For all those that say that Obama should have "knocked some heads together" and passed single payer

or whatever else they think Obama could have "forced through" with the "bully pulpit" like LBJ and FDR ...

I have a question. How many Senate seats do you think the Democrats had when LBJ signed the Civil Rights act and Medicare, and when FDR signed Social Security?

No peeking! (Or actually, you can peek all you want.)

Very little of the current T-bagger mentality, like we have now in the Republican party.

seriously, why just let the Rs be scumbags and the MSM carry water for it in complete unity when clueless dems can eat their own ...

It is profoundly misleading to compare the legislative process in the hyperpolarized 2010 United States to that prevailing in the 1960s.

was actually quite limited (compared to the grandiose vision that some here have of the President's power over domestic policy).

Not only did FDR and LBJ have far more Senate seats, but they had a sane opposition party. Obama has neither.

You are absolutely right. While we can complain as much as we want about the failures and weaknesses of will of Obama and the Democratic leadership (I've done my share of that myself), all of that only makes a difference on the margin. What counts is whether or not they have the votes, and that's rarely something they can control.

if you don't try, you won't succeed. guaranteed.

the difference between 1964 & 2008 = 9 seats.

trying changes the political landscape.

for Obama to be tougher in negotiations. But the outcome was ALMOST always pre-determined.

I WASN'T CONCERNED WITH THE OUTCOME AT THIS POINT IN HISTORY! It was obvious that RomneyCare was what we were going to get. HOWEVER, what I WANTED to see was a President and Democratic Party leader who was out front talking every week during the town hall astro turf rallies about "socialized medicine". I wanted him talking about how Medicare for All was the absolute MOST cost effective way to solve the HC crisis and how the NEXT best solution was the Public Option to keep Insurance companies honest in their dealings with the American public. And during the times Obama wasn't talking about the BEST AND MOST POPULAR SOLUTION to the health care crisis (the PO), I wanted Biden out there along with OTHER top administration officials talking it up. I wanted them to put the Republicans AND Blue Dog Dems on the spot, explaining to the American public WHY we weren't going to get the BEST and most POPULAR solution.

Then when we got RomneyCare, the public would know who was to blame for not getting the best and most popular solution. In short, I wanted ADVOCACY of the best and most popular solutions. And instead of unrelenting advocacy, I got lukewarm, OCCASIONAL props for the PO and a sense of the inevitability of RomneyCare.

THAT was my problem in a nutshell.

That's my question to you. It may be a decade or so until we have such a swing in our favor like that again. Go for it or go home I say. Anyway, if he started with that and not trying to make it fit under corporate auspices, we might at least have gotten a public option.

"Fighting" for something only works if the universe of potential votes contains enough to pass the bill. In FDR's case and LBJ's case, the universe of potential votes was enough to pass the bill.

In Obama's case, the universe of potential votes was NOT enough to pass a public option, or single payer, or anything else people complain about here.

What we did have was a universe of potential votes to pass THIS bill. And boy, did he fight for it. That's why it took a year.

But fighting for something when the outcome isn't possible is an exercise in futility. Obama crafted a bill that could pass Congress after a fight -- LBJ and FDR did the same.

Then where you end up will be better. The success Republicans have when they get to power is party discipline. And this is the 21st century where things are different than they were back then as far as Republicans go. They use that same discipline they have when in power to fight and blocked everything today when not and pay no attention to election outcomes because they reject election results. We start with bi-partisanship when none is reciprocated. Know where you are. We could be looking at another decade of this. Can you survive it?

not getting something in between.

You really think Republicans were that stupid?

And why do you think Republicans had "success" in power? All they were able to pass was tax cuts, which can go through reconciliation and only need 50 votes. They failed on Social Security/ANWR/Immigration (the three main policies Bush tried to pass that required 60 votes).

Other than reconciliation-able tax cuts, his only big legislative "wins" were the Iraq war, NCLB, and Medicare Part D, both of which had significant support from both parties.

is to fight for the public option, discipline your team, and force the other guys to fight against you, not just THREATEN to fight against you.

All I'm hearing here is another set of excuses for why we didn't do the right thing on HCR.

Excuses. Nothing but excuses.

You say "discipline your team," as if there is something Obama could have done to get Joe Lieberman's personal grudge against all progressives to go away.

That is just pure, unadulterated nonsense. Even LBJ lost 20+ Democrats on the civil rights bill. The only reason he got it passed was because 20+ Republicans at the time were pro-civil-rights.

You act like this is just an "excuse," even though you can't point to a SINGLE piece of big social legislation in history that passed before HCR with all Democrats and no Republicans. Any explanation on why Obama couldn't do something that has NEVER BEEN DONE IN HISTORY is just an "excuse" to you.

I don't NEED to point to "a SINGLE piece of big social legislation in history that passed before HCR with all Democrats and no Republicans" because I'm not setting that as the yardstick with which to measure success. YOU ARE, or rather, you are pretending that I am.

I AM saying that you and others are making an excuse out of some lack of "potential votes."

You make as if you KNOW that there weren't enough potential votes to pass the Public Option, but that's bullshit. We HAD 60 votes, and only needed 51. 51 makes a majority.

"NO, NO, NO!" say the naysayers, "What about the filibuster?"

But WHAT filibuster? We've only had the threat of a filibuster. It's easy to CLAIM you'll get up and talk your ass off for hours up hours on end, but can a Senator really do that? And if they can, can they then recover from the public perception that they're a filibustering gas bag?

Too bad we'll never know, because we never FORCED the issue. We caved, then pretended that caving was the best we could ever hope for.

YEAH your answer was an excuse - a sad little excuse that I don't accept, and I'm not alone - or didn't you get the message from the professional left that we're fucking tired of the professional center and their antics?

Enough of that! ENOUGH OF THAT!

hours on end.

For more information on the actual Senate rules, see:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

"Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is "exactly correct."

To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the "Quorum Call" logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.

As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."

--snip--

So yes, we did need 60 votes, which means assuming no Republican support, we did need every member of our party (without exception). So that is the yardstick if you wanted a better healthcare bill, whether or not you acknowledge this reality.

Harry Reid negotiate with Lieberman, without his interfering beforehand.

Twice Harry was sure he could convince Holy Joe to "get with the program," first for a public option, and then for Medicare at 55+. Having just watched him pull off a 5-point win against national trends, I'm convinced he could have done it too. Reid is a master at legislative and political maneuvering, but he couldn't just defy a president of his own party. Too bad. We'd have a better health care law (still needing some tinkering), but containing the seeds of some actual cost control.

that LBJ wouldnt have campaigned for somone like Blanche Lincoln who was obstructing passage! EOM!

for the love of christ, what passed passed by ONE vote in the senate ...

The house could have passed a full out single payer system, and it would have died in the senate - FLAMING, not even by one vote ...

YOU think Lieberman would have broke from a filibuster vote for anything short of what was passed? Nelson, or whoever all else they got to give them the ONE vote to out what did get out?

when a good 50-60 House Democrats and at least 5-6 Senate Democrats get reelected by running away from you.

LBJ didn't have a filibuster-proof majority, but still forced his policies through.

In other words, he had enough Republican support (and enough Democratic seats to begin with) that he could lose Democrats and still win.

Obama, on the other hand, had not a single Republican to support his policies. This meant he could not lose a single Democrat and still pass anything.

In other words, it wasn't easy for LBJ either.

Check sometime the rate of usage of the filibuster over history. It has spiked massively in the last two Congressional sessions. The filibuster was a problem for LBJ with respect to the Civil Rights Act, but the phenomenon of needing a filibuster-proof majority for all legislation that is at all controversial is entirely a recent phenomenon.

