It's HALFTIME AMERICA, Obama cannot throw the ball and catch the ball

[itsrobert]

Give Obama a Democratic congress to throw to.

[dennis4868]

1. wait what...

Obama has to work with congress to pass laws? I read DU all the time and it seems from most of the posts everything is Obama's fault therefore it must be that Obama does not have to concern himself with what Congress does or says. I thought the Constitution was changed and that only a President can turn a bill into a law. I'm confused. Better get off of DU and read the US Constitution again.

[savalez]

34. I'm Just a Bill. Yes, I'm only a bill. And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.

[rfranklin]

2. Thank you, Gisele!

Ready for your closeup?

[Cali_Democrat]

35. LOL

[zipplewrath]

3. We did

He passed a health insurance mandate and ramped up the war in Afghanistan. He also protected the torturers from prosecution, and made absolutely no changes to the SOFA. He kept Gates and Patreaus as well. He also CHOSE to pass a stimulus bill that was too small by half.

I'll give him the best congress I can, he's gonna have to learn to succeed with "less than perfect".

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. WOW!! I didn't know a president could "PASS" bills!!

Gee, you learn something new every day.

OP: K&R!!!!!

[zipplewrath]

9. The admonition was to give him a democratic congress

I was pointing out that we gave him one, and this is what he did with it. Several of them by his own choice, not because the congress asked him to. I'm not sure the simple call for a "democratic" congress is going to accomplish many things unless the president is also disposed to pursuing the policies.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. In the House, yes. The House *Passed* progressive bills. It was the Senate where BLUE DOG

Democrats joined with Republicans in blocking that legislation.

This line of reasoning from the Obama haters is getting real old. Not only is it historically false, it is intellectually dishonest.

[zipplewrath]

14. And the senate isn't part of Congress?

The OP mentioned giving him a democratic congress. We did. We gave him a democratic senate with 58/59/60 votes. He STILL has a democratic Senate.

And they didn't block him from proposing a bigger stimulus, Summers did. Summers thought it would scare markets, not congress.
They didn't block him from pursuing the torturers, HE chose to do that.
The didn't block him from modifying the SOFA, HE chose to do that.
They pursued an earlier end to Afghanistan and he opposed it.
They pursued an earlier end to DADT and he negotiated a longer time period with congress.
He conducted secret negotiations with Big Pharma, without consulting congress.
He decided single payer shouldn't even be part of the conversation.
He decided that mandates should be part of the legislation, not the blue dogs.

You might actually want to consider for a moment that Obama is more blue dog than progressive. As senator he voted FOR the telecommunications act.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. I always knew that Obama was a moderate, more in the vein of the Blue Dogs.

It is his haters who continue to have this fantasy about him being some kind of liberal when there is no evidence that he ever was.

They voted for him, not paying attention to his stances on various policies.

The Senate IS the one chamber of Congress through with legislation must be approved.

The president is the head of the Executive Branch. He does not *pass* laws.

If you don't know how the policy process works, don't blame me for it. Blame yourself.

If you voted for Obama and are now disappointed because you don't see more progressive outcomes, blame yourself. You should have done your homework.

Obama has done pretty much everything that he has said he would do. He campaigned on sending troops to Afghanistan. If you still voted for him despite what he clearly ran on, it's your fault.

[zipplewrath]

18. So how is a better congress going to help

You and I are actually in violent agreement. A more progressive congress isn't going to get a more progressive Obama. Quite the opposite, it will only make it EASIER for him to pursue his moderate/right leaning policies. The GOP has to fight him, even when he is passing legislation that they would otherwise support.

A more progressive congress won't change his military plans.
It won't change his preference for tax breaks as part of stimulus.
It won't change his preference for protecting torturers.
It won't change his preference for indefinite detention.
It won't change his preference for extra-judicial killings.
It won't change his position on teachers unions.

The OP was suggesting that a more progressive congress would change Obama some how. It won't. Truth is, I'd be hesitant to suggest what it would accomplish. The few I think I could probably "guarantee" would be:

Higher taxes on income above $250K
A "Buffet Rule"
More appointments get approved through the Senate, with little assurance I'm gonna like them.
More aggressive consumer protections.

That's about it, other than that I suspect it will be just "more of the same".

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. If I have to teach you how Congress will have enough votes to override the president,

then I'm wasting my time.

You should read the U.S. Constitution. It'll give you the answer to your question.

[hedgehog]

31. DINO:

noun, anacronym from Democrat In Name Only, describing a person who runs as a member of the Democratic Party but who fails to support the Democratic Party platform and/or supports the Republican Party platform once elected.

[vaberella]

30. "He did with it..." Did you see the quality we gave him?

Half of them were Repubs dressed as Dems. Obama couldn't much of what he wanted. The congress you say you gave him denied him closing Gitmo...if you were aware by half you would know this. Stimulus package was passed before Obama was President...so I haven't a clue what you're on about there. Well the rest are half truths/or direct misrepresentation like the aforementioned.

Actually you are right on one thing. Democratic isn't enough by far. Maybe if they were Liberal Democrats voted into those seats you would be singing a different tune. Everything you complained about is a congressional failure not a Presidential one but I love how you don't seperate the two. Obama cannot control Congress---division of power plays an massive role here. I hate when that is forgotten for rants like yours to continue on.

