The TRUTH regarding why President Obama has not been able to do everything he has wanted to do

[Tx4obama]

Since the day that Obama was sworn in we've had 60 democratic senators in the Senate for ONLY 49 DAYS.

Senator Franken was sworn in July 2009 and Senator Kennedy died August 2009 - that makes a total of only 49 days.

I've been hearing lately quite a few folks saying that during Obama's first 'two years' he had a democratic controlled WH, Senate, and House.
That is 'true', BUT he did NOT have a filibuster proof super-majority in the Senate.

With all the GOP obstruction it takes 60 yes votes to get almost everything passed in the Senate,
and it is impossible to get hardly anything done in ONLY 49 days.

[MsKandice01]

1. And don't forget...

That Ted Kennedy was too sick to vote by the time Al Franken was sworn in.

[Pale Blue Dot]

2. Well, in that case, I'm glad we can say

that he fought as hard as he could for the American people, and didn't almost immediately concede defeat on nearly every issue, especially those regarding the economy!

We can say that, right?

[KittyWampus]

11. People who look at actual facts can, yes.

[pscot]

42. I think I'm going to hurl!

[roguevalley]

52. may I join you, pscot? I remember reading a posting about a

Dumbya list on yahoo which I joined to find out what the truly stupid were saying about him. One woman posted to say that she had made her mantle into an altar. She had pictures, candles and the like. Even the other idiots sort of gagged on what she was saying with all sincerity. I guess some people are very comfortable being so loyal that they actually will pick up a small pile of dung and say well, it could have been worse. It could have been bigger. :)

Yes, he did the best he could...

Premature and newborn babies will not be getting WIC help because of cuts for food in their infancy because Obama didn't think that was worth fighting for. Babies. There are supposed to be 300K+ jobs lost right away in different things and more in future as this slows down the economy. Illinois will lose 30K jobs shortly and the airports are being shut down including safety people. FAA is in the dirt. All because the pugs are trying to union bust and its affecting our airports and roads. Why should they not do it when the President is nothing to them, not a threat, not a hurdle, not even visible. It will cost us a billion dollars while they do this because the FAA can't collect taxes. Delta is leading this with the pigs. This is what we get when apologists and sycophants won't open their eyes and see the truth.

I hope only true believers fly for the next few. I don't intend to. Good luck.

[Pholus]

3. So it's either supermajority or completely helpless?

I guess our politicians are not as skilled as they used to be.

[CakeGrrl]

6. The GOP is crazier and more unreasonable that it used to be.

Did you not just see what the Tea Party was able to do in the House?

I'll say again:

How do you negotiate with a hostage-taker who's willing to kill their hostage when you aren't willing to have that hostage killed?

[Pholus]

7. You roll over completely it seems.

Armstead's post down below answers your question more rationally than I care to right now.

[CakeGrrl]

30. Sorry you're in a tizzy. Sounds like you want to 'burn it all down' on principle.

Dems should just be as crazy as the GOP?

We should have defaulted?

Because don't try to tell me that there's any Dem for whom the Tea Party would have been more reasonable. I'd like to know why.

[Pholus]

40. Well, there are of course only two sides: Capitulate or Burn It All Down.

At some point, you have to realize that what you're doing is not working. The precise reason you're asking

"We should have defaulted?"

this time is because your response to extending the tax cuts last year was:

"We should have let the unemployment program lapse?"

You're being played. The other side KNOWS they have you, that you have understood that they're unreasonable and that you fear certain outcomes. And so their demands will get more and more outlandish because they're going to take hostages on every darned thing they want from NOW ON.

So, you either let one crash and make them take the heat on it or you find something they want and you damned well make it a hostage so that they see that two can play this game.

Cons are dumb, but it's that caveman kind of dumb. They don't respect you unless you can hurt them. We seem to have forgotten that here.

[roguevalley]

53. he had the 14th amendment always. HST used it and he could

have but he LIKED THE SHIT SANDWICH he made for us.

[tblue]

15. I know, right? We need better skilled pols then.

Because this is NOT working. Not at all!

[treestar]

21. No it is not and that kind of black and white thinking

is best left to the conservatives.

[Pholus]

24. Did you read the original post to understand the context?

[treestar]

22. No it is not and that kind of black and white thinking

is best left to the conservatives.

[rury]

49. No it's either supermajority

or incremental, progressive change like we got in the first two years of the Obama presidency with a Democratic Congress:


http://b4bmorenews.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-244-accomplishments-of-president.html


http://brady.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=153



But whine if you must while you await perfection!!