... full blown single payer was not going to happen, I agree with that. But the PO was possible and we didn't see Obama fight to keep his promise for ONE MINUTE.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

LBJ had enough Democrats and enough sane Republicans such that he could lose tens of Democrats and still pass the bill.

Obama had 0 sane Republicans, which meant he couldn't lose a single Democrat.

... because Obama didn't lift a finger to make it happen.

I think a politically easy thing to do, that would have been almost as good as single payer, would be to have a Medicare buy-in plan. Further, they could have combined Medicare and Medicaid. I'm NOT saying this stuff would have passed; I'm not sure about that. But he should have laid it out there and tried. If it did pass, it would eventually lead to single payer anyway, and it would have been politically popular -- far more politically popular than having a health insurance mandate (though I do think that is good policy, just bad politics). Having said that, on every other issue, I think he's been phenomenal. I would say A- or B+ for his presidency so far.

He only changed his mind after he saw that progressive Anthony Weiner liked the idea, so supporting it wouldn't fit with his goal of making progressives pay for primarying him in 2006.

That's the problem with only having exactly the number of Democrats needed to pass anything, along with 0 sane members of the opposition party. You lose one (like Joe Lieberman), and the policy fails to pass.

was unable to do the job that Obama hired him to do.

Why do you keep assuming that the "job" you are talking about could have gotten done under ANY scenario?

for a public option, that he didn't do? Why would any Republican vote for Obama's healthcare bill if it would mean certain death in a Republican primary (among MANY other reasons)?

Talking about public opinion is really bullshit. We don't live in a direct democracy. We live in a representative democracy. Legislation is passed by representatives, not by the people. Tons of legislation is popular and yet will NEVER get passed. Other legislation is unpopular but does get passed. "Popular" and "feasible" are not one in the same at all.

If he really wanted a bill with a public option, then he should of made HCR his first priority. If he was as smart as people say he is, he would of pulled together Nancy and Harry while waiting to be inaugurated and put together a bill that went forward on day one of his presidency.

He waited entirely way too long to try and get what he and the public wanted.

Instead, he let congress do the heavy lifting and allowed Republicans to set the tone of the debate. By the time Obama entered the fray it was too late to save the public option.

If you really want to see where Obama went wrong, watch Frontline's, Obama's Deal.

And if "talking about a public option is really bullshit" (your words, not mine), then Obama should of kept his mouth shut during the campaign.

This is because public opinion is completely distinct from the separate matter of feasibility of legislation. Something can be supported by 80% of the population and still not have any chance of passing. Similarly, something can be supported by 20% of the population and still pass within a week.

You are arguing that popularity implies feasibility. But that is a bogus assumption to begin with.

and 80% were against it.

Seriously, listen to what you are saying.

I am talking about domestic policy. Invading Iraq is not domestic policy -- it is policy that the President has a significant amount of unilateral power over (quite unlike enacting domestic policy).

If you want an example of something that passed that a tiny percentage supported, see TARP.

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/452.pdf

57% OF PUBLIC FAVORS WALL STREET BAILOUT
By a margin of almost two-to-one the
American public thinks the government is
doing the right thing in investing billions of
dollars to try to keep financial institutions and
markets secure. Reacting to initial reports of
the federal bailout plan over the weekend,
57% said the government was doing the right
thing, while 30% said it was doing the wrong
thing. At the same time, only 19% of the
public believes that the government is
currently doing an excellent or good job in
handling the financial problems on Wall Street. Support for the administration’s plan to bailout
many of the nation’s troubled financial institutions is largely bipartisan.

http://www.nysun.com/national/bailout-progress-frank-sees-accord-by-sunday/86719/

"In an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll, only 30 percent of those surveyed expressed support for Mr. Bush's package. Forty-five percent were opposed, with 25 percent undecided. The survey was conducted Thursday and had a margin of error or plus or minus 3.8 percentage points."

And that's actually at the high end of polls at the time. I saw some polls back then that had support in the very low double digits.

of which was the needed majority for ending debate or passing legislation.

But I do get your point. LBJ was much better at getting Republicans to help pass liberal and progressive legislation.

Thanks for the lesson.

:rofl:

At least now I understand how completely deluded people are who claim Obama could have passed X or Y. Obama's problem was he wasn't effective enough in getting the modern Republican party to vote for his legislation.

LBJ had enough Democratic seats, and enough sane opposition party members, that he could lose over 20 Democrats and still pass the bill. Obama had fewer Democrats and 0 sane Republicans (and on top of that, 0 Republicans who could have won their primaries had they voted for HCR, even if they WERE sane). And you are saying Obama's problem is that there is SOMETHING he could have done to get Republicans to support his legislation, but that he chose not to do it.

I mean listen to yourself, and see if you can avoid bursting out into laughter. Seriously -- repeat what you just said out loud and try it.

It was Obama who campaigned on "I can change Washington". I guess that was just a bunch of hyperbole.

That's what you're saying?

It might not have been possible, but the Obama admin never even tried. If they'd tried hard and failed I'd be of a different mind, but the greatest orator of our time was MIA instead of doing his job.

But when you mean to be accurate, you are laughably far from being accurate (to put it charitably).

Pretty sad.

If Obama had been wandering around reading about LBJ rather than Lincoln before his inauguration, we might be having a different conversation. If, that is, Obama actually wanted to accomplish change for working Americans - which I've come to doubt, since you don't hire the DLC to run the country if you want to help working Americans (or win Congressional elections).

public option, but he just decided not to do it.

:rofl:

Or even abstract entities that he works with. He can only go after "those on the Left" and other abstractions that mean little to him.

If Obama were to threaten a Republican, and say "I will go to your district, and huff, and puff, and blow your electoral base down," the Republican would laugh in his face. So would Lieberman. Lieberman would have an easier time winning as a Republican to be honest.

the voting public's perception, win or lose.

Nothing ventured, .........

or Y or Z through Congress. That the failure to pass X or Y or Z is the fault of Obama, rather than the consequence of the composition of the US Senate.

it had more to do, and I am discussing health care, not anything else, with the stunning bad negotiating tactics of CONCEDING ALMOST EVERYTHING up-front. More generally it is this brain dead tactic of reaching out to the NOP by, again, conceding a left of center position at the outset, that enrages me and others here. This tactic gains nothing as the Republicans vote lockstep against everything, and loses almost all that is worthwhile in the legislation that is passed.

And Obama has announced that, damn the torpedoes, it is full speed ahead on his mythical post-partisan world view.

A negotiation happens when both sides want something. Not when one side wants something and the other side couldn't care less. When that happens, you don't have a negotiation. You have one side dictating terms to the other. It's more like a hostage negotiation than a real negotiation.

If Obama didn't do exactly what Lieberman wanted, Lieberman would have told Obama to stuff it. He would have left the room, killed the bill, and probably switched to the Republican party (which at this point would give him an easier chance of winning re-election, if he even wanted to run).

that the President should use his bully pulpit. People repugs,dems,indys will always say what the President should do. For those who have a special preference as to what the President should do then maybe they should think about running and get a better Healthcare plan. And Why is it that they expect Washington D.C. to act different when they don't????

TOMBStone

I think many of us wanted single payer, and it probably should've been an up/down vote on removing the age requirement so folks could buy into medicare. Starting with lower income folks maybe, staggering it, and also letting higher income folks buy in with higher premiums. Small business owners might even like that sort of an option. We've got the program in place, it would just need to be expanded. But we compromised too much, didn't focus on the right things, and took too long.

