Do people seriously have no idea how laws get passed that are whining about Obama?

[zulchzulu]

I'm convinced people who are complaining about Obama literally haven't a goddamn clue how laws get passed and that you need to gather votes in order to pass legislation.

I'm listening to some whiners on Big Ed's show and both he and his callers are obviously not interested in basic civics.

In a nutshell, you have committees that come up with the initial makings of legislation. It gets tinkered around with and then, if it's GOT VOTES, goes to the Congress. Congress tinkers around and adds amendments and such and then if the legislation is to continue, it GETS VOTES. Then the same steps go with the Senate, where the legislation gets passed WITH VOTES and goes to the President or gets voted down and sent back to committees and back around again. That's a very simple explanation, of course. But it appears many haven't the foggiest idea that those are the basic steps.

Obama may have had "60 votes" in the Senate up to now, but he really had about 49 if you count the Blue Dogs who were essentially DINOs. So he needed to get VOTES to pass legislation and yank votes out of the Blue Dogs to get anything remotely passed.

We can see what happened... some good, some not so good and some that was bad.

Now, Obama is faced with a Congress that will do all it can to pass legislation that fits the RNC Playbook and have the nonsense hopefully get batted down in the Senate or get vetoed by him.

Will he have the votes in Congress? No. If he does, it will be watered-down legislation from a progressive standpoint. And it will suck hard.

So what do these people whining about Obama want him to do? Get the votes magically? Where's his wand? Pass progressive legislation with a bunch of conservative locksteppers?

The only game in town until 2012 is to expose the Republicans for dragging their feet or for not being able to govern as well as overstep to appeal to the Religious Right.

Seriously, are people even halfway interested in how legislation gets passed or are they simply too lazy or inept to figure it out?

[stray cat]

1. Sadly, Ignorance is not limited to conservatives and informed is not an adjective for democrats

[JimWis]

2. Yes - they literally do not have a damn clue.

They hold the president accountable for everything. They know little or nothing about the senate and house. They also have no clue that the Republicans voted no on everything. And when the Republicans screw up the country in the next two years - President Obama will get the blame.

[veganlush]

3. Bingo. Ignorance is the single biggest problem.

few people even know that Obama cut their taxes. Why do they allow repugnants to say that the stimulus was $814 billion when over $200 billion was tax cuts? Why didn't we call tax cuts for the rich a $700 billion dollar stimulus bill, that has been failing since 2001?

[ellisonz]

4. They want a Dear Leader.

[veganlush]

5. Why is it that when they say the stimulus was a failure,

no one points out that it was more than a third tax cuts? that obviously they're saying that tax cuts don't work, just like the Bush "stimulus" didn't work?

[wizstars]

103. Let's talk about the failed stimulus bill that Bush*t passed--the $1.3tril tax giveaway to the rich

Ten years later, it STILL isn't creating any jobs.

[kenfrequed]

6. I personally blame the blue dogs

Evan Bayh screwed us. He even screwed us on the way out of town. He organized the senate 'blue dog' coalition before Obama could even get into office. He did more damage to us than any republican and then he quit in February of 2010. In fact he drug it until the filing deadline to screw over his party on the state level too.

If he had switched parties he wouldn't have done as much damage as he did to us over the last two years.

[catgirl]

7. Great post

If people knew how our government worked, they would have voted.

[unblock]

8. they want a president who can overcome these obstacles

yes, the average joe is perhaps only dimly aware of procedure. mostly they see "democrats control the white house and congress" and stop there. shrub seemed to get what he wanted when he had (bare) majorities. why can't obama?

yes, we wonks understand that the political dynamic was different and democratic opposition to republican presidents is NOTHING LIKE republican opposition to democratic presidents, but average joe doesn't see any of that.

average joe want strong leadership, or the image of that. shrub certainly didn't have that in his persona or personality, but the republican party loyalty combined with a reckless disregard for democrats, the economy, and in many cases, treaties and laws, let them tout a long list of "accomplishments".

that's the image people want of a president. eventually, people recognized shrub's massive failures, so of course people also want a president to do things that actually work and help the economy and americans, but in terms of image, they want an image of success and accomplishments.



perhaps what obama accomplished was all that we ever could have hoped for given the blue dogs and the republicans and the mess we were in and so on. but if so, he needed to LOWER EXPECTATIONS as soon as he won the election, and he needed to CALL OUT the republicans AND the blue dogs and demand loyalty and unity from the party, or enough of it to make a majority.

personally, i think obama probably accomplished as much as was possible in terms of legislation. where he failed was in managing his image and the image of the democratic party. of course, the media was highly complicit in this, but obama needed to focus more on this than he did.

[lamp_shade]

9. Great post. It should be required reading here.

[zulchzulu]

15. What's tragic is that I fully understand the frustration, but a little knowledge sure helps

When I was younger and barely knew how government works, I was just as angry as the people I woefully called "whiners".

I understand their passion. I understand their heartbreak.