[Pholus]

61. Thank you for your permission. I'd love to see some incremental progressive change.

How about we start with the wealthy paying, oh I don't know, $20 more in taxes than they would have without the debt deal.

Across the entire group of em.

Won't happen, I fear. :(

[CakeGrrl]

4. Rec'd to zero. You're trying to debunk a major talking point.

;-)

[KittyWampus]

14. Badge of honor.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. And so each Democrat in a State that failed to send a Democrat

to the Senate is at the root of the problem, it seems. Those States need to up their game, stop being so cowardly and at least try.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Doesn't change the math......

of those claiming that the President had a supermajority in both houses in all of 2009....
he did....for 49 days, although that count includes Sen. Lieberman.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. No it does not. What it does do, however is define what is

support and what is just a bunch of hot air on a message board. The only real support a voter can give to a President is in the form of Congressional seats. So those who froth and go to the extent of getting negative on those they do not think are ardent enough supporters who do not provide the President with Congressional backup are sputtering hot and meaningless air, while some of us who get called every name in the book for not affecting a posture of supine adoration actually do provide Congressional back up. All the whining here from States that had shitty turnout and elected Republicans, which is directed at people who delivered huge turnout and elected Democrats is whinging and posing without any sort of actual standing.
All the time spent slamming the 'critics' would be better spent, logic tells us, actually electing Democrats. Kvetching at the winners is just bad form. Oh, look at the critic, basher, hater and his full slate of Democrats, then look at the 'supporter' with a Congressional delegation of nuts and tell me which the President would prefer.
Electing more Democrats will change that math. Kvetching at others for not being adequately peppy will not ever change that math. Howling about the hated blogger of the week, that will never change that math. If the howlers got up and put all that energy into electing Democrats, imagine how that math might change. Claims that DOMA is no longer enforced will not change that math. Electing Democrats will change that math.
We need to change the math. Anyone who has a Republican Senator who spends time ragging on Democratic voters has messed up priorities, which will never change the math. It is that simple.
You do your work. They need to do theirs as well.

[jaysunb]

66. Well said....n/t

[Armstead]

8. Maybe so, but let me pose a question.

Why is it that whether they have a big majority or a narrow majority, or are in the minority in one house or the other of Congress, or are in the WH or out of it -- The GOP Always drives the agenda. They push and get most of what they want regardless of their status according to the "numbers."

And vice versa. Why whatever the situation electorally, Democrats are always having to react defensively to GOP initiatives and scrambling for crumbs?

One answer might be that iunstead of always making excuses, GOP Conserrvatives have ideological principles (as bad as they are) and they think tactically and aren't afraid to take strong positions and push for them proactively.

[Pholus]

10. +1 to that.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Answers as to who the Democrats have been and are fighting against.....

corporate Media,
bought polls,
Koch brothers with much money for ads,
dissatified folks on the Left who wanted everything
and therefore like nothing,
and ignorant voters.

You can't get a message out, if the folks who are to amplify the message
are too busy with their own message which is counter to the message that
the party is trying to get out.

Kinda of like protestors on the Left deciding to protest the President
while leaving Republicans alone.

[Pholus]

16. That's funny Frenchie. I attack Republicans ITRW. I express my disappointment with Dems here

when they deserve it.

So you only see the one. It's okay. I can understand your frustration. You wish that we'd STFU and eat our peas.

[Pholus]

18. I expect my side to be better. We have different ways of getting to a goal.

So where is the APPROPRIATE place to express that?

[FrenchieCat]

19. I think eating the peas was for lawmakers.......but distorting and using it in some other way is

cool, I guess. :shrug:

As for attacking Republicans, one can try and find such posting on DU's front page,
but they usually don't get enough rec to get that far. I remember urging Democrats here to contact
Republican legislators and the Speaker months ago, and I was told that this wouldn't help, that the GOP would just ignore, so instead of trying they decided to attack the President instead, which is what they have been doing ever since.

Reminds me of when Attacking Bush back in '03-04, although popular, was seconded only in attacking what was then called "vichy Democrats"....a strategy that ended by giving us an additional 4 years of Bush!

I remember when Pelosi was taken apart for taking impeachment off the table.....

Now Pelosi as Speaker would be a Godsent!

Unintended consequences really do come true!