So many people, including Obama, wanted to do something with health care, and in hindsight I think it was a mistake. Jobs should've been the first priority, then move on to other priorities. Jobs and unemployment really stand out as the thing that people wanted him to focus on.

So hindsight is 20/20, but that is how I am viewing it now. I don't think this is just Obama, many on the left were focused on health care, and I think many of us missed the boat on what the priorities should have been as he took over office.

should have done on "Jobs?"

force the votes, not the other way around. If legislative votes are inviolable, then there is no need for a President at all since (s)he would simply be a helpless puppet of any established power structure.

Are you saying that President Obama is a helpless puppet?

otherwise are people who are ignorant as to how government actually works. Basically, if one were to take the exact opposite of your post, they would have a pretty accurate understanding.

In reality, the legislative votes determine what can be enacted. Presidents shape their policy to what can pass, not the other way around. And serious scholars of the American presidency don't claim otherwise. FDR shaped Social Security to what could pass. LBJ shaped Medicare and the civil rights act to what could pass. The latter almost failed at one point, until the President agreed to changes.

The President has a lot of power in foreign policy, in executing already enacted policy through regulation, in appointments, and through other powers. But not for enacting domestic legislation. There's a reason why Congress is specified in Article I.

would have ever been brought to committee, let alone enacted. Likewise, w/o McKinley & Roosevelt proposing and pushing them through, none of the trust busting, anti-monopoly measures happen. In each case the conventional "wisdom" pronounced them impossible and when the inevitable organized and well-funded resistance to them began, they beat them, not by legislative capitulation, but through bypassing the DC/money establishment going directly to the people and ensuring the resistance that they would be punished in every way possible if they kept fighting them.

That's why your constant whining of "impossible", "it's different today", and the consistent "you don't understand how things work" cries serve only to piss people off and diminish support. Wasn't his election enough for you?

sufficient.

The bills you talked about passed because FDR had the votes in Congress to pass them. Fighting for bills can swing votes of legislators who favor policies but don't want to take the political hit, but it does not change votes of legislators that hate every aspect of the proposed policy with every fiber of their being (and who would with 100% certainty lose their primary if they voted for it).

"serve only to piss people off and diminish support"

It's not my problem if telling the truth pisses people off. That is a problem with people who don't like the truth, and therefore make up an alternate reality under which the President has significant powers to enact legislation against an unwilling Congress.

Since you choose to advocate and spin the President's agenda regardless of what/who that benefits and hurts, you rarely tell the truth. You present an unsupportable, and unpopular, narrative. EOF.

By capitulating to the unthinkable and marginalizing the only people that can give Democrats elections, your "team" is simply making it easier for the republiks to keep on winning.

You're on a Democratic BBS and can't sell it, what on earth makes you think it can sell to the people that already don't like your side? In their usual style, the republiks have "drawn a line in the sand" and will never, ever support you, period.

"you, period."

THANK YOU! That was my entire point, and you just made it for me. There are no votes for the taking on the other side. That means Obama has to get every single vote on our side, including Joe Lieberman.

Please point me ONE piece of big social legislation where FDR or LBJ managed to pass containing every single Democrat but not a single Republican.

The point is he didn't even allow it to be discussed, much less put up any kind of argument in favor of it. Then, when the public had finally agreed a public option would suffice for now (and the polls were overwhelmingly in favor of it), that was bargained away behind closed doors. The bothersome part is the "no fight" part. It's the holding hands and singing kumbayah with Republicans part while being stabbed in the back. It reinforces the notion that Democrats are 98 lb. weaklings. If I die for lack of medical care before 2014, I'd like to go out knowing Obama tried to stop it from happening, but that's not the case since the cost of the pre-existing condition pool has severely limited access to it.

When you have the entire opposition party reflexively voting no (not least since every single one of them would have lost their primary had they said yes), and with Lieberman's highest priority being to stick it to progressives who primaried him in 2006, there was obviously a 0% probability of winning such a fight.

Saying he "bargained it away" assumes that this was some sort of "negotiation." But it really wasn't. With exactly 60 votes, every single vote dictates to the President what they will vote for and what they won't. There is no negotiation, because a negotiation only happens when both sides to the negotiation want something. In this case, Lieberman/Nelson really couldn't care less (and the latter probably would have been much better off killing the whole thing in the first place).

to Democrats if there had been a fight over decent health care. And the public option was bargained away . . . that was reported several weeks ago. It was ceded to big insurance because the administration believed they intended to play nice and not screw people over between now and 2014. WRONG!

"It was ceded to big insurance because the administration believed they intended to play nice and not screw people over between now and 2014."

Bullshit. It never had a chance of passing in the first place, because the support wasn't there.

it that he himself used that phrase constantly to describe the 'fierce' leadership he would offer to Congress and the States about various issues, but particularly GLBT equality issues. He is the one that invoked the Bully Pulpit, and said that if we put him in it, he'd use it without hesitation, this is what he said, Bully Pulpit, no hesitation, lead the Congress, the States. He specifically said-and correctly- that such leadership is what has been lacking in the past and what is needed to move these issues forward.
If that phrase bothers you, take it up with Obama. He used it more than any candidate in my recollection, he used it in specific, well detailed ways. So air quote all you wish, Obama himself took up that historic phrase, with precision and with great intention. He rang that bell, opened that window. Of course the lexicon around him will include his 'greatest hits' such as 'Bully Pulpit' and 'Fierce Advocate'. No one made him say those things, he said them by choice, and I do not recall that he has retracted them. Thus, the Bully Pulpit awaits the man who said he'd not hesitate to use it.

Republicans to vote for his policies is the fantasy, not that the phrase exists.

because it was he who very specifically stated that he would use the Bully Pulpit to lead the Congress, which is comprised as we all know of Democrats and Republicans. This is what he said he would do.
To be clear, that promise of leadership was well received because he was correct in his reading of the need for clear leadership. He promised to provide that leadership, and that is all that has been asked of him, to do what he said he would do. Because like he said, it needs to be done, and leadership is the missing element. If he lead, and did not succeed, at least he'd be true to his word, he did not promise victory, you see, he promised leadership, from the Bully Pulpit, toward the Congress and the States. He'd have much love if he had done as he said he would do.
In terms of Republican votes, it has been Obama who has insisted for 2 years that bipartisanship is the way. I never thought he could get their votes, he sure seemed to think he could. The first time I heard him say he wanted bipartisan votes on his issues, that was when I shouted 'fantasy' and yet he held to it for months, and delivered not a single GOP vote. That fantasy was the President's fantasy, this bipartisan fairy world he seeks.

Which he had to do to get HCR passed.

Just because bipartisanship with this Republican party was a fantasy (and it was) doesn't mean the alternative was easy.

And yes, the President promised a lot that he isn't going to deliver. So has every President since George Washington. In the end, Obama chose results over a PR battle, and I am glad. Despite some posts here, he will go down as the most progressive president since LBJ in terms of results.

You criticized the use of the term Bully Pulpit because getting Republican votes is a fantasy, then when it was pointed out that it was Obama's constant desire to get Republican votes, you defend that fantasy.
No one said the alternative was easy, that is your very own meme. What I said was that the President promised to use the Bully Pulpit to provide needed leadership, and that he has failed to do so. I pointed that out because your OP takes issue with the term, and even puts in in air quotes "Bully Pulpit". The phrase is used because Obama used it. Then he decided it was more important to be bipartisan.
Sure all Presidents promise that which they are not able to deliver, but all he promised to deliver was a strong attempt, and that is what he has not done. That is in his own control. If he set the example he promised to set, he'd be a hero to my entire community, no matter what the outcome. We voted for him because of that promise, the promise to take the Bully Pulpit and use it without hesitation. Which is what he said, without hesitation. And yet hesitation is perhaps his most distinctive governing feature.

important than satisfying you and the rest of the 20% that would have been happy with a fight and no results (while pissing off the 80% that did want results).

