You DO realize that no matter WHO is president, they can't get anything done unless 60 Senators are

[jenmito]

willing to go along with whatever he wants to pass, don't you? If there were 60 Obamas in the Senate and 218 in the House, and his agenda STILL didn't get passed as he would've liked, THEN you could blame him. But since that's NOT the case, Obama is not the one to blame when things don't get signed into law that he promised.

[librechik]

1. what is presidential leadership for, then?

just to keep in reserve in case it's needed? Obama is exceedingly stingy with the "leadership" and very generous with the "let's all get along"--that doesn't work when you are surrounded by sharks, as he is. I want me some strong leadership and I'm just not seeing it.

[phleshdef]

4. The whole leadership meme is a vague bunch of nothing. The President can beat his chest till...

...the friggin cows come home, leave and then come home again. It won't change a damn thing if the Senate rules prevent the right bill from being put on his desk.

[Joe Bacon]

76. Funny Bush didn't need 60 votes for the Pill Bill

Sure is amazing that when the Republicans were in power, they only needed 51 to get what President Asshole wanted. And the Democratic leadership always laid down and died for them.

[Clio the Leo]

5. You realize we're sitting here debating whether or not...

.... Congress will pass its SECOND major health care bill this year in time Christmas dont you? In month 11. ..... Bills that were 60 years or more in the making. Bills capable of exacting so much change to the health insurance industry that the corporate shill GOP is doing everything in their power to stop it?

The argument is absurd.

[dflprincess]

65. Insurance for more is a long way from health care for all

If Congress passes and Obama signs this scam into law the Republicans are the ones who will win big when the public figures out how the Democrats screwed them. The 'Pukes will be able claim they never supported the con job - and no one will remember they don't supoort any reform.

[BeyondGeography]

9. HCR has gotten this far because of his leadership

Not that you would ever admit it.

[tblue]

16. This bill? Please. That's an insult.

The mandates, the weak if any po, the trigger (probably), the delayed start, the reimportation roadblocks. I wouldn't brag about those things. Yippee. Yay. We got health (not really) care (if we pay more) reform (industry boon).

[BeyondGeography]

25. And I'm sure ole tblue would have us knocking at the door of single payer by now

Piss off.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. I don't need a fucking leader.

I want a chief executive who is a competent administrator.

There is a name for people who depend on leaders.

Followers.

[tblue]

18. Well, we've probably got that.

Yeah, I think there's an argument to be made for that.

[librechik]

20. you say that like it's a bad thing--not in all cases

we need a mass movement to get change. You can't build that with competent administrators. As nice as it would be to have them. But anybody who hires Geithner to solve the financial crisis is the opposite of competent, IMO.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. True, but that is a different argument. nt

[snake in the grass]

41. Because so many require leadership...

...it stands to reason that a strong leader would be desirable. Don't fool yourself, not everyone is a leader.

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. I've never seen a man on a white horse who wasn't more concerned with the horse

than with the people sweeping up behind it.

Dependence on a 'leader' is abdication of responsibility for self-governance. Democracies do not depend on leaders. Fascist states do.

[snake in the grass]

46. It's not as simple as you put it.

Whether you like it or not, most of us are followers at some point or another; some more than others, to be sure, but not one of us is 100% "rugged individual". With proper leadership, people can be galvanized to effect change. Obama got many involved in politics in 2008, because he was charismatic enough to convince them that they could make a difference. That was leadership.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. In a democracy, the PEOPLE lead - and they elect someone to

represent THEIR interests. If the elected person does not represent their interests, we dump him for someone who will.

I will ALWAYS fight idiots who look for someone to 'save us'.

there is a fundamental difference between choosing someone to take the lead in a mutual enterprise, and demanding a leader to solve our problems. The first gives us George Washington - the second gives us Adolf Hitler.

Leadership is WAY overrated.

[snake in the grass]

53. You speak from the ideal and not...

...from the reality. It would be great if everyone, from coal miner to physicist, would be completely informed and involved in the political process, who lived in perfect harmony of body, mind, and environment, and even played a classical instrument at home in their spare time. Homo sapiens aren't made that way, though.