But it really gets down to what would be someone saying they know how to play chess and haven't the foggiest idea where the chess pieces go before you start playing.

Hopefully those on all sides of the political aisle understand the essential basics of civics, which I would attest is a horrible name... or a decent Honda automobile.

:hi:

[woo me with science]

10. Shame on those whiny laws. nt

[donco6]

18. Giggle.

My thought exactly.

[grahamhgreen]

11. You can expand Medicare in reconcilliation... Then we'd have real HCR.

[vaberella]

39. Not with the Dems we had in Congress. Several Dems threatened NO if we went by reconciliation.

This was all over the damned place. The Conservadems were against reconciliation. Why is this so hard to get? Which means that our 57 or 58 majority would have to minus 13 Conservadems----so then please explanation to me how reconciliation would work!? How? This is what happened last time...those Dems claimed they found reconciliation an incorrect method to pass the bill.

[truedelphi]

82. But why do we have those conservative Dems in place?

Why does Di Feinstein put only the most odious people in place on the California ticket.

Why do Party Leaders, again and again, offer the Blue Dog Dems as much backing as they need, while the progressives are hounded over to the third party?

So saying it was inevitable that Obama cannot get things done that People of the Nation need because Oh My Lawdie! And Saints alive, the people in Congress are so conservative is disingenuous at best and when it comes from the mouth of people like Obama, and other party leaders, a lie..

[flpoljunkie]

12. Perhaps they ought to watch Rachel Maddow's video on 'Political Capital'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLQ-OKa6OZQ&feature=player_embedded

[CakeGrrl]

13. Apparently he was supposed to use the Jedi Mind Trick on the Blue Dogs

to get them to vote as a unified Dem bloc.

He's an abject failure for not doing so.

:eyes:

[political_Dem]

14. They'll surely learn a valuable lesson now with the GOP in charge of the House.

Quick solutions are not viable in Congress. A bill undergoes numerous revisions and debates until a compromise is hammered out. Nothing ever gets done overnight. The process takes months to years. And then after that, it may be stopped because of public sentiment or a sea change in the WH.

The entire process is incremental. It is even moreso if a dynamic politican wrangles the bill in question while his nemisis filibusters endlessly on the floor.

And then, it still needs to be voted upon.

[Exilednight]

16. Do you know what the Chief Of Staff's job is? His primary function is to ..........

work with congress in order to pass the president's legislative agenda. Obama had the largest majorities he was ever going to enjoy, and he pissed it away with water-downed legislative agenda. Obama brought in Rham to crack heads and twist arms, but instead all he did was insulate Obama and did nothing to advance the agenda.

Is there blame for congress? Yes, but Obama is part of the process.

Let's see how much of a hands on approach Obama has now, now that he has to work with republicans.

[niceypoo]

19. Unless your name is Card

Then you make sandwiches for your abusive boss

[niceypoo]

17. "includes every republican idea"

For zero votes

Apparently this is how laws get passed now a days? One sided 'bipartisanship'? One sided compromise for zero in return? I dont recall the GOP passing any laws that included, 'every Democratic idea,' with zero Democratic votes. Must have missed that one.

[JoePhilly]

35. And you can, as the OP notes, thank the BLUE DOGs for that ...

Go back and look at the nasty legislation that the GOP congress passed ... most Dems voted against it, but the Blue Dogs voted with the GOP in almost every case.

And that's the problem. On the big issues, the Blue Dogs become REPUBLICANS. And they vote in lock step with the GOP on the big things. They vote like Dems only for small things, and even then, not always.

Basically, the Blue Dogs play the system to get as much as they can for themselves.

And nothing Obama does is going to be able to change that reality.

[Recursion]

60. The thing is, from '08 to '10 the blue dogs were essentially acting as the minority party

because the GOP refused to even do that.

There was outreach and compromise, but it wasn't with Republicans, who had already made very clear they weren't going to get involved at all. The outreach and compromise was to Democrats from Democrats.

This, incidentally, is one result of the 50-state strategy we all love so much: Democrats who are only somewhat less conservative than the Republicans they replaced, because they are (or were, until last night) the people who could get elected in those districts.

[ibegurpard]

20. "The only game in town until 2012 ..."

"...is to expose the Republicans for dragging their feet or for not being able to govern as well as overstep to appeal to the Religious Right."
and yet, here he is talking about finding common ground with these lunatics.

[jenmito]

21. K&R. You're 100% right about Ed and the callers. n/t

[bemildred]

22. Sure, laws are passed unread by voice vote after midnight. nt

[Pirate Smile]

23. It is much easier to just get mad at Obama and imagine him as a dictator who just decided not to

pass the perfect legislation which he so easily could have (single payer? done with just two swishes of the wand *Presto*) or, my favorite, if he just wanted it more or "used the bully pulpit" it could have happened. :eyes:

I know. It is frustrating.

[laughingliberal]

24. It's one thing to pass weaker bills than we want. It's another to tell the American people...

how wonderfus those weak bills are. An honest assessment of what good the bill would do and how the Republicans refused to cooperate for better policies for American people would have gotten us further.