I'm talking about the high blown rhetoric the President used about himself, and did not deliver on. Talking about the promise of leadership he made to the GLBT community which he specifically said he'd not hesitate to use the Bully Pulpit to provide.
Where did I indicate that I was speaking of the bill you are speaking of? I didn't because I wasn't. Characterizing me is not the same as responding to the points made, you know. But when it is all you have, that is what gets done.

As for DADT, his influence was essential to move the bill through the House, and even more essential to move the bill through the Senate Armed Services committee. It ended up failing because the Republicans decided they were not going to move any non-trivial bills at that point, and the rules of the Senate give them that right. Obama has spoke about DADT in public speeches over and over again (and even in the state of the union), so the idea that he didn't use the bully pulpit is kind of far fetched.

your OP. Very clearly, and for several posts now. I also did not mention DADT. Because that is not what I meant. My words are all right there. But you keep filling them in with your own rather than responding to what I actually said. And that is sort of my point. A storm of rhetoric which is not grounded in the moment usually winds up blowing back in one's face. Simple honesty is a far better choice.
To be blunt, I just think his style of doing things was not well described by talk of Bully Pulpit and Fierce Advocacy. I think a more accurate lexicon when speaking to natural supporters would have been a far better choice. The only reason I expected more from him is that he offered more. Just looking to see him live up to his own language. And Bully Pulpit was a favorite of his on the trail. So yeah, in politics, it is likely to be used when speaking of him. He rang that bell, over and over again. So don't be surprised when you hear it ring out upon occasion. Seems obvious to me.

as he can.

He used the bully pulpit many times on many issues. He also used other methods on other issues.

which only requires 50 votes.

Everything else requires 60 votes. That's why Bush failed to pass basically anything else (no Social Security privatization, no Immigration, and no ANWR drilling -- all of it failed).

First of all, it wasn't single payer, as you well know, but the overwhelmingly popular public option. The same public option which Obama promised us would be in the HCR. So much for this man's promises, apparently their about as strong as wet tissue paper.

But anyway, yes, he could have, and should have, used the bully pulpit to help put through the public option. After all, with seventy percent of the public favoring the public option, it would be the perfect issue on which to go out and beat the obstructionists, both Dems and 'Pugs, about their head and shoulders for their obstructionism.

Really now, are you telling us you don't want a president who fights?

You don't think that this would have been effective? On an issue with such large public support? In an election year? You truly don't know a thing about realpolitik then. And frankly, after a couple of hard nosed filibuster fights, the 'Pugs would think twice about further obstructionism.

Even if the filibuster had failed, though I seriously doubt it would have, just the fact that the Democrats had gone out and fought for the public option would have helped this past election. People are forgiving of a candidate who fought the good fight and lost. People, voters, aren't nearly so forgiving if that politician simply walks away from the fight.

What you are trying to do is come up with reasons why the Dems didn't or shouldn't fight. You are preaching a defeatist mantra, namely that "we can't possibly win a filibuster, so why try?" Not only is your political reasoning faulty, but your defeatist political attitude is exemplary of why the Democrats lost so badly, namely they, like you, are afraid of the fight.

"don't bother, there's no way you can win" distraction. Pretending the power of the bully pulpit to rally public opinion is unimportant is just disingenuous, if not dishonest. Look at how the Rethugs went out of their way to disrupt the Town Hall meetings called to discuss HCR. If Obama had been pushing his plan vocally and visibly there would have been a great deal of pressure on some of the Rethugs to meet Obama half-way. But there was none, and the Rethugs were allowed to dominate the conversation. In addition, while all of HCR could not have been passed using reconciliation, enough of it could have been to give the Rethugs something to think about in a real negotiation. Obama's problem is twofold - first, he's just not a good communicator. Secondly, he negotiates against himself time after time, giving away the store before the Rethugs even raise their first objection. We lost HCR because we didn't fight - don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise.

It was no such thing. A negotiation only occurs when both sides want something. Not when one side wants something and the other couldn't care less.

When one side wants something and the other side is indifferent, the result is a dictating of terms, not a negotiation. Reconciliation could not have passed community rating, which means there couldn't be any public option (since a public option without community rating would go bankrupt immediately).

Then again, your post really exemplifies criticisms of HCR here -- it is based upon completely incorrect facts. I have yet to see a substantive critique on HCR or the process that isn't completely and utterly wrong on matters of fact.

Lots of things are popular and don't have a chance of passage. Lots of things are unpopular yet will pass easily. We do not live in a direct democracy.

"Really now, are you telling us you don't want a president who fights?"

I want a President to fight when the chance of winning said fight is greater than 0%.

"You don't think that this would have been effective?"

Anyone who claims it would be effective is completely and utterly ignorant about how bills are passed. Any Republican who voted for HCR would lose their primary.

"after a couple of hard nosed filibuster fights"

Yeah, after a couple of "fights" where 50 Democrats have to stand around while one Republican asks for a quorum call every so often. Uh huh.

"People are forgiving of a candidate who fought the good fight and lost. People, voters, aren't nearly so forgiving if that politician simply walks away from the fight."

You have it exactly backwards. People support candidates who get results, and couldn't care less about the fight. The only people who give a shit about the fight are the tiny percentage of the liberal Democrats that don't approve of Obama and don't approve of HCR, and these people are impossible to please in the first place.

The republicans move further and further right and demand Democrats meet them in the middle to compromise. Which becomes compromise on their terms. An excellent strategy would have been to stake out a position that is further to the left and demand that they meet our side in the middle. Which would have been the public option. It wasn't the socialist end game that the Republicans made it out to be. But if they were forced to provide an alternative to a single payer plan they may have included a public option. As president he could have defined the terms of the debate. Instead he allowed the conservatives in his party to move the bill further right.

The republicans are effective at messaging because they are required to craft a message that hides their true agenda. I don't know if it's a concerted effort, but people like Glen Beck and Michelle Bachmann make people like Bill O'Reilly and even Sean Hannity seem ever more reasonable. I'd guess that the conservatives are concertedly adhering to the concept of trying to slide the Overton Window further to the right.

This is evidenced by these facts:
Bob Dole's 94 healthcare plan is now a socialist poison pill called Obamacare.
The loon's on the left can't even sniff airtime on a podcast in some guy's basement and loon's on the right like Ann Coulter can go on network morning shows to promote their books or get a prime-time cable news show.
Member's of congress can actually float conspiracies like reeducation camps and question the president's citizenship and still get reelected and airtime on cable news shows.

I can go on and on....but I'm tired from working all night and I think you get the point. We can do it too, but our establishment doesn't have the spine to embrace even the moderate left the way that the right's establishment embraces the far right.

to the middle."

This was not a negotiation. A negotiation only occurs when both sides want something. In this case, one side wanted something and the other side didn't.

If you want to work without the other side, your side has to get 60 votes. 60 progressive votes that will vote for all progressive policies. We never had anything close to that.

