirit of the USSR.

And what makes you the judge of how much or in what way an American should analyze or criticize government?

How it works: You get to say whatever you want and I get to say whatever I want. Neither or us gets to silence or control the other. Get used to it.

And, no, you didn't offend me. Why would words on a computer screen offend any adult?

[depakid]

40. Let's see- a huge majority in Congress, 60 ostensible votes in the Senate

and conflict aversion to the point of appeasing both the most corrupt, right wing elements in the party (as well as their corporate benefactors) and the at the expense of the public interest.

That about sums up such a record as this.

Precisely what would be expected under the circumstances of an administration unwilling (or incapable) of taking the risk to stand up and fight for effective public policy. Policy that reflects traditional Democratic values- and puts Main Street over Wall Street.

Pretty soon, my bet is that we'll see international leaders figuring this dynamic out, too.

How does the old saying go? Many more such victories and we shall be undone.

[Kahuna]

41. But but but.... He's

weak.

[No Elephants]

48. Have you actually thought about what the article says and what it means?

Or compared these 151 bills with what LBJ passed? Or what resistance LBJ had to overcome in 1965 to get his legislation passed? Did you even try? If not, please see Reply 45 and other posts on this thread for starters. Please. I really mean please.


BTW, I don't think Obama is weak, but 1965 legislation and LBJ's role in it is not remotely comparable to 2009 legislation, and Obama's role in it, either. Any attempt to suggest a similarity is a very bad, very dishonest joke, IMO.

[bowens43]

71. you're right, he is weak

or he just lied during his campaign


on nearly every IMPORTANT issue he has caved.

H e has shown no leadership.

[madrchsod]

43. we`ll see if he can match lbj`s record...

civil rights act of 1957-64

voting rights act

the great society

esea act of 1965

higher education act of 1965

public broadcasting act

revenue act of 1964

eoa

economic opportunity act

medicare

medicaid


this was all done with in 4 years while we were in the streets yelling

"hey hey lbj..how many kids did you kill today?"

[No Elephants]

46. A good source on this is wiki. The link is in Reply #45.

[placton]

44. roflmao

since he rarely "stakes claims" this is no wonder - LBJ staked out the Civil Rights Act and other landmark legislation - Obama, not so much - and LBJ didn't break campaign promises willy nilly either

[No Elephants]

45. Where to begin and end?

1/ LBJ had more Democrats, yes. But, by 1965 Democrats in both houses of Congress were far more divided than are the current Democrats in Congress. Sadly, LBJ's efforts were no doubt aided by JFK's assassination, which impelled the nation to the fallen leader's vision and ideals, even though his election win in 1960 had been narrow. But, a nation fed up with Dummya was primed for change legislation, too.



2/ Why are we comparing only a raw number and kvelling, as opposed to comparing the nature and quality of the bills in 1965 versus those in 2009? And how about the degree of resistance from Congress?

Yes, a Democratic Congress passed the stimulus bill under Obama, but the Democratic Congress also passed the TARP under Bush shortly before that--and Bush was not head of the Democratic Party at the time. Did the facts of the economy give Congress have much of a choice as to either bill? If not, why is getting the stimulus bill passed such a big win for Obama? Ditto the auto industry bailout.

Allowing the FDA to regulate tobacco is a big accomplishment for a Democratic President leading a Democratic Party, after decades of anti-tobacco sentiment in this country?

Sotomayor's confirmation is not even really legislation, let alone novel controversial legislation like the Great Society. And, it required 51 out of 60 Democratic Caucus member--for a female, and the first Hispanic of either gender, who did not exactly have the reputation of a Ruth Bader Ginsburg when nominated, either.

If these are the four bills specified out of the 151 mentioned, I wonder what the other 147 bills are, and how hard it would be for any Democratic President to get them through a Democratic Congress.

And, of course, health care reform has been stalled for a year, even though it has turned out to be a lavish gift to the health insurers and big medicine.

Compare the examples given with the novel and controversial (for that time) legislation passed under LBJ--much of it originating with him or JFK, as opposed to just bills originating from Congress on which the POTUS expressed his opinion in advance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

Not to mention, that the 1965 legislation followed LBJ's 1964 legislation. If anything ended a Presidential honeymoon with Southern Democrats, it was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Hence, getting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 alone passed could not have been any small feat--and that was only a drop in the bucket. Is it realistic to stack something like the Voting Rights Act in the climate of 1965 that up against the Sotomayor confirmation only quantitatively? Does the quality and nature matter, too>



3/ If a Democratic Congress passes bills the President and head of the Democratic Party wants passed, why is that always the President's "victory?" How many bills were Obama's vision, and did Congress pass them largely as Obama envisioned them? And what about Reid, Hoyer, Pelosi, et al.?


4/ If Obama is to get credit for the bills he approved of that Congress passed, should Congress, and only Congress get blamed for legislation that got stalled or eviscerated, of legislation that was never even taken up, or does Obama have at least some accountability for those things, too. I mean, either he has influence over Congress or he doesn't, right? --- And if he doesn't, why on earth doesn't he?

And those are only off the top of my head.


I wish attempts to blend Obama with Lincoln, JFK, FDR and LBJ would ring truer to me than some of them do, but they don't stand up to analysis. But I guess we're not ever supposed to analyze, only applaud uncritically and unconditionally.

