the country is ungovernable. Very little has ever been done without some support on both sides of the eisle. FDR got some Republican support, he didn't even need it. Civil Rights never would've passed without Republican support, Medicare was partially drafted by a Republican.

With the exception of his tax cuts, most of Bush's successfull legislation had support from Democrats...the ones that didn't, such as Social Security privitazation did not pass.

Also, I'd just point out that despite convential wisdom on the blogs, Obama got a lot of support from young voters simply because he was willing to attempt to end the partisan back and forth that has turned young people off. Republicans know this and know the best way to force young people to tune out is to make Washington unworkably partisan again, so these votes go "ugh, nothing changed, they're still arguing back and forth" and tune out again, which is what happened.

Maybe it didn't work, doesn't make us a better country for it. In fact, it makes us a worse country.

and it doesn't make it more likely we get good legislation passed. It forces us to do one of two things...ram legislation through and defend oursevles from allegations of being too partisan and unconciliatory to other people's beliefs, or negotiate with ourselves and be forced to defend oursevles from allegations of being disorganized and incompetent.

Either way, the Republicans knew this would work, and there really isn't any way to stop it.

And you are right about the President. He is not a failure as a leader, far from it.

But in this battle - if he wishes it not to become his own personal Waterloo - he'd better give them a 'whiff of grapeshot' and send them running or else we're going to have a colossal mess on our hands.

 

This is an economy that is precariously balanced on the edge of recovery - real healthcare reform CANNOT be called reform unless it includes a national health service.  The fact that he did not explicitly mention the word 'option' at his last press conference, has to be taken as a sign that he does not in fact see it as optional. Neither does the Speaker of the House. 

 

If the President wins his current legislative face-off against the republicans over Healthcare, however which way he chooses - which will in no way conflict with his duty as executive - he will have shown himself to rise above the broken Senate and finally become a governor of men. 

 

Kudos for this post. Its the best I've read in over two months - I've been fuming over whats been going on with healthare ever since the senate did that silly christmas eve stunt and stuffed my stocking with lumps of coal.   The house bill through reconciliation! Let him publicly declare support for the senate version if he wishes, but if in the end - through reconciliation we have real reform then the GOP will have received his come-uppance and the entire country will light up like a christmas tree.

 

"Mr. Obama has held fast to the belief that by listening carefully and appealing to reason he can bring people together to get results." (the part you emphasized)

I take it you'd rather he not listen carefully? Does that men you'd rather have him not listen, or just not carefully? That he should not appeal to reason? Not try to bring people together?

Nice video of Hillary, Charles. Very reasonable. Loved Listening. Brang me together nicely.

It is not ironic that his speech comes two years after Hillary's rant.  What IS ironic, is that the same qualities Clinton derided in Obama have gotten us closer to HCR than ever before. 

 

further. it does amuse me (let's call it that since i've gone way past frustration) at the complete and utter lack of discipline on the part of democrats when we hold the levers of (elected) power.  but, yeah, let's keep the guns aimed at the left, because the right has real firepower and it's much easier to attack the weaker opponent. the president pursues bipartisanship (i assume) because that's what he ran on.  the ability to appeal to broad spectrums of americans was what differentiated him from hillary.  that's who he is.  so this critique that the president is too bipartisan may make (some) people feel better, but it is both counterproductive (likely to alienate the president) and never going to produce any positive results.

 

further.

it does amuse me (let's call it that since i've gone way past frustration) at the complete and utter lack of discipline on the part of democrats when we hold the levers of (elected) power.  but, yeah, let's keep the guns aimed at the left, because the right has real firepower and it's much easier to attack the weaker opponent.

the president pursues bipartisanship (i assume) because that's what he ran on.  the ability to appeal to broad spectrums of americans was what differentiated him from hillary.  that's who he is.  so this critique that the president is too bipartisan may make (some) people feel better, but it is both counterproductive (likely to alienate the president) and never going to produce any positive results.

voters still seem to prefer bipartisan efforts, especially in enacting major reform legislation:

 

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 4-8, 2010. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.