Because it is true that they were hardly serious about any reform at all. (But then I didn't understand the push for sweeping reform at the outset anyway. They used more capital on that bill than any jobs legislation.) Another tactic would have been to go smaller and actually create a foundation based on progressive legislation like a medicare buy-in at 55, an expansion of medicaid, and maybe an insurance bill of rights. The stakeholders in this bill are too broad to create political pressure for the republicans to do something.

It's like the new GI Bill. You identify a subset of people that they couldn't afford to slight and they'll play ball. But as a rule when you have to compromise, you don't come to the table and give everything away up front. Bush and Cheney moved the Overton window close to the edge of the scale http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2008. Obama needs to make an ideological course correction one of his most important goals. This begins with embracing what's currently seen as the "far left" (people like Michael Moore).

without a mandate, and a mandate would not work without subsidies. Boom. You end up with the bill Democrats passed.

There is a reason the bill was what it was. It wasn't just because people felt like passing it that way.

Your grasp of realpolitik and how things get done in DC is weak. For instance, you think that forcing a real live filibuster is a bad thing, yet time has shown again and again that when you do a filibuster fight, the ones who have control of the bully pulpit, like the president, usually win. A filibuster isn't simply "where 50 Democrats have to stand around while one Republican asks for a quorum call every so often." It is also what goes on outside of the chambers that really counts. What happens in the press, what the president says, etc. Not only did FDR and LBJ find this out, but Reagan, Bush and a host of others as well.

You are simply throwing up excuse after excuse for the Dems seemingly inability or unwillingness to fight. Apparently you are satisfied with a cowed Democratic party who backs down even when they have the advantage. But a lot of people aren't satisfied with that sort of party, and showed it just a week ago. One would have thought that you, the Democrats and the president would have learned that lesson, but apparently not. Oh well, if you don't learn it this time around, you will get another lesson in two years.

even though similar posts have been debunked many times.

The only reason Strom Thurmond talked for 24 hours and 18 minutes was because he felt like talking for 24 hours and 18 minutes. His home state went wild. It had nothing to do with being forced to talk, because there is no way to force anyone to talk.

A filibuster is exactly what I said it was, no matter how much you say otherwise. You are literally making up an alternate universe and then whining that we didn't take advantage of made-up rules in this alternate universe.

"you will get another lesson in two years."

Actually, it is you who will learn your lesson, just like 90% of Nader voters learned the hard and painful lessons they did in 2000 (and flocked to pro-war Kerry in 2004). I always find it amusing when people assume that Democrats losing somehow punishes the Democrats, rather than themselves. Eventually, non-Democratic-voting "progressives" always learn, but it is still amazing to watch them flail around with baseless assumptions until they learn. Kind of like how a child eventually learns not to touch a hot oven. Or how someone who holds their breath for too long eventually is forced to breathe, whether they want to or not.

Yes, a filibuster can be forced, a real, live, talk all night filibuster. You don't know that? Then your grasp of realpolitik is weaker than I initially thought. Hell, even Ted Kennedy was threatening to filibuster Bush's nomination of Ashcroft nine years ago.

But you say it can no longer be done. You are just flat out wrong.

And yes, if the Dems fail to fight for the people, they will get another lesson. Not from those on the left you so scornfully dismiss, but from young people who will stay home out of disgust, from working Americans who are frustrated that so little has been done, from teachers who look at Obama's promise to continue a bipartisan attack on education with horror, from regular, ordinary folks like you and me who have watched Obama and the Dems back from the fight time and again.

I suggest that you go back and study your basic civics. Apparently you don't know a goddamn thing about how filibusters, and government and politics in general works.

You saying I'm flat out wrong doesn't actually make me wrong -- it makes you wrong, since there is actually no way to force a real filibuster. Therefore, since you are saying otherwise, you are wrong. See how that works?

If you want to educate yourself, you should start by reading this article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

"Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is "exactly correct."

To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the "Quorum Call" logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.

As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."

--snip--

If you want to not retract your previous wrong comment about live filibusters, and pretend you know more than a parliamentarian of the Senate for 35 years, be my guest.

:rofl:

Of course, last time I posted this to you, you ran away from the thread, so I doubt you'll respond. Though your non-response will be there for all to see.

Your link does state that there can be filibusters, nice, obstructionist filibusters that would hold up Senate business all night long. Granted, they couldn't force the 'Pugs to read the phone book or what have you, but that's not the point. The point is to show just exactly how obstructionist the 'Pugs were/are, and use the bully pulpit of the media, of the president, to beat them over the head with their obstructionism.

The point isn't to have some Senator asking for endless quorum calls, but rather to put the 'Pugs in a position where their obstructionism is made clear. A filibuster would do just this, but apparently you and the Dems don't want to do this. I understand, it would require having an actual spine in order to stand up and fight.

You are nothing more than a defeatist Dem. You continually harp on how Dems can't do anything, even when they hold large majorities in Congress and the White House. You make up the flimsiest of excuses for why the Dems can't fight. You are worse than useless, you are a defeatist Dem.

But again, thank you for proving my point so eloquently. Yes, Dems can filibuster, despite your lies, excuses and obfuscation.

Followed by "Apparently you don't know a goddamn thing"

I'm glad you are finally conceding that they can't force Republicans to talk for a single minute, let alone "talk all night" (despite your post to the contrary upthread).

With that concession out of the way, what's left of your point assumes that the media will really, really focus on THIS particular quorum call (as opposed to the quorum calls that happen every single day that they don't even mention). Sounds like you have a very misplaced faith in the media.

A filibuster can be forced. It can be attributed to obstructionist 'Pugs, which the Dems can use the bully pulpit in order to severely beat for their obstructionism.

Yet you're all hung up on the fact that the 'Pugs won't have to speak. Don't you get it, SPEAKING ALL NIGHT ISN'T THE POINT OF A FILIBUSTER!! Geez, are you truly that stupid?

The point is that a filibuster can be forced, and used by the Dems to their advantage. It could have been used to get us the public option, repeal DADT and a host of other legislation. All it required was for the Dems to force a real, live filibuster. Doesn't matter whether the 'Pugs talk all night or not, what matters is to force the Republican obstructionism front and center for all to see, and for all to beat the 'Pugs up with.

OK, you win, the 'Pugs won't have to talk at their filibuster, though they often do. You win one tiny, unimportant point. But the fact of the matter is that the filibuster can still be used, can still be forced, and is still in effect. That huge, major point, you lose that one.

Now, will you concede that a filibuster can still be used? Will you concede that the Dems could use the bully pulpit to beat up on the 'Pugs for their obstructionism? Or will you continue to focus on unimportant minutia?

It doesn't mean ONE extra bill would pass that wouldn't pass otherwise. To the extent that anyone would even know about the obstructionism, Republicans would love it. They would revel in the obstructionism. They would tell all their local papers about their role in the obstructionism. They would tell stories about their obstructionism at town hall meetings, and they would get standing ovations. (As they do today.) They would literally like nothing more than to show their obstructionism on full display for as long as Democrats let them. The longer it is, the happier they will be.

But in reality, despite Republicans wanting everyone to know about their obstructionism, the media won't cover night quorum calls any more than they cover day quorum calls (other than perhaps a few minutes on the first night it happens, laughing at Democrats for thinking that quorum calls with classical background music will get a bill passed).

But apparently you want to revel in the Dems utter and complete helplessness. After all, it is very freeing, allowing the Dems to do nothing, blame it on everybody and everything else, and get paid the big bucks for doing so.

They fooled you real good, talk about pwned.

for over a year. Apparently, to you, the only reason this isn't working is because the Senate isn't currently engaging in nightly quorum calls.

You are gold on this issue. Thank you.