[treestar]

49. Then you are not one of the ones going "cheerleader" or "obamabot"

or all those other insults to anyone who says they are going to trust the President? Because he is the "leader?"

[snake in the grass]

56. I prefer not to use those terms.

While I may disagree with some of the more zealous Obama supporters, I don't see them as the enemy.

[ElboRuum]

22. I concur that this is an overused meme.

The President cannot force legislators into anything that it is not already prepared to do except through persuasion, and with this lot in the legislature, such is a difficult to impossible task. It has become very clear what this legislature wants, and that is 'which was before shall remain'.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[CTLawGuy]

71. nice constructive criticism

NT

[Clio the Leo]

2. Unless Dick Cheney is threatening to kill them inside his personal senate office.

lol and that is NOT the Change I Believe in.

[Beetwasher]

3. Exactly, You Think Cheney Wasn't Reminding Senators And Congresspeople About

Paul Wellstone anytime he had a chance?

[Clio the Leo]

6. ouch. NT

[rudy23]

7. Why wasn't it true for Republicans?

I have some ideas, and I don't believe it's Obama's fault---but I'd like to hear your reasoning.

[FormerDittoHead]

13. Exactly. 60 votes is only required for Democrats. Next. n/t

[jenmito]

17. Because Repubs. march in lock-step. n/t

[Andy823]

19. Well...

It seems like the republican leaders during the time they had control, and Bush was president, were much better at making sure that republicans voted the way the leadership wanted them to vote, or they lost positions, money for their next election, or any other kind of threats that would force them to vote the way their leaders wanted them to vote. Republicans used every means they could to get what they wanted pushed through, and I think the democrats could do the same if the leaders had a mind to do so.

The only think I see with that the president can do is be very forceful with the leaders in the party as to what he wants, the rest is up to the leaders in the senate and the house.

[treestar]

51. Those Republicans did not need to be forced

No one needed to make sure of anything. Republicans march in lockstep. Bush didn't have to "lead" when they didn't disagree with them, or if they did, they did what he wanted anyway.

That is what we don't have.

[ElboRuum]

24. Because George and R legislators wanted the same things.

You don't need leadership when everyone is already marching in the same direction.

[ieoeja]

30. It was true for Republicans.

They needed 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done. But there were probably more than 60 Conservative Senators throughout most of W's presidency which made it simple for him.

Additionally, Liberals are more accepting of the will of the people. When the voters put the Republican party in charge, Liberals will only try to block the most odious measures since the people have made their will known by electing those Republicans.

On the flip side, according to Conservative ideology what they believe is right. All the time. Nothing else matters. The whole point to being a Conservative is that you believe what was right is, and will always be, right. No progress. No change. Right is right is right is right. And so it is their duty to fight against any progress whatsoever. For any progress must, by definition, be wrong.

[treestar]

50. WEll so many DUers like to brag they refuse to march in lock step

The Democrats are not as monolithic as the Republicans. And the far left dissents for the sake of dissent.

[polichick]

62. Republicans don't hesitate to use their power...

This prez and the Dem leadership could steamroll assholes like Lieberman - if they wanted to. But, for some reason (your choice), they don't.

[CTLawGuy]

73. here's a good reason

I suppose he could threaten them and try to play the tough guy, but if any of them switch parties and become Republicans in response, you can say goodbye to the entirety of Obama's legislative agenda until 2011, at least. So I don't blame him for treading carefully.

[liberalpragmatist]

67. Because tax cuts are a free lunch

As far as politicians are concerned. And that's pretty much the entirety of the Republican legislative agenda.

Other things - immigration reform, for instance - didn't get passed. Neither did social security "privatization" (though that was a case where the creakiness of Congress was to our - and the nation's - benefit.

[CTLawGuy]

72. because we didn't filibuster everything

as a matter of course.

[tblue]

8. Okay then. Game over. We're sunk.

Why even have a "Washington"? Government's broken.

I would never blame Obama for what Congress does. I hold him accountable for what he does and does not do, period.