[Zenlitened]

148. Guess who agrees with you:

...Obama said in an interview with CBS’s "60 Minutes" that he "stopped paying attention" to the leadership style he displayed during his run for the presidency.

Obama also said he recognizes now that "leadership is not just legislation," and that "it’s a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand."

"And I think that . . . we haven’t always been successful at that," he said. "And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine closely as I go forward."

Link:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/11/06/obama_says_he_failed_in_pushing_case_on_economy

[krawhitham]

25. They all think he has a magic wand, but refuses to use it

[CTLawGuy]

26. it may also be, at least partially, the fact that

African Americans in leadership positions are held to higher standards than their white counterparts. IOW to get the same credit as a white, African Americans in leadership positions must work much harder and accomplish a lot more.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

27. Some people obviously don't remember THESE news stories from early on

"Reid Warns Obama:I Don't Work For You"

http://www.theatlanticright.com/2009/01/07/reid-warns-obama-i-dont-work-for-you/

"Evan Bayh Forming Blue Dog Caucus in the Senate"

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10437

Yeah, Obama should've been able to get ANYTHING he wanted through Congress, especially in the Senate.

:sarcasm:

And that's not even mentioning pro-McCain/Palin 2008 all-purpose "snake in the grass" Lieberman being in the Senate as well.

SIXTY VOTES for "progressive" legislation? Where?

:eyes:

[PVnRT]

28. Guess what? No one really cares about process, only results

The only people who are into the process are political geeks and college professors. The average American is more concerned about what is actually done, and they need to know, in two years, that it was the Republicans they voted for who refused to give up their ideological crusade and get to work.

[pattmarty]

29. I think MOST here understand the process. Obama may be a really..........

............nice guy and sincere, but you left a giant thing out of your tutorial, the arm twisting or if you prefer Presidential pressure. He may have come from Chicago, but he hasn't (in my opinion) played the "Chicago politics" that conservative sometimes label him with. It's his personality, he is a "go along, get along" guy. I hate to bring up LBJ again, and there are LARGE differences between the two men, but LBJ pressured his Dems into passing "good" legislation. Obama doesn't have that, and that's what will be his lackluster legacy.

[rug]

30. Oh, this shit again.

Yes, he's a passive bystander until the bill hits his desk.

[jgraz]

53. Which is how he forced a filibuster of the Dorgan amendment.

When Obama wants to crack Congressional skulls, he has no problem doing it. What he has a problem doing is fighting for progressive legislation.

[Recursion]

62. He could crack *progressive* skulls because they'll listen to him

He can keep his team in check to keep what would have been a poison pill from scuttling the whole things (the Dorgan amendment had as much chance of getting through the Senate as single payer did).

Now, what's his stick to get conservative Democrats (let alone Republicans) to move along, particularly since the Republicans said early on they weren't going to eat any carrots?

[jgraz]

68. The Dorgan amendment had a majority of votes.

What it didn't have was support from the White House. Which is why Obama organized the *same conservative Democrats* you say he can't control to filibuster an amendment from his own party.

Without the filibuster, Dorgan's amendment would have passed with 53 or 54 votes. Look it up.

[Recursion]

69. Are we talking about the same amendment? Pharma re-importation?

It was a debateable amendment, which means it required 60 to end debate, which it never came close to having.

[jgraz]

81. Which part of "Dorgan had the votes" are you not getting?

He had Republican support for this. Then Rahm and the White House organized The Democrats to filibuster their own amendment in order to preserve Obama's deal with Big PHRMA.

Do the research. It'll open your eyes.

[Recursion]

83. The part where you think he had the votes.

Editing to finish the thought:

The GOP supported lots of progressive amendments to HCR because they knew it would drive the blue dogs away (google the phrase "poison pill" some time); this was the textbook example.

[jgraz]

84. So now you're saying he HAD the votes, but it was a poison pill

Hokay then.

[Recursion]

86. No, he did not have the votes to pass the bill with that amendment

Plenty of the GOP would have been more than happy to to include the amendment itself, sure. Do you see why?

[jgraz]

90. Which Democrats would have switched their votes because of that Amendment?

Got any names?

[Recursion]

98. Bayh and Lieberman (so, one D, one opportunistic turncoat jackass)

Actually, two opportunistic turncoat jackasses, one of whom still had a D after his name.

In fact, you just need to look at the Democrats who opposed the amendment; subtract Klobuchar and that's the people the amendment made the bill unacceptable for.

[jgraz]

112. Still more than enough to pass the bill

Unless your suggestion is that Democrats would filibuster their own President's keystone legislation. In that case, Obama needs to maintain better control over his party.

[Recursion]

115. I think you're mixing up the sequence; this was before Brown was elected

before anybody had thought of using reconciliation.

[ProudDad]

122. THANK YOU!!!

:hi:

[BumRushDaShow]

31. K&R!

There are too many Democratic low information voters, including right here on DU.

[creon]

32. yes

Many people have no idea how laws get passed.