[Pholus]

20. You should be glad. If it wasn't for upset progressives it would look like the President

wasn't being the grand post-partisan compromiser on this.

So we all play our roles here.

[FrenchieCat]

26. True. Some played same role in the 2010 elections as well.......

and forgot to go vote, although they said they would, if nothing else.

[Pholus]

27. Well that didn't happen with me, so that's kind of irrelevant here.

[FrenchieCat]

28. I'm not talking specifically to you......

and I'm not sure why you'd think I was. Folks know who they are.

I canvassed my ass off in 2010....
and in my state and district and the nearby Centrist district,
Democrats won...not only because of me,
but because of good rational and realistically concerned folks who
understand that making bills into law
takes much more than just a President, period.

[Pholus]

32. Yes, the theme of the OP is that it takes a supermajority to do anything.

Not just the president.

[FrenchieCat]

35. The most a good President can get passed into law,

is the most most progressive law that the most conservative member of your party will vote for
when you hold the majority....and that's exactly what we got in 2009.

[Pholus]

47. Wow, we have devolved then. Pity.

[Dad Infinitum]

80. Actually, he didn't have to do anything

All he had to say was, 'America does not deal with extortionists,' often and loudly, and refused to talk to the GOP on the matter. That would put the whole mess squarely in the Republican lap.

He could also solve the deficit problem by doing.....nothing. Just allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, revenue problem solved. Primary balance reached in four years, according to multiple CBO reports on the matter

[Armstead]

33. Or...

The fact that the Democratic party has allowed itself to become so watered down and beholden to the same corporate/Wall St. interests that it has forgotten its basic purpose of actually being the opposition party that calls the GOP on their bullshit and actively works for an actual liberal/populist agenda.

Today (setting aside the tragedy of Vietnam) Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey would be considered the far left fringe in the Democratic Party spectrum.

If oyu want to cal,l it a narrow selfish agenda to actually see the Democratic Party actually become an alternative to the GOP, and a home base for liberalism again, then I guess you are correct. People have a narrow and selfish ideological agenda.

And if you believe the message should be "We can't do anything because the GOP is so big and bad" , and "God forbid we should actively support organized labor because those swing voters and our corporate backers might not like it" then I guess, yes there are conflicting messages.

[FrenchieCat]

38. What you are talking about, this waterering down of Dems via corporate Wall st,

took years in the making and no reform on our election laws worth a cent.

My message to Dems is, Have enough courage to go after Republicans,
because going after Democrats is easy, but it won't end up getting you
what you want.

[Armstead]

48. Believe it or not, I am not blaming Obama for that (even though you'd like to think so)

However, I do fault Obama for perpetuating it by doing things like "punishing" a corporation -- GE -- that has long been an enemy of the domestic workforce and a leader in outsourcing of jobs and factories, by appointing him chair of his commission to revive domestic jobs and the US economy. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the henhouse...And a blatant slap in the face to labor and others in the liberal base.

You don't want to acknowledge this, but many of us started out being supportive and excited about Obama's election -- but gotten angry and frustrated by his performance, which is in many ways in direct contradiction to what he said he would do.

[KittyWampus]

13. So you are oblivious to the rightward tilt of the Media? To the huge mass of money the right has to

buy advertising?

Perhaps you haven't noticed by not all Democrats in Congress are from solidly liberal districts, so they can't always be counted in the Democratic column.

Are you new to politics?

To the Media climate in the USA?

[Armstead]

34. Well, if you call walking in the snow in a presidential primary in the 1970's, and....

working in media reform in the early 1980's and being a working journalist and helping to create alternatives to Big Media since then (despite my lousy typing) as being "new" to all this, then I guess I'm just a naive youngster. And of course I have no experience to have any comprehension of any of those problems you mentioned.

I would also note that the "centrist" Democrats are just as responsible as the GOP for the current awful state of the media. It was democrats who either ignored or actively supported the media consolidation since the 1970's, and abominations like the Telecommunications Deform Act of the mid 1900's that basically gave the entire broadcast spectrum to a handful of corporations like Clear Channel.

And unfortunately it is still happening, with the lack of effort to block further consolidation like the recent Comcast/GE/NBC/Universal merger.

[treestar]

23. Simple - they want to drown the government

we want to build programs - it is easier for them - they want nothing to happen, we want things to happen. We need to pass bills. They want to not pass anything.