"Do you think Obama is doing too much, too little or about the right amount to compromise with the Republican leaders in Congress on important issues?"

TooMuch TooLitt AbtRight Unsure  

9 44 45 2

 

the president has been pursuing bipartisan support for his (major) change agenda not simply because americans prefer that but because democrats in congress don't agree.  we can bitch all we want about the public option but until i see the votes in the senate, it's still a pipe dream.  complaining about the president -- who comes out of the senate, understands the senate and is probably far more realistic about what can be voted out of the senate than any of us -- is meaningless in that context.

more to the point, we aren't doing our job either.  republicans have an advantage not only is their ability to stay on message and stick together over long periods of time, but their message apparently resonates with voters.  this was made apparent during the massachusetts campaign that was largely over health care reform.  this graphic appeared in the economist following support for health care reform in massachusetts:

that's great.  the republican meme is right(???) -- the more we talk about health care reform, the worse it does???  if that isn't an indictment of our inability to properly frame a message that resonates with the public, and then stick to our guns, i don't know what is.  of course, the administration shares the blame with us; their communication strategy has clearly failed, but it's failure is, in part, due to the relentless criticism that it has received from the left.

it's not that far-fetched to conclude that progressives would prefer to attack then to enact.

what you should be talking about is the president's decision to stick to *his* guns and his announced agenda.  the public has every right to be pissed about the perception that the federal government isn't doing enough to bring back jobs.  the recent cbs/nytimes poll shows the frustration in america:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Feb. 5-10, 2010. N=1,084 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Open-ended

Economy/Jobs 52%

Health care 13%

Budget deficit/National debt 4%

War/Iraq/Afghanistan 3%

Big government/Bureaucracy 3%

Defense/Military 2%

Other 19%

Unsure 4%

i agree with the assessment that republicans aren't going to come together and work for the betterment of america.  from my pov, republicans focused on defeating hillary clinton, nominated the person they believed could do that, and then never switched gears after it became clear the barack would be our leader.  it took them until march or so of 2009 to finally come to terms with how to deal with the result.  now they aren't going to back down (because, you know, they are actually a disciplined force that can united behind a single cause or principle) until they've had a chance to defeat this president (at the ballot box).  we have three more years of this crap.

i disagree with this particular complaint because we don't know if the president's inclination will produce results.  the public clearly understands that the president is doing more to reach out to republicans than they are to compromise in return.  how will voters react to that?  we don't know yet.  and this president isn't likely to back down until there are real facts on the table.

so the question becomes, how do we, as people who support a progressive agenda, react to these facts on the ground?  criticizing our allies (the administration) isn't likely to result in anything other than temporary euphoria.  and if that's what we want, then why do we need to talk about a progressive agenda anyway?  if we're just looking for some thrill (talking truth to power), do we really need to con people into thinking that we're all for social change and action?

we need to be honest.  the government isn't likely to get any more conducive to a progressive agenda than it is now.  for democrats to stay in power, we will always have conservative and moderate representatives in congress who don't buy into our cause of the day.  if we can't build a proper frame around that (specific) cause, if we can't make it safe for these conservative and moderate democrats to vote for our issues, then we failed.

we have failed because we haven't done that.  anybody who thinks that politicians (especially politicians who've made it to congress) are brave souls who are willing to risk their careers to do the right thing for this country has not been paying attention.  it's time to start...

 

 

 

 

..is for when you're 50-50 or 51-49!

When you give a 50-50 say to a 40-60 minority, you are not using your power on behalf of the people who gave you that majority.

We voted in a large majority, because we understood just how perniciously incompetent and morally bankrupt and despicable the Party of NO is, and what it does to our future as a people.

The President has given them every chance to do the right thing, Charles.  That was the right thing to do.  Now, we cannot afford to wait any longer, and I think the President knows this too.

Let's stop listening to tired tropes from Fixed Noise and Krauthammer about what a failure Obama is, OK?  He has shown the country, indeed the world that you can get things done and you still keep yourself and your party on the high ground.