Pelosi and Reid do not report to Obama.

[playstation]

33. Which house did b*sh control after 2006?

[vaberella]

40. That's the point exactly. We have a right wing cronies in the Congress.

These people were along with Bush to fuck up America and yet we're stating it's Obama. There are some Dems who really didn't help but hurt us.

[Recursion]

63. He also basically accomplished nothing after 2006. Even 2004, for that matter.

Everything he tried failed, whether it was killed by our party (SS reform) or by his own party (immigration reform).

There's this DU myth that George W. Bush did "whatever he wanted" despite Congress; it's just not true at all.

[bread_and_roses]

34. Oh, right. I'm sixty, have followed issues, legislation, politics, for longer than some here have

been alive, and I don't understand how laws get passed? Riiiiiiiiggggghhhhhtttttt. The only apt comment is the eye-rolling smiley.

[Vinca]

36. I think most people understand how laws are passed.

They don't understand when a real fight for what is right isn't waged. And it wasn't.

[vaberella]

41. I don't know how you define fight. n/t

[Recursion]

72. It seems to involve the spine. Other than that, I'm mystified too. NT

[Zenlitened]

149. Pres. Obama suggests a definition:

...Obama said in an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes’’ that he “stopped paying attention’’ to the leadership style he displayed during his run for the presidency.

Obama also said he recognizes now that "leadership is not just legislation," and that "it’s a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand."

“And I think that . . . we haven’t always been successful at that," he said. "And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine closely as I go forward."

Link:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/11/06/obama_says_he_failed_in_pushing_case_on_economy

[existentialist]

37. I think a many of the newly elected congress critters

including my own have relatively little idea how laws get passed.

[vaberella]

38. Not a single one. The problem has always been Congress.

Ugh.

[greymattermom]

42. spending in red districts

How about a Reduce the Deficit bill that focuses on federal projects that are all or mostly conducted in red districts. Certain pipe lines, dams, etc. don't really need any repair, it's too costly. Make them vote up or down.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Those who ask to be President ought to know these things

and be able to overcome them, rather than have their supporters call the electorate stupid and other various slams. The slams sound really bad coming from the anti-equality wing of the Party, as those who oppose equal rights always call names and hand out insults, so it is just more trash talk from the 'we are Sanctified and you are not' faith based fools. All they do is drool 'stupid, homosexauals, vampires, liberals' on and on no matter what. Slander is just an article of 'faith' to that set of people, so the namecalling and nonsense out of those who can not even see others as equal humans has little impact.
No human is stupider than one who buys into a bigoted belife that their own 'type' is superior to others. That is as stupid as humans get.

[Deep13]

44. Bush god whatever the fuck he wanted even with a Senate minority.

Laws are made by twisting arms, cutting deals and knowing where the bodies are buried.

[Recursion]

64. A lot of Bush's initiatives went nowhere in Congress

The politics of the Iraq war and the tax cuts were much different than the politics of the last 4 or 5 years of his administration (basically, everything after Iraq started).

What did he accomplish? NCLB and Medicare Part D -- you'll notice, these were both moves to co-opt Democratic issues (think of Medicare Part D as W's "Welfare Reform" moment). Social Security reform was DOA, and immigration reform wasn't just DOA, it cost him dearly in his own party.

Bush was not as capable of getting things through Congress as DUers seem to think.

[druidity33]

88. ah, but Executive Orders,

staffing every Department with burrowers, filling the courts with radicals, recess appointments galore, strong arming his party to bloc-vote, etc. Bush was very effective at getting his way... even with Republican minorities. How many times did Dems cross the aisle for a vote when Bush was Pres? How many times have the Rethugs crossed that aisle with Obama?

Republicans won't compromise. They've said so. We need to counter that somehow. I don't think capitulation is in order. We've tried it and it doesn't work.

:shrug:

[Recursion]

102. Obama has used EOs too

How many times did Dems cross the aisle for a vote when Bush was Pres?

Four times:
Tax cuts (that's always a way to get people to cross the aisle; Obama will do it on the extension of the Bush tax cuts)
NCLB (Ted Kennedy told them to)
Immigration reform (but not enough to overcome Republican opposition)
Medicare Part D

That is, two bills more or less expanding government, one tax cut, and a bill that essentially turned his own party against him.

[jeff47]

45. Do people like you who make this critique have no idea how politics works?

It's not what you actually deliver. Sure, you need some accomplishments. But you also have to make it appear you're trying to deliver what you can not get through Congress.

The "just right" narrative for the stimulus bill is the primary reason we lost so much. First, it made it impossible to come back for more money when the first stimulus bill proved ineffective. Second, the right could accurately claim "we gave you what you wanted and the economy is still crappy. Stimulus didn't work!".

Could the initial stimulus bill have been larger? Nope. But characterize it as a "good first step" and you open the door for additional, smaller bills later. In addition, it inoculates yourself against the "stimulus didn't work" argument.

THAT is what the critique is about - Not that we expected ponies to magically appear. But competent legislative and media strategy.