[Armstead]

36. I agree with that assessment. But it is not an excuse.

[CakeGrrl]

29. So tell it to Congressional Dems. Or figure out how to get more Alan Graysons in Congress.

Or figure out why the GOP are such blatant hostage-takers and don't mind what anyone thinks about their willingness to do so.

But don't forget the fact that the MSM is there to help ignore their misfeasance.

[Armstead]

39. I acknowledge some -- NOT ALL -- Congressional Dems are a real problem

I also recognize the malfeasance of the Mainstream Media.

But a big problem, as i see it, is the fact that the truly liberal and progressive Democrats who really are pushing against the GOP also have to contend with the resistance of their own party's power structure, as well as having to fight the GOP.

[derby378]

17. You realize that 51 Senators out of 100 make a majority, right?

It's not my fault the Senate fucked up the math. They should have been smarter.

[Tx4obama]

25. You realize it takes 60 yes votes to invoke cloture on a bill, right?

In the Senate the GOP is forcing cloture votes on EVERYTHING,
even on non-controversial federal judicial nominations.

NO president in history has had to deal with so much obstruction from the GOP on every damn thing.

You don't have to look very far to see the BULLSHIT that the GOP is pulling,
the recent debt ceiling fiasco has never before happened,
in the past the ceiling has been even lifted by unanimous consent without an actual roll call vote being taken.

[derby378]

74. Once again...

...it's not my fault that the Senate fucked up the math. Reid saw this coming and decided to leave cloture rules in place despite knowing that the GOP would obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. 51 out of 100 is still a majority, and Reid could have done something about it, but he didn't.

[CakeGrrl]

41. Are you aware of the filibuster? -nt

[Pisces]

31. Excellent post. I recc'ed to +2. Why do facts get ignored on this board?

[AtomicKitten]

37. Really excellent point. Very enlightening.

k&r

[rury]

44. Don't forget the Conservadems

who were never really reliable Democratic votes anyway!

[Enrique]

45. so we should discount anything he says he's going to do now

because he can't possibly succeed? Ok, done.

[joshcryer]

46. Why didn't they modify the filibuster rules when they had the chance?

[FlashHarry]

50. because they know they'll be in the minority some day

it's why neither party will abolish the filibuster.

[bvar22]

51. In 2008, the American People gave the Democratic Party:

*The White House

*A large MAJORITY in The House

*A filibuster-proof Majority in The Senate

*A Republican Party gasping for its Dying Breath.

*Most Importantly, An Overwhelming MANDATE for "CHANGE".

*And an ARMY Standing in the Streets.


To make the argument that the Democratic Party didn't have enough to effect any real change
is a very lame excuse.

"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

Can you imagine wimpy Joe Lieberman stamping his foot telling LBJ, "NO!!! I'm NOT going to support your Health care Plan?"
:rofl:

Many on this site will tell you that the Presidency is weak and powerless, and can only do what Congress lets him do.
THAT is a pathetic excuse...and just plain BULLSHIT!!!!
The White House & The Democratic party could have CRUSHED Joe Lieberman or ANY of the other obstructionist Democrats, and taken the fight directly to individual Republicans any time they wanted to.
They didn't,
but "It was ALL Joe Lieberman's fault" :cry:

"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."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17

Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

[Tx4obama]

55. Please reread the OP. Franken wasn't sworn in until July 2009, and Kennedy died August 2009

We had a Filibuster-proof Majority in The Senate for ONLY 49 DAYS.
And a the majority of those 49 days Senator Kennedy was at home on his death bed.

[bvar22]

56. Oh Well,

THAT explains it all.
It was HORRIBLE!
There was NOTHING they could do!
Those POOR Democrats. :cry:

TRUTH is (but I don't think you can handle it),
The Republicans got FAR more accomplished,
with FAR fewer resources.

[polmaven]

82. Do you recall

what the numbers were in the House and Senate that LBJ had to work with?

House: Democrats: 258
Republicans: 177

Senate: Democrats: 66
Republicans: 34


In other words, LBJ had a large, filibuster proof majority in the Senate. He did not have to compromise. That is not so now, and was only so for 49 days - and,actually, during that time Senator Kennedy was too ill to be present - so in effect, there was NO time that he had a filibuster proof Senate.

With this president, it is either compromise or nothing at all will get done. He has understood that.

Speaker Pelosi's House passed a huge amount of legislation which died when it reached the Senate.

If we get this president the numbers that LBJ had......well.....watch out, tea party....Dems comin' through!