Absolute NAILS. :applause: :yourock:

heart of heroism, of valor, of triumphs in the face of adversity.

In short, though one might take pride in "pragmatism" or even, because to be smug about the future knows no bounds, "realism," history---and I mean on a larger scale than that used to measure votes in the US Congress---often rewards the bold.

And many of us adults do not have to have the light on at the end of the hall before we start walking toward the door. In politics, and in many other areas, the attempts which fail are the bricks used to build the steps to reach the goal. Even in war, at times losing the battle is how you win the war. Losses can not be avoided, and those who must have certain victory will only get the most paltry and mediocre of laws passed.
Those who refuse to start never arrive. It is that simple. Those who demand only smooth and easy paths are not very well versed in history if you ask me. Nothing worthwhile is easy, nor is it a foregone conclusion. Most great human advances have in fact been perilous, risks of life, limb, wealth and status are how we get from here to there as a people on this planet.

Likewise, Republicans were not about to support policies that would end their careers in their primaries (and that they hated with a passion even independently of that). Duh.

Humans create politics, and just like I said, those who refuse to begin a journey because they can not see the destination will never arrive, simply remain in place, fearing that the Republicans might laugh at them.
And please note, I never suggested the Republicans would vote with us. I always thought that was a daft thing to attempt, but Obama attempted it. I did not think they would support his policies. He sure seemed to. So your 'duh' is cute, but it is not applicable to me, rather to those who thought the GOP would play nice, such as the President.
You are all over the place on this thread. But I never suggested that the Republicans would support our policies, Obama did. Just like he promised to use the Bully Pulpit to advocate without hesitation on GLBT rights.
Your complaints seem to lie mostly with the President's lexicon. And his dreams of honest Republicans, his delusions of bipartisan good will.

Lieberman to vote for it. And the chances of Lieberman voting for the public option (or anything else that would make progressives happy) were less than the chances of Jim Demint and Tom Coburn voting for Single Payer.

by which I mean this post was doubled.

that they can't be negotiated with.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I understand the Republicans have a different view. And so, we are going to have to have a negotiation.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, partly because I couldn’t get the kind of cooperation from Republicans that I had hoped for. We thought that if we shaped a bill that wasn’t that different from bills that had previously been introduced by Republicans, including a Republican governor in Massachusetts who’s now running for president. That we would be able to find some common ground there. And we just couldn’t. And that was costly partly because it created the kind of partisanship and bickering that really turns people off.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/07/60minutes/main7032276.shtml (Part 1)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/07/60minutes/main7032277.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody (Part 2)

Obama and his "real friend" Tom Coburn are gunnin' for Social Security. To all of the DUers who see through the bullshit and fight back, thank you. I'm sure many of us will still end up working until we're 70 to collect "full" benefits, but thank you nonetheless.

To those truly paying attention and not swayed by the image, he's looking like a damn fool.

then that shows that there is a systemic problem, that the will of the people will not be expressed and acted upon by our so-called representatives.

It ain't democracy, it's a dog & pony show.

But they won't be resolved unless the people elect sufficient numbers of Democrats to solve them.

When policies need 60 votes to pass the Senate, we need 60 progressive votes in the Senate to pass them. We didn't even have close to 60 progressive Senators.

So now it's not '60 Democratic Senators' but ' 60 progressive Democratic Senators'? Nice job of moving the goal posts. And when ya get that and things still suck will we need '60 Democratic Socialists Senators'?

What a racket.

Other than you?

It takes 60 Senators to pass any bill. Party ID is irrelevant -- you just need 60 ayes. If you want all progressive policy to pass, you need 60 progressive Senators. If you want all conservative policy to pass, you need 60 conservative Senators. If you want bills passed in red ink, you need 60 Senators that support bills being passed in red ink.

The concept should not be this difficult for you to understand.

Sid

you ask for far more than you want and negotiate down from there. We started with the least amount of reform acceptable and negotiated down from there.

Negotiations happen when both sides want something from the other. In this case, one side wanted something and the other side didn't care. The only negotiation involved is the 60th required vote saying "you give me exactly what I want, and in return I will vote for it. Or, don't give me exactly what I want, and I won't vote for it and it will fail."

tried for something better. Although, I did find myself questioning that when the policy he fought the hardest for, in the end, was the excise tax on benefits for workers with comprehensive medical plans.

If the other side has no incentive to agree, then nothing Obama can do will make the other side agree.

If I came to you and asked for a thousand dollars, you would laugh in my face. You wouldn't negotiate it down to 500 and then give it to me.

The appearance is important in politics. Whether or not he could have gotten anything better, it was important for him to show he was for it (or, at least, for the public option). Then, when it failed, it gets laid at the feet of the obstructionist and the people are still behind a President who they see as fighting for them.

Never making the case was a mistake, period.

He fought (visibly, to the public) for the public option for months. When that didn't work, he fought for a Medicare buy-in. Only after Joe Lieberman reversed himself on the Medicare buy-in (the Sunday before HCR passed the Senate) did the bill pass without either. Blame WAS laid at the feet of the obstructionist. It's just that people here don't believe that -- they concoct some conspiracy theory where Obama was against a Medicare buy-in from the beginning.

then, fine,' he 'fought for it.

However, I remember his CofS was in Harry Reid's office the very night Lieberman was on Fox saying he wouldn't support the Medicare buy in ordering Reid to cave to Lieberman. Does not meet my definition of 'fight' but to each his own. My definition of 'fight' was how he dug his heels in and made the unions fight like hell just to get the excise tax modified a little bit and refused to consider getting rid of it and replacing it with the surcharge on the rich that was in the House bill. Yep. He knows how to fight when he wants to. He showed us he knew how when he fought for the excise tax.

"He showed us he knew how when he fought for the excise tax."

The excise tax was needed just to make the numbers work. The excise tax grows with medical inflation (three times normal inflation), while a higher income tax only grows with inflation. In order to pay for healthcare costs that grow at medical inflation, you need a revenue source that grows with medical inflation. It was really simple math.

And I recall some here were giddy over workers' benefits being taxed and the rich skating again but I was not one of them and I was not happy this was where we saw the President decide it was time to draw a line in the sand.

YMMV

and if they waited an extra day, it would have had to be pushed back to after Winter recess (which was Jan 20th, which happened to be the day Scott Brown was elected).

Others argued us into the ground when we said the HCR bill was just like Romney care. Now, the President has admitted it was a Republican bill and we hear new, improved arguments. I don't like the bill. If I had wanted a Republican plan for health care, I'd have voted for a Republican.

I can hardly wait til the President comes out in support of cutting SS and we hear what those who have been telling us he wouldn't will say.

Interestingly, I've seen one of those who has posted about their job since then and they work for a hospital.

:shrug:

single payer. Peek all you want, the truth is out there. He wanted something the republicans would go along with. He never even tried to "knock some heads heads together".

like removing the anti-trust exemption, establishing a national exchange, avoid a tax on benefits, drug reimportation if not direct negotiation, and eventual inclusion of all Americans to the only regulated and competitive system in the country that absolute party civil war is critical.

What kind of worthless coalition do we have when we cannot squeeze out such essential legislation?

Sorry, I expected far too little to accept the zombie turd we ended up with. In any other time in history, I'd expect the little piddling and fundamental reforms to be supported by a significant segment, if not the majority of Republicans.

Those that oppose the the natural and market based changes I expected should have been singled out and hunted down with the full weight of the party behind them as liberals got called retarded for pursuing as a strategy. The strategy was certainly not retarded, it was a sign of brain activity and a survival instinct beyond the next election or the next bill.