[GeorgeGist]

46. Do people seriously have no idea that lackluster leadership ...

is a bane to progress.

[phleshdef]

47. More throwing around of the word leadership. Its like a tea bagger throwing around "socialism".

You throw it around, but you can't give any specifics on what you mean by that. Yelling "leadership" is a worthless argument.

[Recursion]

67. "Spine!" "Fight!"

Don't you know that legislation passes based solely on how much politicians are "willing to fight"? That's why they have a giant cage inside the Senate chamber.

[Milo_Bloom]

79. It means having a basic set of principles and standing up for them.

When your basic principles become a moving target, people lose faith in you.

When, "I believe health care is a right" and "I will not sign a bill without a public option" becomes, "well.. I guess if I can't do anything else, I will at least do something and call it a great accomplishment", why would people continue to believe in your rhetoric?

When "I will eliminate the bush tax cuts for the top earners because the tax cuts were reckless and hurting our economy" (not direct quote, but meaning extrapolated) becomes, "Well... I am open to compromise".. who is going to take you seriously?

You are FAR better off to try and then fail based on a clearly defined and articulated set of principles than to compromise away what are supposed to be the things you hold dear.

[phleshdef]

89. No, you are not better off to try and fail. Thats fairy tale, afterschool special bullshit.

Real leaders who face opposition among those they lead have to compromise in order to get anything at all done. Its real easy for you to sit around and talk about holding your principles up when you aren't charged with pushing an agenda forward while dealing with the realities of democracy. Most people, especially in this country, don't want stubborn chest beating, regardless of how justified that stubborn chest beating is, if it produces no results. Trying is not a result, but failing definately is.

[Milo_Bloom]

91. It's also reality.

You are also easily confusing not compromising core principles with not compromising at all. These are two completely separate things.

How many beatings do you have to take at the polls to realize that people aren't going to show up and vote for equivocating and triangulating?

Reality. There is more of US than there is of THEM.

When you break down the core principles of both parties, consistently majorities side with OUR core principles.

However, when our leaders can't stick to their core principles, why would anyone show up and vote for him, when they are going to lose what they really care about anyway?


MOST people want the bush tax cuts for the wealthy to end: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016602-503544.html

Did we even bring it up for a vote? Nope. We could have tried to pass a tax package and FORCE the republicans to vote AGAINST a tax cut for the middle class in order to keep something that MOST PEOPLE wanted gone anyway.

Thank God FDR threatened to stack the court when he was faced with opposition, rather than compromise all of his core principles away.. although the court stacking plan failed, the legislation suddenly became "constitutional".

[phleshdef]

105. FDR was accused of compromising on principles as well.

And I don't believe there is anyway an FDR could do today what he did then, not in this political environment, not with this much media scrutiny.

I think it depends on what your core principles actually are. My number 1 core principle is that government should be proactive for positive causes. Obama has, for the most part, not violated my core principle. I value things like the possibility of single payer healthcare, ability to unionize and all that other good stuff that most of us agree one. Where I differ is I do not treat those items as if they were part of some religion and that to accept anything that stands in the way of those things as somehow being blasphemous to the allmighty progressive core principles. Thats how a lot of people on both sides treat their ideology. Obama isn't one of those people. And neither am I.

[Milo_Bloom]

107. In that sense, Obama has greated violated the core principle.

If that is your core principle, it is in direct conflict with the mandating of individuals to contract with private corporations, who then control their access to health care.

Of course that is unless you twist your core principle so much that anything can be said to be "proactive for positive causes". Heck with that much room, once could consider "seperate but equal" proactive for positive cause because it was better than "you get nothing".

[Zenlitened]

150. Pres. Obama offers these specifics on the topic of leadership:

...Obama said in an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes’’ that he “stopped paying attention’’ to the leadership style he displayed during his run for the presidency.

Obama also said he recognizes now that "leadership is not just legislation," and that "it’s a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand."

“And I think that . . . we haven’t always been successful at that," he said. "And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine closely as I go forward."

Link:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/11/06/obama_says_he_failed_in_pushing_case_on_economy

[Divernan]

48. OP -you're the one who doesn't understand and oversimplifies.

"In a nutshell, you have committees that come up with the initial makings of legislation."

NOT AT ALL! You reveal yourself to be the one who is without, in your language, a "goddamm clue".

Legislation is drafted in the form of a bill.

Who drafts it? You claim the committees "come up with" (can you get any vaguer?) the legislation.

Now try to follow this. Special interest groups come up with legislation. I worked in the legislature for 10 years, and when the lobbyists came in with their checks in one hand, they typically had pre-drafted legislation in the other hand.

Special interest groups either turned bills over to their lobbyists to pass on to bought and paid for legislators, or directly to a particular House or Senate member who was already in their pocket. Said INDIVIDUAL member submits the lobbyist's language to be drafted into a bill with the Member's name on it as prime sponsor, solicits co-sponsors and submits it to his/her particular chamber - either House or Senate, where it goes to the office of the LEADERSHIP of the majority party, NOT TO A COMMITTEE.