[jenmito]

23. We ARE sunk with conservadems lie Nelson, Lincoln, etc.

Obama has accomplished more in less than his first year than most other presidents. But that's only because he had enough Dems. who'd go along with him.

We have a "Washington" to set the desired agenda. Without a Dem. president, we most likely wouldn't have embryonic stem-cell research, equal pay for women, tax cuts for the middle class, etc. But he can only go as far as the Congress will allow him.

[freddie mertz]

29. And who handed such a prominent role to the Senate in making hCR legislation?

Who embraced and praised Baucus for his miserable failures?

He has no power over them because they do not fear him.

They know he will backpedal.

That's how it looks to me anyway.

[jenmito]

38. He didn't hand anything off. He was involved the entire time.

He HAD to deal with those he knew would be the most trouble for him to get ANYTHING passed.

He has gotten more passed in his first 10 months than most presidents.

If they don't fear him, it's because they fear their constituents and their special interests.

[freddie mertz]

59. You can't have it both ways, sorry.

Decide if he has any influence or not, theoretical and/or actual, then we can discuss.

[jenmito]

63. I'm not. He can say what he wants Congress to pass, he can talk to those

who he thinks he can influence, and then it's up to those in Congress to do what they want despite Obama's wishes.

[freddie mertz]

77. Right. So, in my opinion (and that of many others), the pres began to lose control

When he began back-pedaling on major components (like the public option) too early in the process.

He handed too much authority to that ridiculous "gang of six," still believing his own rhetoric on bi-partisanship when it was clear to anyone with eyes and ears that this was not going to work.

Then he either stood back or gave the green-light for the ridiculous Stupak provision, undermining the House bill.

Now, according to reports, he is encouraging, through the office of Rahm the Betrayer, a quick cave in the the obstructions of Traitor Joe Lieberman.

In each case, I think he has shown either a distinct lack of spine or an equally vexing disinterest in the details of the legislation, or both.

Thoughts?

[tblue]

35. Yep. We, and Obama, are at their mercy.

All any of us can do is write/call them then hope and pray that they will see the light, or try to get them voted out of office next time they are on the ballot, in a year or 3 or 5. Obama is maxed out, as you say. Done everything in his power and then some. We can't expect anything more of the poor man. He's not a magician! Bless his heart for being president at this time when there just is not quite enough of a majority of Democrats in Congress. It's tough but then, what could we expect? How can anyone possibly criticize him? Him?! After the mess Bush left him? What is wrong with us? I'm learning to lower my expectations of this presidency and just let the president do his thing, because all I really want is for Obama to be reelected. That is my bottom line. He's truly good enough as is. No complaints! None.

[LastNaturalist]

10. Great Post! Senators concerned about their own job security are to blame.

I cut Ben Nelson a LITTLE slack, since he is the one Senate Dem from the reddest of states. But Lincoln, Liebermanasshole, Carper, Pryor, Conrad, Bayh - for SHAME.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

11. then by that reasoning, I guess Bush is not to blame

in the later years of his presidency - seeing as there was a democratic majority.

Clearly, that reasoning is incorrect. You're giving his "lack of power" too much credit for the stagnation in Washington. Obama sets policy and he selects the heads of groups that produce real world results. I have a feeling if Obama turned up the heat and spotlight on obstructionists in D.C. ... the people would do thier part to rinse out those road blocks.

[LastNaturalist]

28. Nope, you see our party is the BIIIIIIG TEEEENT.

Therefore we have liberals, centrists, and conservatives. So when some centrist and conservative Democrats disagree with the President, it means that the President is governing from the LEFT, though many on here don't believe it. And by the way, even though some like Bayh drive me nuts, the more centrists we have, the less the GOP has. Thereby making their party more and more obsolete. So let's stay the BIG TENT, even if it sucks sometimes.

[rudy23]

37. What happens when some in the big tent are directly opposed to those who built the tent?

The DLC is attacking the people already in the tent---do we let them in, too? Where do the Progressives who the DLC kicked out of the tent go?

