Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

I agree it is impressive. One can accomplish quite a bit with a significant majority in both the House and Senate

But lets compare.

So, again and given that you will ignore the super-majority that LBJ had versus the obstructionism at unprecedented levels Obama had... what's your point?

 

I think some of your comparisons are weak. For example the Lilly Ledbetter Act will not impact wage/earning discrepancies between the sexes. Very few people will benefit from this legislation.

If you simply count the D's and R's and call it a day...but on the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act (just two examples) LBJ did not have the support of Southern Democrats in his party. He put together a willing coalition of like minded Republicans and Democrats against a very entrenched, organized and motivated coalition fighting against these pieces of legislation. If you folks want to ignore history, the point and applicability to current conditions - I got that. President Obama doesn't need extreme Tea Party elected officials. He should be working on like minded moderates - he is not doing that, has not done it, and has not plans to do it as indicated by his recent speech. I predict another budget funding show down that will threaten the on going operations of government. We all can see it coming, but what does our leader do? He further divides.

 

Ace...name 15+ like minded Republican moderates that Obama can work with in the Senate to add to the 51 Democrats to prevent the obstructionism? Or just name one or two.
--- merged: Jul 26, 2013 at 5:32 PM ---
Or in the House, isnt the blame on Boehner for invoking the Hastert rule and not allowing votes on compromise legislation if the Tea Party types dont support it?

 

No. I also have an analogy. I played football as a young man. My approach to football I modeled from Pete Rose a baseball player. Oh, My God, Ace is comparing football to baseball. Oh, he is so (fill in the blank)... Well, I did it. It worked for me. I know how and why it worked. But to you, the comparison is not comprehensible, so what is the point of trying to explain it. And it another f'ing sports analogy! I would understand if you need some aspirin.

He simply ignores some of the details.

And, I did not know I was in a contest. How do we keep score. Perhaps Redux is just a better person than me, perhaps he is smarter, is there some for of literacy or IQ test to post around here?

The context was his recent hour long speech, did you listen to it? If you actually listen to it, perhaps you would better understand the point. If you did listen to it and wonder why I made a connection to LBJ you could have asked.

But I know it is my fault, I am just so GD difficult.

 

Ace..it is not your fault. But that doesnt change the fact that the make-up of Congress under LBJ v under Obama are vastly different in terms of majority party, ideology, willingness to compromise and build consensus, respect for the institutional processes, etc.

And I recognize that moderate Republicans contributed to the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, but lets not blow it out of proportion. A significant majority of Democrats voted for both.

 

McCain
Murkowski
Collins
Grassley
Alexander

I would even say Boehner is moderate.

On certain issues like immigration reform coalitions could be formed with people like Rubio. Bush formed an alliance with Kennedy to get No Child Left Behind passed. Again, I am not talking about agreeing or disagreeing with certain pieces of legislation - my focus is on governing, managing, leadership, getting shit done.

 

The Senate 'gang of eight" that crafted the compromise immigration reform bill was led by Rubio on the Republican side and he is now running away from his own bill because of the Tea Party pushback as he thinks ahead to 2016. McCain did the same thing in 2008 and opposed his own Kennedy/McCain immigration reform bill.

Boehner may be personally moderate, although I wouldnt go that far, but he cant or wont put any compromise legislation up for a vote without Tea Party support.

You cant get shit done with a partner who is unwilling to compromise and whose goal is to block every attempt at compromise.

 

Of course it is different! Every circumstance is unique, can not be perfectly duplicated. So what!

My proportion is LBJ found, developed and nurtured a willing coalition. It was not easy, not a slam dunk, there was opposition with a strategy - LBJ was not passive. This is not heady, complicated stuff. Your argument with my point is based on the desire to make excuses for President Obama's lack of governing skill. I am being specific, President Obama has skills in many areas, it is obvious what he lacks. it is obvious what is needed.
--- merged: Jul 26, 2013 at 5:57 PM ---

Rubio took a risk, a big one. Did the President have his back? Did anyone on the D side have his back? I would argue he was left hanging. I would argue he was left hanging to diminish his Presidential prospects in 2016. I guarantee he won't take the risk again. I guarantee after others see what happened to Rubio, others won't take a similar risk. A missed opportunity for Obama. In order to get shit done sometimes you have to reach-out and support those who you normally oppose - and deal with 2016 in 2016.