Leadership decides to which committee to assign it. There is almost always a choice of committees, because legislation usually touches on more than one area. Once leadership assigns the bill to a specific committee, the Chairman of the committee has SOLE discretion on whether or not to call the bill up for consideration (this is NOT the same as calling it up for a final committee vote.)If leadership wants to bury the legislation, leadership makes sure that the Committee Chairman is on board to NOT call the bill up. Every session, thousands of bills are submitted and never see the light of day in front of any committee. For the majority of them it is a simple matter of lack of time. Committees do not have the time to consider all bills. That's where the lobbyists' contributions to party leadership and chairmen buys consideration. At the end of the respective chamber's legislative session, the bill dies.

Once a bill has been submitted to the FIRST committee, the Chairman may further delay matters by assigning it to a sub-committee, which in turn can delay matters by setting up hearings, either in Washington or around the county. If it finally gets called up before the full Committee (at which point it may be amended) and gets voted out of committee, it can then be assigned to a second or even third committee. Lather-rinse-repeat. Throughout this lengthy process, lobbyists paid by relevant Big Interests are handing out donations left, right and sidewise to grease the bill's progress. You see, the more committees and subcommittees get their greedy paws on a bill, the more members can get nice fat campaign donations from the special interests involved.

Obama failed to use the bully pulpit, to call the GOP's bluff re filibusters, to use his power and that of his administrative agencies to regulate, enforce and even test the edges of enforcement power - Bush/Cheney showed how that was done.
He could have pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, held the Israelis' feet to the fire re the Palestinian issue and done a large number of other things in foreign policy which he failed to do. He was not forced by the House or Senate to cave into Wall Street and Big Banking.

"Negotiating" with the GOP is about as likely to succeed as negotiating with a black widow spider, a tarantula, a coiled rattlesnake, or a rabid dog.

[kayob1]

56. Thanks for posting

Interesting read.

[brentspeak]

93. Thanks for the informative post. Please make it its own thread here on GD-P

[LarryNM]

116. Very Good Post on the Reality of Governing

Please make it a separate thread.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[ProudDad]

125. And another source of legislation has been the White House... (n/t)

[soryang]

145. Thanks for your post

I think most people can't deal with the truth. Not only were Democrats not forced to cave to the big Wall Street interests, it is just the opposite. That is their constituency, that is who they serve. Most of them are bought and paid for. Why this debate goes on where people try to characterize corruption as something other than what it is, defies belief.

[elleng]

49. THANKS for saying all this.

Our approach: 'until 2012 is to expose the Republicans for dragging their feet or for not being able to govern.'

[Pacifist Patriot]

50. Nothing that watching a few seasons of "West Wing" won't cure.

In all seriousness, I agree with you. Most people have no clue what goes on behind the scenes as well as understanding the process.

[JamesA1102]

51. So True.

Michael Moore was on last night talking about how Obama needs to ram votes through the Senate but the President has no power to do that. Moore also started with the tired make them filabuster line but that is not how the Senate works any more.

[jgraz]

52. We'd rather he pre-compromise, cut deals with corporations and lose the House.

Oh wait... he already did that. :banghead:

[harun]

54. He can do what B*sh did to get the Iraq War authorization.

[Jakes Progress]

55. Criminey. Just how new to politics

are you?

[Zenlitened]

152. Stunning, isn't it?

"Everything I Know About Politics, I Learned By Watching One Episode of Schoolhouse Rock."

:wow: :crazy: :eyes:

[sulphurdunn]

57. My Ass

No one ever said that Obama had to win, only that he was expected to fight. He never fought, and so he lost anyway. He sold out so he could get some lousy legislation past the Blue Dogs and the Republicans whom he permitted to control his agenda so as not to piss off his corporate masters. On the other hand he's been ferocious in kicking the asses of liberals for pointing this out to him.

[Recursion]

70. Again the "fight". What do you mean?

Pounding the lectern more in his speeches?

[sulphurdunn]

138. Fight means

you don't start by asking for half of what you say you want so you can negotiate down to an eight and then claim it was the best deal you could get.

[truedelphi]

71. + my household. n/t

[Recursion]

58. In so many words, yes. NT

[Milo_Bloom]

59. He needed to take a stand based on principles.

[Recursion]

61. What actual concrete form would this "stand" take?

I always have the same question when I see the word "fight", too.

[Milo_Bloom]

65. You don't sign legislation that doesn't conform to your basic principles

For example. He "supposedly" believed that health care was a basic RIGHT. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/07/obama-health-care-should_n_132831.html)

He CLAIMED several times that legislation without a public option was not acceptable. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/obama-demands-the-bill-i-sign-must-include-public-option.php)

This was a principled stand, based on solid principles. One which 77% of the public agreed with. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html)

The concrete form is when the blue dogs and gop refuse to give you a bill with the public option in it... you VETO it and call them out for their failures to adhere to the basic principles upon which your beliefs are based.