[NJmaverick]

14. What has changed is that the Republicans have united in a belief of party before nation

and will not vote for any legislation, no matter how good, that is proposed by the Democrats.

[vi5]

15. We can be upset at half hearted leadership...

..which I think is ultimately, no matter what flowery language people use on here, where most of the negative perceptions and commentary are coming from.

If Obama had done a few minor things including but not limited to:

1) Being less concilliatory and forgiving of Lieberman, if not out in public than behind closed doors where he made Reid be the bad guy, then Joe would know there were costs for his obstructiveness. As it is, he knows there isn't and knows that there is only upside and no downside for him doing what he does. He gets to take advantage of the democratic majority but not have to actually do any of the work.

2) Signalling more focus on "bipartisanship" than on an effective bill.

3) Not laying out what he would and would not veto if it was or wasn't included in the bill. He did with healthcare and a few other things, what he did with campaigning. Which was be just vague enough that people could see what they wanted to see and hear what they wanted to hear in his words just enough to think that he agreed with them, and just enough to think "Oh, he won't do this or that."

4) Not including more liberal economic voices in his cabinet or anywhere on point for healthcare. By completely shutting out credible, reasonable liberals on economics and healthcare like Krugman or Howard Dean, he essentially shut out any leading progressive voices on the issues. So even if it's not 100% true when you have people like Summers, Geithner, etc. out in front on this stuff and no counter balance then you'll have to understand that people in "the base" will feel shut out and that their interests are being paid merely lip service.

[Andy823]

21. Yep.

What needs to be done is to vote out some of those who are not working for the people, but instead are doing the will of their corporate masters. If they were replaced with "real" democrats who would work for the the people, then maybe the rest of them would get the idea that we are sick and tired of what they are doing, and if they don't change, they also will get the boot!

[freddie mertz]

27. Then he should never get any credit for anything either.

According to this endlessly repeated but never convincing argument, the president is little more than figurehead, without any ability whatsoever to influence legislation.

But in this case, he is the democratically elected "leader" of the party.

He holds strong majorities, including the "magic" 60.

And he campaigned quite explicitly on his ability to get things done under THIS system.

His failure to lead as effectively as we all hoped is distressing, and he has lots of folks to share the blame WITH, but he cannot be exonerated completely, unless we also agree to strip him of all credit for what little good HAS gotten done.

[Clio the Leo]

33. What do 60 Senators have to do with renegotiating an arms deal with Russia? NT

[freddie mertz]

60. Ratification.

[Clio the Leo]

64. What do they have to do with BEGINNING the process? NT

[freddie mertz]

75. Pres needs to have at least some Senate support to make plausible deals

This is what is hobbling him right now viz Copenhagen.

[treestar]

55. Black and white reasoning

[MNDemNY]

31. He IS to blame when he sits on his fucking hands.

[Kahuna]

40. You know what he's sitting on, how? Are you in the room with him?

[jenmito]

43. That poster will never support Obama nor give him credit for anything. n/t

[MNDemNY]

45. YOU LIE !!

:+ :rofl:

[KansasVoter]

32. I was one who thought he would fight harder. Kick some ass if needed.

[KrR]

48. How would you get Lieberman to vote for the PO?

He is obviously just trying to be disagreeable... so what can be done?

[jobycom]

34. That's not the whole picture. Every leader has to deal with that.

A good leader gets things done. He compromises, he buys votes by giving legislators other things they want, he works the legislators by applying public pressure and by threatening them with party retaliation (loss of campaign funds, non-support in their next election, loss of pet projects), and he even plays on their consciences.

LBJ got Civil Rights passed even though the Dems in the South who voted for it knew it would cost them the South for a generation (LBJ said as much). Clinton got his economic stimulus and tax bill passed even though some of the legislators who voted for it knew they would lose their seat for voting for it. That's what a leader does. A leader who fails to do that damn sure should be judged by his failures.

No leader gets everything they want, but the effective ones get a lot more done without having the majority of Congress on their side.