The only thing Neanderthals like McCotter, Pence, the 2 Kings, Wilson, Bachmann and others have proven is that America is finally seeing these folks for who they are.  They are not patriots, feedom-fighters, or loyal noble opposition:  They are simply desperate dirtbag politicians who long ago sold what little integrity they had for campaign donations to the highest bidder, mostly to the corporations.

Corporate money pays for Teabaggers, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Hume, Kristol, Krauthammer, and every other figure desperate to tear the President down and kill the progressive agenda.

But curiously, America is not buying it.  Gallup's daily tracker has shown us a very stable support level for Obama, and for Democrats.  It's corporate-paid media whores like Rasmussen and FOX who have been succesful in painting the " Obama's in Trouble"  "Obama's Weak"  " Obama's Failing"  pictures.

Let's not fall for them like we were ignorant FOX Republicans, OK?

It all comes back to the fact that Obama did not understand he was in a very partisan moment. Clinton was the partisan candidate. And to top it off, we had some of the most partisan Dems around back Obama because of their hatred of Clinton. Some of that justified, over her vote for Iraq, although with Obama's surge into Afghanistan, even that distinction now looks ill-suited.

Anyway, the news today is that its time for Obama to begin to think about 2012. What fun.

So we've settled the question of what Obama stands for: re-election.

that you have hit the nail on it's head.  I also wish that it is the only nail that needs to be hit on the head ~ I suspect it is not !!

I've been a critic of the bipartisanship schtick with mind-numbing regularity.  Like Barney Frank, I long ago succumbed to post-partisan depression.  But why the heck would anyone raise this criticism in the context of the upcoming health care summit - the tactic which appears to be our one and only hope of getting a health care bill passed at all?!?

Seemingly everyone agrees that one of the President's best moments in office was his appearance at the GOP congressional retreat where he engaged them directly and took them to school.  It's obvious that the health care summit is born of the same brand of "bipartisanship" - get the other party up on stage with you and let the public see that they aren't there in good faith and don't have any arguments on the merits.

Maybe achieving moments like this isn't worth all the sacrifices that get made along the way in the name of bipartisanship, but one thing is clear: you don't get to expose the other party in this manner if the public doesn't perceive you as coming from a position of good faith yourself.  We've seen the Republicans call this a trap and try to wriggle off the hook for the last week.  Fortunately, the public isn't buying it, and I submit the reason they aren't buying it is that Obama has put so much effort into establishing his rep as a good-faith bargainer.  So this is not the time to complain about the post-partisan unity schtick.  If HCR is a big failure in spite of the summit and the Democrats get slaughtered in November and all that, we can all resume our complaining - but why not pause for now and see if just this one time, the whole bipartisanship routine actually pays dividends?

Look, I am as frustrated as anyone by a country that says they want bipartisanship but then insists on rewarding the party that does everything it can to frustrate bipartisanship.  The approach I preferred wasn't Obama's, and I think I made that pretty clear.  But once he was the candidate, I figured "well, nothing else is working anyway, might as well give this a shot and see how it goes."  I understand why some people are ready to render a verdict already, but I think the jury is still out to a greater extent than we think - and this is our President until 2012 and probably beyond, so why waste time demanding that he reinvent his whole political persona?  If it doesn't work, maybe next time everyone will agree to try things my way, but here's the dirty little secret: my way might work out just as badly!  You never really know.

I'd feel a lot more sure of the President's good-heartedness if he hadn't sided repeatedly with Wall Street over Main Street, hadn't argued to continue to spy on Americans and even assassinate them, and didn't permit torture to continue at Bagram.  Since he's done all of those things (and more!), it seems the only people the President is good-hearted towards are Republicans.  Funny that.

She knew these esteemed colleagues were hyper-partisan and irresponsible.  It's why I voted for her in the primary.  She's tough and knows a fight when she sees one.

A community organizer should also know about fighting.  Community organizing isn't just about building bridges; it's about identifying objectives and opponents, and mobilizing forces to overcome opponents, sometimes by just plain beating them.