This is not an ideological difference but one of function and long term viability.

You know this crapper was allowed to be so weakened and so industry friendly that it is almost impossible that it will work and for the vast majority of Americans there is tremendous likelihood that matters will grow worse, that they will be made to pay more for less and that over time people will be forced into essentially "junk" coverage or out of the market because nothing else will exist.

We are talking about being a nation with high cost catastrophic coverage with a "wellness benefit".

Nobody wants to ever discuss the 100+ poison pill amendments authored by the Republicans that were accepted without gaining a vote that will make this a worse mess than it is today.
Think people hate this now? Wait till Middle America finds out about Ensign's "wellness visits" that will allow people to be charged two and three times these high ass rates for nothing based on their condition.

This piece of shit will create a wave of entropy that will kill not only our party but the entire concept of liberal.

To answer your irrelevant question I'm thinking LBJ had 68 and FDR had around 72 or there about.

I also know FDR. Hung some of his out to dry and demanded people he could work with to pass his agenda and the American people obliged.

This piece of shit is no Medicare or Social Security but a rehash of Republican policy from the recent past.

Stop acting like this sell out and his corporate cronies walked on water or came as close as a human could unless you really think that highly of the Heritage Foundation, Dole, Romney, and Newt because this is their brain child not some liberal invention.

of Democrats approve of Obama (moreso than any President since JFK), and approve of his healthcare bill. There are Democrats who don't like it, but they are in a tiny minority. Given that there is always a tiny minority that can't be pleased no matter what anyone does (for every Democratic presidency), I don't know why Obama should spend a huge amount of time worrying about them.

But even if we grant your premise that people of your opinion on this issue make up a non-negligible, relevant portion of the Democratic party, I'm not sure what you gain by a civil war. If we write off Senate seats in states that consistently vote R for President (by not allowing Senators that share their constituents' views), for example, we will be in the permanent minority.

Not sure what you expect to accomplish in a permanent minority.

Just because you don't like what is the best achievable outcome doesn't mean there's a scenario under which we could achieve a better outcome, even in the next 50 years. Just because you want something doesn't mean you are ever going to get what you want. Wanting and getting are two entirely different things.

Being willing to lose is the only path to substantive success.

Sometimes more is gained from an honorable defeat than a series of hollow victories.

If you're gonna die then die with your boots on.

This is about our nation and it's people not our party.

:thumbsup:

It's funny that people are unrecommending a question.

You and a handful of other individuals have posted with regularity a series of claims and observations whose highlights amount to the following:

1) appeasing conservative democrats and independents is the only way for this administration to successfully pass any legislation.

2) bearing in mind the necessary compromises involved in premise 1, the legislation passed was a success and everyone should be really, really happy with what they got.

Any dissatisfaction by the voters, as you would have it, is, at best, due to their failure to comprehend the wondrous achievements of the administration. More likely, it's due to them being pouty, sullen tree-huggers who wanted a pony, or, to quote another member of the cheering squad, because they're just "fucking stupid."

The bottom line is that the position (and policy) you advocate lost. Telling voters what they ought to be happy with is a losing strategy. And, if the only way you can score a victory is by pursuing the opposing team's agenda, you're doing it wrong.

I'm not going to pretend that there is an easy solution to the challenges facing democrats, and I do think we need to evaluate options. But, bending over and asking "please, sir, may I have some more" is NOT remotely one of those options.

Historically speaking, the current administration is reminiscent of Truman's presidency more-so than FDR. I'm reading through some more of that history before making substantive suggestions regarding what can or should be done in the next two years.

I'm not sure what your problem is.

You say that telling voters what they ought to be happy with is a losing strategy. But the vast majority of Democrats are ALREADY happy with the bill. Sure, there are some people who aren't, but they make up a tiny minority of the Democratic party. Similarly, there are a few Democrats who don't approve of Obama, but his approval among Democrats is the highest for any President since JFK. Generally, these people can't be pleased no matter what anyone does, so I don't know why Obama should spend a huge amount of time worrying about them.

up Medicare as a budget choice for people to buy into who can't afford high priced private insurance, or lowering the eligibility age for recipients could have been done incrementally as LBJ intended. It might not even have needed much from Congress, maybe just a clause in a bill to improve Medicare.

to unroll the Romney health care package, nothing about public option or single payer though.

get a public option.

And in any case, Romneycare was passed by an 8-1 Democratic Massachusetts state legislature. On top of that, Obama's bill does a lot more than Romneycare. For example, half of the coverage expansion (hundreds of billions of dollars) is to provide insurance for poor people through a government-run program (Medicaid).

That much is clear, And now with our new Republican overlords, whatever agenda Obama might have had is dead.

But hey, according to you, there was just no way to avoid this cluster fuck. Wow, I feel better already. :eyes:

Got it.

Now, are we going to have a good-faith discussion, or are you going to continue with the game playing?

when he wanted to get something done, he did whatever it took to do it, including trampling procedure and laws.

I don't want Obama to break the law, but it would be nice if he and Democrats in Congress went to the very edge of the rules and stood their ground from time to time.

It also would have been easier to swallow less than perfect health care and other legislation if the Democrats hadn't bent over and grabbed their ankles so often when Bush told them to.

The message is clear: when the wealthy want something, both parties bust a nut to get it done NOW. When the rest of us want something, they slow walk it and look for every excuse in the book to water it down or just plain forget about it.

He got through tax cuts, that only require 50 votes. That's basically it. All the other big partisan bills he tried (Social Security, ANWR Drilling, Immigration) failed, since they required 60 votes.

Particularly egregious examples of where you're wrong in bold:

2001
June 7: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
September 18: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists
September 28: United States-Jordan Free Trade Area Implementation Act
October 26: USA PATRIOT Act
November 28: Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act

2002
January 8: No Child Left Behind Act
March 9: Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
March 27: Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
May 13: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002<1>
July 30: Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
October 16: Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
November 25: Homeland Security Act of 2002


2003
March 11: Do-Not-Call Implementation Act
April 30: PROTECT Act of 2003 (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act)
May 27: United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003
May 28: Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
September 3: United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
September 3: United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
November 5: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
December 3: Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
December 8: Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003
December 16: American Dream Down Payment Act of 2003
December 16: Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM)

2004
April 1: Unborn Victims of Violence Act (Laci and Conner’s Law)
July 17: United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
August 3: United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

2005
February 18: Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
May 11: Real ID Act
April 20: Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005
August 2: Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
August 8: Energy Policy Act of 2005
August 10: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA)
October 26: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

2006
January 11: United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
March 9: USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act
July 27: Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
August 17: The Pension Protection Act of 2006
September 30: Iran Freedom and Support Act
October 4: Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007
October 17: Military Commissions Act of 2006
October 26: Secure Fence Act of 2006

or nearly unanimously, such as the patriot act and NCLB. Others passed with huge majorities as well, and even the ones that didn't still passed with something like a 2-1 majority. The big partisan bills failed.

Oh god, that is funny.

Ok, you win. I'll concede that George Bush was unable to pass almost all of the bills that he was unable to pass. :rofl:

To do so, you are claiming that Bush got through whatever he wanted. Except "whatever he wanted" only includes bills that the Democrats didn't actually unanimously oppose (and often supported by large margins).

So the idea that "Bush got through <all the bills you mention>" somehow supports the idea that "Obama should have gotten through <the bills you wanted Obama to pass>" is pure bunk. For all the non-reconciliation bills under Bush that Democrats unanimously opposed, Bush failed to get them through.

All arguments of the form "Obama should have gotten through X because Bush got through Y" are bullshit.

