What Obama wanted - and would have accomplished - if not for the filibuster

[fiorello]

I posted this in the experimental version, but it belongs here: A summary of what Obama (and Pelosi) got done and, more important, what might have been. See the last paragraph!

The hundred and eleventh Congress... ended... with unwonted vigor and speed. In the six days from December 17th until December 22nd, it sent President Obama a barrage of bills, including, in chronological order, a huge tax-cuts-and-unemployment-relief compromise package; the repeal of the dishonorable “Don’t ask, don’t tell” law; a substantial strengthening of the government’s ability to keep contaminants like E. coli out of our food; the ratification of the New START treaty with Russia; and health-care coverage for 9/11 first responders sickened by their service at Ground Zero.

Before that astonishing last-minute flurry, Obama and the 111th had already racked up a legislative score that put them in a league with Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, and the two Roosevelts. The pre-midterm accomplishments included a stimulus that pulled the country back from the brink of a second Great Depression, the Code Blue rescue of the American automobile industry, firmer regulation of the financial industry, and, of course, comprehensive health-care reform.

Good. But not good enough....

Some on the liberal side have blamed these shortcomings—and the midterm electoral debacle—on the President and the Democratic leaders of Congress, who have certainly made their share of mistakes... But there’s one big obstacle— filibuster.

In the absence of the filibuster, the health-care law would offer a public alternative to private insurance, the financial reform would be strong enough to close off the likelihood of another meltdown, and the very rich (and their heirs) would pay something closer to their fair share of taxes. Nearly two hundred qualified nominees for executive and judicial offices would be on the job instead of in limbo. And a climate-and-energy bill, a bill to require corporations to be open about their political spending, the DREAM Act, and dozens of other worthy measures—all of which passed the House and had majority support in the Senate—would now be the law of the land.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/01/10/110110taco_talk_hertzberg

So please, everyone: in all the frustration over missed opportunities, etc.: remember what Obama and a MAJORITY of the democrats actively supported in 2009-2010 Good... not good enough... but support the people who at the very least tried and pushed in the right direction!

[derby378]

1. An individual mandate to buy health insurance from UnitedHealthcare is NOT in the "right direction"

You could swap UHC with Tenet, BCBS, or whomever and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. The 1798 argument has already been dismantled, I hear.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Not buying it - remember the proposal to extend Medicare had 59 Senate votes

so it certainly could have passed through reconciliation (like the eventual RomneyCare/ObamaCare bill did), but the WH squashed it.

Also, if Obama wanted to change the filibuster rules, I believe he could have easily led that effort - doubtless he's fighting that possibility right now.

Look, the guy appoints people like Simpson, Bowles, Summers, Emmanuel, Geithner, McChrystal... all kinds of hiddeous people.

[yurbud]

4. yep, on a lot of the stuff, Obama made just enough of a token effort to say he tried

then put the screws to progressives to get on the corporate bus before it runs them over.

You also left out Arne Duncan, a steaming piece of excrement that the right praised because he fully supports the corporate take over and breaking of teachers unions that the GOP wants. No one forced Obama to appoint him, and his track record in Chicago was not a success except by those two measures I just mentioned.

[no limit]

3. Obama did not want the public option, to suggest otherwise is dismissing the facts of what happened

the filibuster was not in the way, they used reconciliation to get the health care law through the senate after consistently telling us they could not use reconciliation. So they kept watering down the legislation to get to the 60 vote hurdle and then what happened? Scott Brown was elected and they had no choice but to use reconciliation. So instead of now going the other way and making the legislation stronger they simply took the highly watered down legislation and rammed that through using reconciliation.

Knowing this nobody could possibly suggest Obama wanted a public option, if he did he would have gotten one.

[swilton]

5. Where was the neutralize the filibuster strategy?

With all of Obama's oratorical skills plus the mandate from the 2008 election, why didn't he mobilize the masses?