You make the 2010 elections ABOUT including the public option. You make the elections ABOUT the principles you are standing for.

What you don't do is pass any crappy legislation you can just so you can claim victory.. because your "victory" becomes your biggest failure and the reason you lose.

[Recursion]

75. Thank you; that's something concrete

I think it would be pretty silly to veto legislation he twisted Congress's arm to pass after Brown won, but ok.

[Milo_Bloom]

76. You mean the crappy legislation the people didn't want?

that was the problem. he twisted congresses arm to pass something people didn't want AND something that didn't match with his principles/promises from the election. They did it just to get something passed.

[Recursion]

78. Yes, an inch isn't a mile but it beats nothing

And I'm absolutely done listening to drivel about how it was a step backwards, so don't waste bandwidth.

[Milo_Bloom]

80. Actually, nothing was far better than what we got.

[brentspeak]

97. As Tuesday proved, passing the crappy legislation DID turn out to be worse than nothing

[Recursion]

100. You sure? Check "No" votes on health care reform vs. defeated Democrats

It might surprise you. Like it or not, this election was not decided by a bunch of people who think HCR "didn't go far enough".

[FrenchieCat]

66. Yes they do. They just don't care. Since they can't do anything much about

the limitations of government, simply blaming the president and other Democrats
is all they have.

[DevonRex]

73. Some people here believe that liberals could win where blue dogs couldn't

in solidly Republican territory. After seeing that, absolutely nothing will surprise me again.

[Recursion]

74. Yeah, it's like a reverse Tea Party

Like somebody to the left of Ike Skelton or Gene Taylor was somehow going to win that district.

[DevonRex]

77. At first my mouth just dropped open when I read some of those

threads. Then I got sad. And today I'm thinking of all the time I've spent debating here without realizing I might as well have been talking to my cat.

[niceypoo]

104. If it were that solidly republican, they would not have been elected

Ask Dr Dean (50 state strategy)

[ProudDad]

124. There's are VERY FEW places that are "solidly republican territory"

For instance in my district there are more "independents" than Republicans OR Democrats...

"Independents" are crying out for someone to vote for who isn't parroting either party's bullshit but rather have a Populist, Humanist, Progressive message and critique and aren't ashamed to voice it.

"Liberals" can't win because they have few real values and no spine...

But truth telling Progressives can!

[WI_DEM]

85. Yes, there are lots of people who don't understand how things are done in congress

and think that a magic wane will make it all happen.

[ProudDad]

127. "Yes, there are lots of people who don't understand how things are done in congress"

and one of those people is the OP...

[lumberjack_jeff]

87. "They have a right to build a mosque, but I'm not saying it's a good idea"

There are many failures of this administration that have nothing to do with inept stewardship of policy goals through a friendly congress.

He has a way of promoting unpopular and irrelevant ideas in a milquetoast, tepid, compromising and half-assed way.

[bvar22]

92. None of that seemed to bother the Bush administration.

They were able to get everything they wanted with much smaller majorities.
Guess they didn't read your OP.

"Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations."

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Recursion]

94. They weren't *REMOTELY* able to get everything they wanted

Bush was better at controlling his own party, yes. That's why he could force them to support NCLB and Medicare Part D despite those largely being co-opted Democratic issues (see Clinton, WJ and Reform, Welfare for our version of that).

But Bush didn't really accomplish any of the Republican agenda once Iraq went bad. Social Security was untouched (Medicare was in fact expanded; see above). His only other attempt at ambitious legislation was immigration reform, which his own party killed.

Bush spent pretty much everything he had on Iraq and his tax cuts; everything after that required winning over Democratic support, or went nowhere.

[ProudDad]

128. Clinton was the best republican money could buy!

"NCLB and Medicare Part D despite those largely being co-opted Democratic issues (see Clinton, WJ and Reform, Welfare for our version of that)."

And those were NOT Democratic issues...

At least NOT any Democratic party that existed after 1898 and before 1968...

But, I guess you're right, in the new devolved, degraded democratic party, dismantling public education and selling out to Big PhRMA are democrat values...alas...

[Jennicut]

120. The Repub party is also not the Dem party.

Of course they are easier to control, they had Cheney sitting in on them most of the time. Back room deals are easy for Repubs, they thrive on it.

[brentspeak]

95. Sorry, but you failed to convince me

You did, however, convince me that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[HughMoran]

96. I've thought that a dozen times today

What is wrong with people? I thought Democrats were educated?

[Recursion]

99. Well, DU is hardly a representative sample of our party

For better and for worse.

[ZombieHorde]

101. We need more School House Rock!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

[jefferson_dem]

106. Meh...

[denimgirly]

108. Republicans are poised to show You How to get things Passed -- even with Obama as Prez.

[Recursion]

113. Republicans are poised to launch showboating bills that get nowhere in the Senate

Ultimately we tend to do ok under divided government, though.

[ProudDad]

129. Well, war and selling out to corporate interests do well under divided government...

just as they did in the last 2 years of one party rule... :eyes:

Can we see a trend here?