 

"Change you can xerox"

and

"If you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your girl"

were my 3 favorites of the 08 primary....

I also enjoyed Obama's

"she's talking like she's Annie Oakley, like she's out on a duck blind every Sunday packing a six shooter"......that was funny too.

Ohhhhh I miss the simple days .... when O'bambi was filled with hope and change and the Fighter kept going like Rocky Balboa.....

now we just have crap and more crap from the vast right wing conspiracy.

 

 

 

 

Like Patrick, Like Obama?  Governor Patrick and President Obama both gave speeches within days of Republican Scott Brown's victory over Democrat Martha Coakley.  Both Patrick and Obama performed well, acknowledged Coakley's loss, the shortcomings in their efforts, admonishing their political opponents and the frustrated public to be engaged in the process and contribute to solutions.  Still, the obstacles to their leadership remain and their political prospects are in question.

Although Patrick and Obama both have partisan majorities in their legislatures, both leaders are frustrated by inertia and the status quo within their party.  Obama also confronts an aggressive Republican opposition.  But something is missing.

Neither Patrick nor Obama have an effective strategy to drive their agenda and preserve the active support of their new voters, voters who are the "value-added" to Democratic political capital.  Neither has governed with or for their base.  Gov. Patrick relinquished the support of his activist base, and dismissed the counsel of insiders from previous Democratic administrations.  As President, Obama adopted the tired leadership strategies of Clinton and Carter, Democratic presidents who each governed under very different circumstances than we find today.  

Nothing better exemplifies this situation for Gov. Patrick than the tension with leaders from the African American community.  The Governor has not been able to squarely address their community and political needs within his framework of "change."  Likewise, Obama doesn't want to be too closely linked to the Congressional Black Caucus, and he actively resists any strategic partnering with progressives in the House and Senate.   Liberals and independents are drifting from Democratic leadership, unhappy with the lack of tangible changes that address the stark inequalities of wealth and power that undermine our confidence in government and politics.  Both President Obama and Gov. Patrick are left governing without the engaged support of their once active constituencies.  

Even "the bluest state," conservative attitudes among voters and Democratic politicians toward taxes, toward inequality of incomes and opportunity, have stymied the leadership of Governor Patrick.  His message of change has focused largely on state government and the legislature, where change is certainly much needed.  But, like Obama, he has not challenged the role of greedy corporate and financial executives here in our state who have enriched themselves at the expense of the broad majority.  His proposals to date have not included measures that would do so, such as a wealth tax to fund needed public programs.   Despite advancing important policies, Gov. Patrick has lost the active support of his base and disappointed new voters. Both Democratic leaders and politics are still out of step with the people and the times, and they need to do a better job catching up and connecting with new and working class voters.

The Democratic Party is challenged, here in Massachusetts and nationally, by the demands of our times, by enforcers of the status quo, and by their own assumptions of leadership.   To make significant change, Democrats need a progressive majority and a progressive majority is built and sustained by reaching out to new voters and emerging constituencies and governing for and with them. These are the people that will sustain progressive leaders and support real change.

The moral of the story?  Democrats-change thyself.  Recruit new voters, deliver for your base and keep your supporters engaged.  Challenge class privilege, power and the stark inequality that undermines our confidence in government and political leadership.  Call out conservatism for its falsehoods and failures and help Americans get beyond it.  Change Dems, change!. 

They moved slow, and wanted "bi-partisanship". When you are in charge you need to govern. Well this "bi-partisanship" allowed the Republicans to usurp the debate and turn what was once a popular goal into a half-assed dog fight. We could have used reconciliation from the very beginning. Obama stop talking already and govern, same goes for Reid, what incompetence. We have squandered our large majorities that may not exist next year, for what? I'm all for bipartisanship when it gets results. We are in gridlock, and nothing is getting done, especially goals promised in the campaign.

Obama has been either foolish or corrupt in his kowtowing to Republicant political assassins as well as Demoblican corporate stooges.