That's why experience is so important. We keep wanting to elect pristine presidents who have never dealt with the corrupt corporations, lobbyists, and legislators who screw everything up, but if they haven't dealt with this people they don't know how to deal with them, and never get anything done. They are more easily manipulated by the bad guys because they haven't dealt with them before.

Obama's smart, he'll learn. I'm sure he already knows it in theory, and he's got others explaining it to him. But he's not helped by people saying "Oh, it's okay, whatever he does is fine." He needs pressure. If you tell your kid that Ds are fine, that's what they'll settle for. Make him shoot for As.

[NYC_SKP]

36. Obama could be the reincarnation of Paul Wellstone and he'd still be thrashed here.

I don't even try because a very small number are determined to complain under the guise of "holding him accountable".

It's a small number, mind you, not by any means every member who is critical.

Thanks for the post, jenmito.

Recommended back to "zero". :eyes:

[dflprincess]

66. Paul Wellstone would never have sold us out to the insurance companies

Unlike Obama, Wellstone remembered who elected him.

[NYC_SKP]

79. He'd still be thrashed here, some would be different thrashers. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

39. The president is supposed to be persuasive

If Obama cannot even persuade his own party then maybe he shouldn't have run.

It's a tough job.

[jenmito]

44. You think maybe he shouldn't have run? Do you think anyone ELSE would've been able

to persuade "Dems." like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, etc.?

[CTLawGuy]

74. Dennis Kucinich,

clearly, because he's so persuasive :eyes:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

81. And your basis for saying no other human being could is???

Obama is a brilliant man with excellent management skills. He seems to be a good man. He does, however, seem to be a not-so-good politician with mediocre leadership skills.

Not everybody is everything.

When someone demonstrates a complete inability to persuade legislators or the public you argue backward from your assumption that such failure must be the best possible outcome because Obama is the best of all possible Presidents.

[treestar]

52. That's kind of considering him to be the Messiah, isn't it?

He is supposed to be able to persuade anyone of anything? Bush was a more effective President because he could? I don't think that. I think the Repukes just agreed with Bush and/or never wanted to undermine him. It was about them, not that Bush was so great at persuading them to things they did not agree with.

[BR_Parkway]

54. I do realize that - and Senator Obama probably did as well when he tossed

his hat in the ring and said "trust me, I'm going to get this done"

[Capn Sunshine]

57. No one understands politics here

At least, none of the moaning concern trolls
So NO, they don't realize this

[depakid]

58. If that's the case- America will be a failed, thrird world state in a matter of a few short years

Rather like California.

[burning rain]

61. The Senate needs to implement a rule of simple majority for cloture.

There is no constitutional right to filibuster; it's just a Senate rule, in my view one we'd be better off without on balance. While lack of a filibuster would mean some retrograde legislation would get through that otherwise might not, the filibuster's historically been deployed far more often against progressive legislation than conservative. The filibuster also encourages a slothful citizenry by making the Senate more or less the place change-making legislation goes to die. With simple majority, the Senate would pass more sweeping legislation, which would encourage a more involved citizenry--and that would be a positive development.

[Blue_Tires]

69. we may as well ditch congress and let all the laws get drafted

by lobbyists...at least the charade will be over...

[CTLawGuy]

70. People don't get it

no other president in HISTORY has had this difficult of a situation in Congress to deal with, and I defy anyone to prove me wrong. It is NOT NORMAL for the opposition party to be in complete lockstep opposition to anything the majority tries to do.

Even LBJ, "Mr. Ram stuff through" (allegedly), couldn't convince large chunks of his own party to support his legislative agenda, but luckily had sympathetic Republicans. Today Rs are kept under such tight control there is almost no hope of getting any of them to turn.

The only reason we are even CONSIDERING health care is because there are 60 Dems in the senate. With 58 or 59 dems, we wouldn't even be bothering to do ANYTHING. That unfortunately gives marginal dems way too much power, because effectively all 60 are needed.

[undeterred]

78. The chimp could do it.

[tekisui]

80. Bullshit. It is a lack of leadership that allows Dems to be our own

enemy.