You and I could reach agreement on almost every topic we have ever disagreed on. And I would not compromise any of my core convictions. I disagree, you can get shit done with anyone!

 

I dont have to make excuses for Obama. I just stated the facts regarding the unprecedented number of attempts to block legislation (Senate cloture) and the unprecedented use of parliamentary procedures or House rules (Hastert rule) that makes compromise and consensus building virtually impossible given the usurpation of the Republican party by the extreme right. A scenario that no other recent president faced. Revisionist history wont change these facts.

And I posted his legislative accomplishments that by most objective observers are comparable to LBJs....unless one wants to nitpick for partisan purposes.
--- merged: Jul 26, 2013 at 6:06 PM ---

I think Obama is taking the wise course on immigration and staying above the fray while Congress attempts to craft a compromise. But any Republican, including Rubio, who demonstrates a willingness to compromise with Obama or the Democrats on the issue, will face the wrath of the Tea Party in his/her next election.

 

Almost as frustrating as obstructionist politics is obstructionist political debate. Reading this thread is excruciating.

 

This is true, as long as both parties are willing to compromise something. If a core conviction of party A includes no increase in taxes and a core conviction of party B includes no cuts in spending, how can a compromise be reached unless one or the other party concedes to compromise a core conviction?

You live in a fantasy world, Ace. That, or you expect those with the 'other' core convictions to compromise them while you hang on to yours, which is pretty much the state of American politics right now.

 

Not to distract from One Man's Personal Rhetorical War against The President, but, there are plenty of rational, reasonable ways to have thoughts of discomfort directed at the pres:

Obama Promise To 'Protect Whistleblowers' Just Disappeared From Change.gov | Techdirt

He's been shitty for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with blaming him for how shitty Congress is.

 

or one might criticize obama for various foreign policy matters quite apart from the attempts to undermine the right of asylum, extra-judicial murders and contributions to turning the bloody debacle in syria into a proxy war....

 

I agree that there are many "reasons to have thoughts of discomfort directed at the pres" mostly notably in areas of transparency and national security.

I get the irony of an alleged transparent president scrubbing a five year old temporary site, but the (over)reaction to the deletion of the entire 2008 Obama/Biden transition site, not just the whistle blower protection language, is a bit of a stretch for me and doesnt bother me all that much.

Particularly given that the language in the transition site pretty much reflected what actions Obama has taken since 2008 on whistle blower protection -- passage of the Whistleblower Enhancement Protection Act and the presidential policy directive.
--- merged: Jul 27, 2013 at 2:12 PM ---

Again, no argument here., but least he hasnt perpetrated such massive lies to the American people as LBJ "Gulf of Tonkin" or GW Bush "Iraq WMD".....yet.

 

There is whistle blowing where there is proof of actual wrong doing and nefarious stuff being done, and then there is divulging secrets of capabilities because you don't agree with what Congress and the Supreme Court have ruled legal and necessary. It was just his (and a small minority of Americans) who hold that view and care about it, but now the whole program is less effective and is easier for bad guys to get around. Let alone that half of the same people think that increasing military spending is the only way to protect you from terrorists, and the other half thinks that you don't have to do anything and the bad people in the world will just go away...

And then had the IRS actually been directed by the DNC or the WH administration to target and deny Tea Party groups, that would have been fine whistle blowing, but when it turns out that there wasn't anything other than some people trying to effectively handle the increased load of groups trying to evade taxes by forming 501(c)(4) groups across the spectrum...then it is just someone's agenda.

 

I think it's odd to claim that a website that has been around for five years is temporary. I think the real reason they took it down has more to do with the gaping chasm that exists between Obama the candidate and Obama the president.

In practice, Obama really only seems concerned with the protection of leakers if their corresponding leaks happen to help the administration's PR. So, you know, pleasantly named legislation and policy directives are nice. But they seem to be little more than empty gestures.
--- merged: Jul 27, 2013 at 4:00 PM ---

Wait. Are you talking about Snowden? Because I think your facts are a bit off. I think it's more than a small minority of Americans who care about this. And when one of the architects of the PATRIOT Act expresses shock and dismay at the NSA's activities, and the guy in charge of the NSA seems content to lie to congress and congress seems content to let him get away with it, your assertions about adequate congressional oversight might be overstated.