[zipplewrath]

72. Data swamping

Your analysis, with which I agree, is a rough description of what I call "data swamping". The original analysis takes a bunch of barely relate items (i.e. LBJ's work and Obama's work) and tries to draw conclusions. One is suppose to not notice that much of these "successes" are fairly incomparable. As your analysis indicates, comparing the passage of legislation that really started under his predecessor (TARP) and was dictated by extreme circumstances with ground breaking legislation on healthcare, and civil rights is absurd. Furthermore, the question really becomes who was leading and who was following? For all of Obama's claims for bipartisanship, it was LBJ that actually got it, at least on civil rights. Furthermore, LBJ actually "got" the votes in the sense of pushing legislatures to follow his lead. One can easily make the case that Obama merely wandered around finding out what would pass and then "asked" for it.

[No Elephants]

88. Wow, thanks for such a thoughtful reaction. I'm floored.

Obviously, I agree with you, too.

And it gets worse:

CQ counts as Obama wins every bill as to which Obama stated a position in advance (of enactment by Congress, I assume). So, he need not even have asked for a bill in order for CQ to have counted it as an Obama win. A staffer could have been on top of every bill that was hanging around in Congress and Obama could have said, "I favor passage." And, if the bill got passed after than, it would go in the Obama win column.

Of course, that would not have been the case with Sotomayor's confirmation, the stimulus or the bailout, but there was no realistic chance of Congress blocking any of those anyway. So, seeing the list before deciding Obama is more effective than LBJ--or even how valid this article is--would be necessary.

I feel hopeless when people take propaganda at face value. I did when Bushco propagated it; and I do now.

Knee jerk reactions and blind loyalty make me so sad for my country. So do apathy and inertia.


This nation was designed by--and for--people who are informed, thoughtful and active. It's in trouble now. Without such people, it's doomed.

[zipplewrath]

89. Well, I presume for LBJ too

That part may have been the "most equal" part of the comparison. Much of what any president "asks" for is going to get done to some extent or another, since most of it is basically necessary to run the country. It's what's absurd about this comparison. The implication is that most of these items are "controversial" or something. The vast majority is basically "doing business". That's the "data swamping" aspect to the whole thing. It's like a rating system where the lowest "score" is 88 and the highest is 100. A "hundred point" score sounds impressive, but it just means "12 points better than the worst". Each party loves to do that whole "voted with the president 95% of the time "schtick. Practically everyone votes "with" the president the majority of the time. The difference between the biggest opponent and the strongest supporter might be 12% if one is counting all the votes, including procedural, that happen in the congress.

As I say, the difference between LBJ and Obama is that LBJ actually had to "lead" in some sense. Obama did a survey. It's a different kind of leadership, and has its places. But it isn't how one becomes transformational, as LBJ was. Mostly it's a great way to sustain the status quo. Not exactly "change".

[No Elephants]

93. Maybe, but I cannot imagine LBJ doing that, and I can imagine Obama's team

doing that, looking ahead to just such an article as this.

Not that I particularly fault them for that. His image is their job. Times and modus operandi are different now. What you do almost seems to matter less than how you appear. LBJ didn't have Fox, CNN, Limbaugh, bloggers, etc. picking apart his every move seven times a day.

[swilton]

63. The Problem Is

What is he winning?

[progressoid]

65. He wins mad props on the internet?

:shrug:

[valerief]

73. Exactly. Are they comparing apples to oranges? This HCR is no Medicare for example. nt

[No Elephants]

98. It isn't passed yet, either.

[Doctor_J]

69. LBJ didn't have to contend with a media determined to ruin him either

Back then the media didn't spend all day every day trying to bring the government down. This president is battling seditious media 24/7

:thumbsup:

[No Elephants]

99. But, that battle is primarily about his own re-election, so one could say that should not

be where significant time and attention is directed from the jump. But, I do agree that LBJ did not have to bear those slings and arrows. On the other hand, he had a lot more resistance from both Congress and Democratic citizens than Obama had.


"Hey, hey, LBJ, how many people did you kill today?" Civil rights demonstrations, including Bloody Sunday at Selma, the Warren Commission, teach ins, draft card burnings, etc. The man had a really full plate, even without worrying about his image/re-election.

[Demeter]

70. It's Not a Win When You Don't Fight

It's called a roll-over, or taking a fall, or throwing the match, or all other kinds of non-sporting, bought out and paid off behavioral slang descriptions.

[FLAprogressive]

95. +1

[ooglymoogly]

81. Kpete; I normally have great respect for your OP's

but this is a silly comparison. You must look at the beneficiary of the wins and what good they do for the 99% of the population; Otherwise the comparison is just who can piss farther, or, on this site, pissing against the wind.

[Larry Ogg]

82. So what, the corporately owned conservative majority agrees most of the time;

i.e. both parties agree on the best way to screw the working class majority while preserving the status quo minority; well color me tickled, I guess this is the way pretend democracy is supposed to work, the rich get richer and the poor get the illusions that something good is happening…

[natrat]

84. please, the whole thing is a rigged piece of shit

[Vincardog]

87. on which he had clearly staked a position. What about on those he campaigned on?

There are Lies, Damned lies and then there are STATISTICS.

[Zhade]

105. Too bad they're wins for corporations and not us.

NT!

[fascisthunter]

110. lol

[NuttyFluffers]

113. tall grass sets new record for getting the hot wind to move to the grass' desired way 96.7% of time.

vague platitudes followed by capitulation to the result does create the illusion of great success, too.


disappointing... :puffpiece:

[Skittles]

114. so why aren't we getting what we want?

oh that's right, it's not what we want, it's what THEY want

[donheld]

116. +1

[western mass]

122. What a useless, meaningless, uninformative statistic

The NUMBER of votes he gets through is meaningless. What has meaning is WHAT those votes do. On major issues like corporate bailouts, they have been the WRONG votes.