Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

What I have found to be true is the the most obvious answer or solution is most often the best answer or solution. Making problems overly complex is foolish. For example - President Obama faces a hostile House of Representatives - what is the best response? Find a way to make the House less hostile. How do we do this? Insult those in the House, call them bigots, call the racist, sexist -oops! Perhaps that is the absolute wrong response. Perhaps the obvious answer is attempt to breakdown the barriers. Call a few and invite them to lunch, talk about those things they find important, get to know what motivates them, etc., etc....

...and if plan A is not working go to plan B....either way you have to fix the root problem to make progress.
--- merged: Jun 10, 2014 at 12:24 PM ---

I know what I say - just like a$$holes, everyone has one. Personally, I highly value my a$$hole and my opinion.

PS - I vote in "off-year" elections, every four years my opinion increases in value - significantly.

 

John Boehner faces a hostile Tea Party wing of his own caucus. What was his response? Mixed, but certainly not pushing too hard for compromise with Obama for fear of a coup and the loss of his speakership.

 

Boehner seems to know when he is a position of weakness and when he is in a position of power - and responds accordingly. When the Tea Party wing of the party had the upper hand Boehner yielded - he had no option as he had no support from moderate Democrats - Boehner had to consolidate power with the Tea Party wing of his party. A wise President and a wise leader in the Senate would have taken advantage of this split in the Republican House - they did not - they seemed to want to humiliate Boehner.

Now, Boehner has taken steps to protect his speaker-ship and will have the upper-hand against the Tea Party.

Boehner's actions illustrates how one plays the political game. He is a moderate managing an influential and vocal right-wing of his party. The President's actions illustrates that he is a victim of circumstance - or that he is simply not an able participant in the political arena. If only...he was able to be President with no opposition - what a dreamer!

But really my comments above have no significance if you and others hold the position that Boehner and all Republican are the same, are all extremists, all dislike the President because he is black, all want poor people to suffer and the rich to get richer, etc, etc, etc. Bush still comes up, far to frequently if you ask me, he actually worked to Ted Kennedy to get major legislation passed!

Bush even supported major immigration reform and could not get any Democrat Party support and now Democrats complain like there is not a single Republican who would get on-board with reasonable legislation. If a Republican has the courage to go against the right wing of the party, he/she should get some support from at least moderate Democrats. If this actually occured, I guarantee the result would be more moderation in DC. Perhaps, this is to obvious, to simple for some to understand.

 

ace...your comparisons to Bush and to LBJ earlier are still rewriting history. Neither had an opposition party that essentially refused to compromise.

In the case of immigration reform, the Kennedy/McCain will was on it way to passage until McCain backed away from his own bill in order to establish his conservative creds to run for president in '08.

We could a comprehensive immigration bill tomorrow, one that the public supports, if Boehner would allow a vote of the bill that passed the Senate.
--- merged: Jun 10, 2014 at 4:50 PM ---
BTW...I neither posted nor inferred that " all Republicans are the same, are all extremists, all dislike the President because he is black, all want poor people to suffer and the rich to get richer, etc."

I thought I was clear that the opposition was taking a hard line political stance, particularly the Tea Party type who ran on "no compromise"..and the others fearing a challenge from the right if they do compromise.

 

I was specific. LBJ for much of his civil rights legislation built a coalition of both parties. Bush passed education legislation with Ted Kennedy. bush supported major immigration reform that would have required support from moderates of both parties. I can clearly see examples of Presidents leading and reaching out to the opposite party - in these and in other historic examples. If you do not see what I see, perhaps it is wise not to assume what I see is not there - perhaps taking another look from a different perspective is in order.

I agree. I have never liked McCain, he has a history of this type of thing. To me there is irony in that people with real convictions are easier to deal with - perhaps it is because you can trust them. Yes, I believe Kennedy (late in his life) had real convictions and I would trust him. With Obama part of his problem with Congress is that he has no trust. Personally I won't do deal with people I don't trust, do you? If there is no trust - establishing trust is the first step. One would think that is the obvious response - perhaps to me but not to Obama

did you read what I wrote? If Boehner allowed a vote supported by the President and the Senate leader he would risk a Tea Party take over of the Republican Party - he would not be speaker in the next Congress. If you think toady's Congress is a problem for Obama - you simply do not realize what the House could turn into. That is why I find it difficult to understand why moderate Democrats won't work with moderate Republicans. There is a big difference between moderate Republicans and what the Tea Party is evolving into. Again, I would suggest you get outside of the beltway and talk to people in "red states" who vote in mid-term elections. Now we are seeing even people who have been moderately conservative getting frustrated and going more and more to the right. Aren't your polls showing this trend? Or do you think the Tea Party is dying? Look at Cantor's race - if you want to see a moderate shifting to the right to keep his job - the headline will read the Tea Party candidate lost, but at what price to moderation. Moderate Democrats should have shown Cantor some support so he could have afforded to stay moderate.

I remember at some point asking if you thought all Republicans were bigots - you responded affirmative. Were you being sarcastic? Is the rhetoric from most left talking heads, hyperbole on this subject? I have some difficulty reading between the lines - similar to rhetoric from ME leaders who say they want us dead or they want to wipe Isreal/US off the face of the earth - I tend to take them at their word and want to respond accordingly.

 

These historic examples ignore the politics of the times...neither had an extremist wing holding Congress or the President hostage.

You're making my point. Boehner controls the legislative agenda in the House and will not allow bi-partisan moderates to enact anything if it would result in a Tea Party uprising.

No, I did not.

 

What is your point? Try and give up? Try and not try something else? I love an opportunity to quote Yoda:

How is your love life? You may miss the point here but, when I make love to a woman she will feel as if she is the most beautiful, most wonderful, woman on the face of the earth. The better I make her feel, the better she makes me feel. Perhaps at one point in my life that was not obvious, but it is to me now and has been for a long, long time.

Some are, most are not. Work with those who are not.
--- merged: Jun 10, 2014 at 5:53 PM ---

Do you recall the exchange?

 

It is being reported that Cantor lost his primary race against the Tea Party candidate. Immigration appears to be the pivot issue. If the President could not get major immigration reform to his liking while a guy like Cantor was in the House, it just got harder.

 

If one can not work with an opponent one must defeat the opponent.

What is Obama doing? Is he "trying" to work with Republicans or is he "trying" to defeat Republicans. Either way he is failing. Republicans, specifically Tea Party Republicans, are defeating or obstructing the Obama political agenda. Obama has been using executive orders to bypass Congress but that is going to come to an end - as even some Democrats are getting concerned about the precedents Obama is setting.

 

oh, please.
Lincoln? FDRoosevelt? Truman? Johnson? For pure beleaguerment, Obama is middling at best.
Face it: Obama's image and temperament vastly outrun his talents. He's an extremely skilled political animal and an utterly inept executive. It's a good thing presidents have less power than most people think (including the poor deluded souls who run for president). This way the amount of further damage he can do is somewhat limited.

 

I agree that Obama will probably go down as "middling" but certainly higher than Bush.

History will also record that he had to work with the least productive (and lowest rated)Congress since FDR, primarily (but not exclusively) due to the Republicans unwillingness to compromise or build consensus.

 

To be fair, most of those were the same thing, over and over and over again -- private bills to grant pensions to Civil War veterans who had been rejected by the Pension Board.