[mhatrw]

54. How is that Repukes never need 60+ Senators + the House + the Presidency

to screw us royally?

[LaydeeBug]

59. Shhhh! That debunks the OP completely. Chill out. He's got this motherfucker. nt

[Solomon]

71. Because they don't sit around ripping everything to shreds that

they do like we do. That's why. Stop trying to put the blame on a person or group of leaders and look at yourself.

[JoePhilly]

72. Actually, they did need 60 on plenty of occassions.

The difference is that the GOP hates government so much, that they've now decided that they will filibuster EVERYTHING.

Every vote.

They've decided that they want to bring the entire government to a stop. That is their top legislative priority. They hate the government. And they would prefer that it do absolutely nothing.

Democrats on the other hand want the government to work. They want to pass legislation. As a result, they don't filibuster every bill simply to bring the government to a stop.

That's the difference.

btw ... if the Dems take the same approach when in the minority, the GOP still wins, because again, they want the government to come to a stand still.

And take a look at the House GOP majority ... what have they been doing for the last 6 months? Nothing, but passing symbolic bills that go nowhere.

Why does the Tea party want to default? So they can bankrupt the country. Kill the government. Bring it to a stop.

That's why.

[applegrove]

57. Yeah I forgot that in all the depression of yesterday.

[LaydeeBug]

58. Pssst! We didn't *REALLY* need 60, and you know it.

[Tx4obama]

62. Please explain, we're listening. n/t

[LaydeeBug]

68. see post #54 nt

[Tx4obama]

76. Fail. I asked you a question, and you direct me to a comment that is a question. LOL n/t

[polmaven]

83. Huh???

:shrug:

[dflprincess]

60. I'm not so sure Obama hasn't gotten exactly what he wanted

especially as he seems to spend more time "negotiating" with the Republican leadership than he does with the Democratic.

[awoke_in_2003]

63. because the republican party...

is the only one possible of passing legislation without a filibuster proof majority.

[Faryn Balyncd]

64. Look what the GOP accomplishes with 41 Senators.

[ClarkUSA]

65. Yeah, love how they stopped HCR from having a public option with the threat of filibuster.

With a traitorous assist from Indepedent Joe Lieberman.

:sarcasm:

[killbotfactory]

67. Grid lock and empowering blue dog democrats

Let's keep attacking democrats and withholding support until there are only 41 in the Senate, then things will be AWESOME!

[Pholus]

73. The OP is nothing more than excuses. DO YOUR JOBS and maybe the rest would follow!

[killbotfactory]

77. Are you in managment?

You sound like some of the less than considerate managers I've worked under.

[Pholus]

79. Nope, just disappointed. The OP says it's a supermajority or nothing will happen.

This excuse is made against while I watch the opposition not need such an advantage to ram its agenda through.

So why can't our team get its act together? Why does it think it needs unopposed rule to get ANYTHING accomplished? Are they THAT cowed by that bunch of bullies in the house or are they just stupid and naive? Didn't they spend ANY time dealing with bullies on the playground?

So, what you call "less than considerate" I call exasperated.

[jeff47]

69. They can obstruct only because we let them

Imagine a different world where Reid "brought out the cots" for every Republican filibuster, creating enough spectacle that the evening news mentions them. Where the White House spent half of every press conference talking about how the Republicans were holding back the economy.

A large part of the 2010 loss was because Congress wasn't "doing anything" to fix the problems. Democrats took the blame because they were in charge of Congress. The average voter never heard about Republican obstruction because Democrats did not call them out on it.

So no, it doesn't matter that there wasn't a filibuster-proof majority for very long. The failure is a failure to fight. Even if it didn't cause any more bills to be passed 2009-2010, it would have resulted in the blame (and voter punishment) landing in the right place.

[Dawgs]

70. Dumbest post of the day. n/t

Republicans JUST PROVED that they have more power with only one 1/3 of the control and you give us this shit.

Really?

[Tx4obama]

75. Apparently you do not understand the OP.

The OP explains 'why' the GOP has power.

[Dawgs]

81. I understand perfectly. The President is weak.

Even though his party has more control and leverage, he's too weak to get anything done.

At the same time, the Republicans are getting almost everything the want.

Pretending that the Democrats can only getting something passed if they have a super majority is disgraceful.

[TheKentuckian]

78. Not being able to shove the level of Reaganomics he desires through the Democratic caucus

and the gnashing of teeth as he launches his shitty trial balloons.