Oh wait...

See, people aren't buying what you're selling. And the proof is that we just got our asses kicked in a nationwide election. It's not that Democrats just happened to agree with Bush, it's that they were too scared to vote against him. And that is partly because of Democratic weakness, but also because the Repukes weren't afraid to play hardball.

Obama, on the other hand, spends his time trying to kowtow to the Republicans. Hell, he practically gave that dying party CPR. There's no way a real leader would have allowed them to obstruct his agenda like that. Just look at what Bush and the Republicans did when the Dems threatened to filibuster a few of the neanderthals Bush appointed to the courts. Then consider the weak response to Republican filibusters from this White House.

This current White House can't even keep their own party in line. Blanche Lincoln spent most of the past two years undermining Obama's agenda, and then Obama goes and campaigns for her against a primary opponent who would have been a MUCH better supporter of the President. It's that kind of pathetic weakness that turns off American voters.

So yeah, Obama should have gotten more of a progressive agenda through Congress. He should have fought harder. He should have aimed higher. Bush's legislative steamroller is just one datapoint in that assessment. The electoral debacle we just experienced is another. How many more wake-up calls do you need? Do we need to lose the White House before you figure out that the current strategy is failing?

Yeah. He should have just dissolved Congress, or threatened Republicans' children. Why bother with Congress? If Congress complained that it was actually an equal branch, that you know, passes laws, Obama should have said "you and what standing army." I mean, Bush lost ALL his domestic policy 60-vote battles when Democrats were united against him (including almost all of his second term legislative agenda). But Obama should just pass laws by fiat.

:sarcasm:

"The electoral debacle we just experienced is another."

That assumes that the independents voted against Democrats by 18 points because they weren't left enough, as opposed to being (in their view) too far left. Despite them saying they wanted less government with fewer services over bigger government with more services by a large margin.

Anyone who thinks that the public completely agrees with them (and any election loss should be interpreted through the lens of agreeing with them, as opposed to disagreeing with them vigorously), yet provides no support to this effect, is probably wrong as a general matter (independent of the issue in question). Your excuse reminds me of the Republican excuse after 2006 and 2008 (that people elected Democrats because Republicans weren't conservative enough).

One thing I've learned about our little conversations is once you break out the strawmen, you're pretty much out of ideas. Have a nice evening. :hi:

On all those, he either steamrolled the Dems or they rolled over and voted with them. It's revisionist history to say that he was stymied on all of them.

Not even you can believe THAT bullshit.

You really should post a retraction.

should be the one posting the retraction?

To ALL those listed in post #152,
I would add the seating of Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court.

And I specifically said bills. Nominations are not bills.

You still have yet to name a single example of a big, partisan bill that Bush got through during regular order (as opposed to reconciliation). Perhaps you should think about whether or not YOU should stop digging?

How conveeenient. :eyes:

And you also said he accomplished "basically nothing" that needed to go through Congress. You might have mentioned bills in the text of your post, but your premise was "nothing". (Your posts are, like, right up there ^^^).

The list goes on and on and includes much large, awful legistation, war, no less. The Patriot Act. Good grief.

Not the first word I thought of, but applicable nonetheless.

The only way to get a universal health care system through a corporate controlled legislature is to educate and involve citizens. Obama had a vast network of supporters nationwide that could have been mobilized into a massive information campaign on various successful universal health care plans around the world. Literature and websites could have been made available to all americans informing them of how other counties handle healthcare. Canvas neighborhoods getting the info to people. Set up phone banks to answer questions and involve the massive number of citizens who supported him in the process.
Take tv time every week for 6-8 weeks to showcase experts from individual countries with healthcare programs educating people to the costs, pros and cons of each system including a week for our own health insurance companies to make the case for their plan. But that is where their influence begins and ends.

Obama had the attention of the nation, the world and he had the people in this country behind him.
It is that important and every person should feel involved just like the they did during the campaign.

At the same time do what taiwan did when they switched their for profit system to gov. run. Put together the best non politician, non CEO minds and have them study systems that work and put together recommendations that put the health of people first.

Put together truly progressive legislation that fixes the problem, then hand it to congress after fully explaining the final proposal to Americans. Give the people the info needed to successfully fight against the small minority teabaggers that would piss on progress.

If the votes aren't there what better way to educate people than to show them who really is concerned about their health and access to care and who isn't.

It may not have passed but the people would not only be armed with knowledge but they would know exactly why and who needs to be removed to get it passed. Also they would have the names of who is responsible for the continuing suffering and deaths of tens of thousands of their neighbors, friends, colleagues and fellow citizens.

That is hope and change.

What we got is an unimaginative, uninspired, cowardly, "same old same old" corporations first approach and it miserably failed.

The last two "challenge" threads like this that I wrote the same thing in were abandoned right quick, too.

I don't accept the framing of the problem by the OP. In fact I find it toxic.

:evilgrin: I think he was peddling as fast as he could with all he was left, but someone could have done all that w/o the President, no one organized it, apparently, we were too lazy.

Thanks for an excellent demolition of another Defeatocrat post.

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

I know it's hard. Getting your arguments pulverized the way they've been has got to stick in your craw. But at this point, you're only embarrassing yourself.

Go outside, get some fresh air. Hell, call a friend and hang out in the real world for a while. DU will still be here when you get back, and maybe by then your posts will have lost that edge of not-so-quiet desperation.

Good luck. :hi:

:rofl:

You truly live in a fantasy universe.

pul·ver·ize Verb /ˈpəlvəˌrīz/
Synonyms:
verb: powder, grind, spray, levigate
pulverising present participle; pulverised past tense; pulverizing present participle; pulverised past participle; pulverized past tense; pulverizes 3rd person singular present; pulverized past participle; pulverises 3rd person singular present

1. Reduce to fine particles
the brick of the villages was pulverized by the bombardment

2. Defeat utterly
he had a winning car and pulverized the opposition


Just let me know if you need any more help with your vocabulary. I'm here for ya buddy. :hug:

FDR knew, however, that he was not allowed to touch the segregated South, or he'd face mass revolt and the end of his domestic agenda.

And LBJ knew that when he signed the Civil Rights Act that he'd lost the South for a very long time.

It takes a groundswell of support we didn't even come CLOSE to having to get the radical change these men got.

He had 76% of the general public behind him in support of a PO, and all he had to do was take to the bully pulpit and speak directly to the people. He didn't. Instead, and behind closed doors, he simply took it off the table without so much as a whimper. The fact that he never even tried to include a PO proves that it was NEVER anything more than a bit of campaign rhetoric crafted by a campaign think-tank, and regurgitated to a voting public desperately searching for something/someone to believe in. Sad really, he could have been so much more.

That's all we needed.

Obama does not have the courage to do the right thing if it means losing the corporate cash.

to change the filibuster rules if they so choose.

Lame.

ANWR drilling?

They had 55 Senate votes. Why not?

Furthermore, rather than changing the civil rights bill to get enough votes to overcome a filibuster (which LBJ did), why didn't LBJ just end the filibuster?

But I do know this: Instead of strong-arming the corporate ass-licking Blue Dogs into accepting the public option or the Medicare buy-in (either of which would have been an IMMEDIATELY FORESEEABLE benefit to millions), Obama strong-armed the Progressive Caucus into accepting a corporate welfare bill with NO public option and compulsory high-deductible private insurance.

That tells me where Obama's loyalties lie, not with the American people and those who fight for their interests but for the wealthy corporatists who will get him expensive speaking engagements (cf. Bill Clinton) after he leaves office.