[denimgirly]

109. Campaign Finance Reform was KEY -- Not Doing says He Likes the System as it is Or No Gutz

Without first attacking the real cancer to all this: Reforming the Campgian Finances it pretty much made his accomplishments thus far very weak sauce...every thing has been massive compromises and giveaways which should not have been if he had focused on reforming congress first.

But his hiring Geinter and Summers and cutting massive deals for Health Insurers and removing the Public Option says he preferred the system they way it is.

People are should rightfully be upset at Obama for abandoning his base -- he willfully did.

[BlueJac]

110. Quit Whining!

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[mkultra]

114. yes, i never knew so many liberals where this uninformed.

[zulchzulu]

117. Thanks to all pro and con on this issue n/t

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[ProudDad]

121. So how did Johnson get the wildly unpopular, socialist Medicare through, eh?

Are you even halfway interested in the potential power of a pResident who cares to get legislation passed or are you simply too simplistic or superficial to understand it?

[Recursion]

136. By having a lot more progressives in Congress than Obama did

Including some Republicans.

[ProudDad]

123. It appears that the real problem is that the base of the USAmerikan Empire is fascist... (n/t)

[Recursion]

137. Well, no; misapplying "fascist" is as pointless as their misapplication of "socialist"

Fascists nationalized industries all the time; they loved to do that.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[mix]

126. Obama wants to work with Republicans. He likes Republicans.

We don't need a civic lesson to see that.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

133. Well said. K&R

I need a hug.
:pals:

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

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

[chervilant]

135. BTW

"Do the people who are whining about Obama have no idea how laws get passed?"

[LawnLover]

139. +1000

Thank you. I guess people around here are convinced that all Obama has to do is talk tough and snap his fingers to get things done. It's a pitiful display of ignorance.

[PBass]

141. If Obama would have used the "bully pulpit" more, there's

simply no evidence to indicate we would have ended up with better legislation than what we've got. The House and Senate aren't going to write and pass more liberal legislation, just because the president is waving his arms and shouting. SOMETHING is better than NOTHING (oh, the things I learned in kindergarten).

Also, a president who "fought harder" would have rallied the base more... but very likely alienated just as many squishy independents. You need a big tent to win, not just the base.

Obama doesn't have a magic wand, no matter how loudly people think he should have shouted. You wanna be mad, be mad at the Republicans who watered down legislation in Committee, and then turned around and voted against those bills when they reached the floor.

[TheKentuckian]

146. Sounds nice but it is clearly false. TeaPubliKlans shrink their ideological base

regularly and continue to win.

It is a two party system, realistically the other party will piss folks off and they are forced to select the other option. The big tent crap is a bogus "perpetual majority" scheme.

Almost the entire Republican caucus is to the right of the 96 extremist class.

[chervilant]

142. hmm...

I find your post a disheartening example of the increasingly common condescending adjuration for all Democrats to unconditionally support Mr. Obama.

First of all, it's not just his legislative obstacles about which I am concerned.

Second, I would remind you and all those who dismiss Obama's dem detractors with 'you just don't understand how legislation gets passed' of the timeless words of the inimitable Teddy Roosevelt (and, it matters not that he was a Republican):

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

[RBInMaine]

144. I've been saying the same thing for years on this forum. THANKS.

[mikeburetta]

147. legaslation

Yes it takes votes! Understanding process counts if we want change rather than noise. I dont remember who said it but an addage to remember is ..its easy to throw molotov cocktails if your in opposion party status but if your in power its hard to govern that way!
The repubs are in that status of opposition still they can block but dont have the senate or presidency that is as i count it only one of three of the law making branches. So dems put on the fire proof jackets the heat will be on.

[Zenlitened]

151. Pres. Obama seems to think there is more to it than what you've described.

...Obama said in an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes’’ that he “stopped paying attention’’ to the leadership style he displayed during his run for the presidency.

Obama also said he recognizes now that "leadership is not just legislation," and that "it’s a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand."

“And I think that . . . we haven’t always been successful at that," he said. "And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine closely as I go forward."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/11/06/obama_says_he_failed_in_pushing_case_on_economy

[Skittles]

153. here's a clue

sucking up to repukes garners NO VOTES

[mikekohr]

154. I'm an Elected Official, Zulchzulu knows what he is talking about

I sit on the Bureau County Board of Supervisors and am the Township Clerk in Selby Township. Our Township is solid Democrat with a Road Commissioner that ran as an independant because he knew that if he ran as a Republican (which he is) he would be at a big disadvantage in our township.
The Bureau County Board has been contolled, without exception since 1850, by the Republican Party. I can state I have experience as a member of a governmental body both as a member of the majority party and of that of the minority party. Patience is required in both circumstances. Given the choice I'd rather be in the majority. As maddingly slow as things may progress when in the majority it becomes glacial when in the minority.

The lead poster in this thread knows what he is talking about. Trust me on this.

mike kohr
Bureau County Democrats (IL)
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com