[zipplewrath]

32. He's more conservative than the congress we gave him

He is more centrist/right leaning than the congress we gave him. I don't think you can make case, nor have you tried, that the congress we gave him was some how to the "right" of him. They tried to pull him left on Afghanistan and he resisted. They tried to speed up the repeal of DADT and he resisted. He resisted his own staff in proposing a significantly larger stimulus. He didn't want trials of torturers "look forward not backwards".

I don't see how a more progressive congress would have changed any of that.

[bahrbearian]

12. LBJ sure could.

Bush pushed some of the worst bills, they passed.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

16. Again, historically inaccurate and intellectually dishonest.

LBJ had 67 Democrats in the Senate, plus moderate and liberal Republicans who joined Democrats in passing legislation.

The Congress that LBJ enjoyed is NOT the same form or structure that Obama has.

It is a bogus comparison. A false comparison, and utterly naive.

[bahrbearian]

17. What about Bush ,NCLB and Medicad D

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

24. Who controlled the Congress then?

[JDPriestly]

19. How often has Obama used his veto power?

I'll answer that, thank you. Twice. Twice.

Obama has never used a pocket veto.

FDR used his veto 635 times including 263 pocket vetoes.

Obama has vetoed fewer bills than any president since the turn of the 20th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

Obama does not use the authority he has.

[treestar]

20. One would think form your post that the 111th Congress was some leftie bunch

Just goes to show you how much your work is cut out for you.

Instead just complain that Obama can't elect a really left wing Congress by himself.

[zipplewrath]

21. He was to the right of his democratic congress

Obama was to the right of them, pulling them right on Afghanistan, HCR, and even getting them to agree to delays in DADT. I'm not sure how electing a more progressive congress is going to change that.

[JoePhilly]

25. As a candidate he SAID he would increase troops in Afganistan ...

you do know that, right?

Can you explain how he "protected" the torturers?

SOFA? Are you serious?

Gates and Patreaus? This is theater criticism.

And can you PLEASE explain how he gets a larger stimulus passed ... I doubt that. But PLEASE try.

There is a whole lot of nothing in your post.

[zipplewrath]

27. Yes I do

I do know what he promised as a candidate. So how would giving him a bigger democratic congress change that? That was the assertion of the original post (you did read it right? Context is everything.) The assertion was a more progressive congress would give us a more progressive Obama. History doesn't bear that out.

He went over to the CIA and explained to them that he "had their backs" and wouldn't allow them to be prosecuted. Congress didn't force that.

He decided to execute SOFA, even though there were progressives in congress that wanted an accelerated plan. He argued against them.

He chose to keep on Gates and Patreaus, not congress.

He decided not to propose a bigger stimulus, and was even oppposed to one. Congress was never presented with anything close to what was needed.

So, in the light of all that, can you explain how electing a more progressive congress will get us a more progressive Obama considering that the last time he had one, he preferred to work with the Blue Dogs and prefered to resist the progressives.

[OhioBlue]

36. I gotta call you out on the stimulus specifically

your revisionist history is so not accurate.

The Congress began writing the Bill before Obama was sworn in. It also faced a filibuster threat in the Senate. All parties had to make compromises to get Snowe, Collins and/or Spector (who was still a Republican at the time) to get on board and vote for cloture. The backbone of the bill began before Obama was President and the negotiations has to bring on board the moderate Republicans or the bill would have faced filibuster. those are the facts. It is my opinion the newly elected Pres O and his administration did the best they could at that time.

[zipplewrath]

37. Unfortunatley, your opinion doesn't trump fact

We recently learned in a published article, which was in essence confirmed by those involved, that Summers would not allow a significantly larger stimulus package to be proposed, even within the White House discussions. Not because he was afraid it could not pass, but because he was afraid the markets would react badly. It was the White House position that if the stimulus was insufficient, they could go back in a year or so for more.

Krugman and others were warning them it was too small, and they were warned that if it failed, there'd be no "do overs", but they did not listen. They increased the size and scope of the tax cut to satisfy the GOP, and then got no significant support, and cut the direct aid to States. The cutting of direct aid to states caused the states to lay off significantly more state workers, making the unemployment situation worse. The tax cuts were one of the weaker forms of stimulus that mostly went to paying down middle class, and upper middle class debt.

I'm not sure which part of that is revisionist history, but none of it is opinion.

[earthside]

5. You mean like he had for two years?

It's a clever line about throwing and catching the ball ... but the latest to use that saying was a loser.

Pres. Obama needs to be a stronger leader ... and he needs a 'receiver' in the Senate who will go on the offense to get the filibuster rule changed so that having a majority there means something.

Unless Harry Reid is out a majority leader, then having a Democratic president and Congressional majorities is going to be pointless again.

[GeorgeGist]

8. Well Tom Brady had Rush Limbaugh on his side!

[Myrina]

13. +100

Thank you.

[SwampG8r]

6. tell that to some and

they will explain how he can throw the ball catch the ball block for himself and referee the game all at once
and if he cant its congresses fault

[think]

7. Great football analogy /nt

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Thing is, the 'ardent supporters' here do not like seeing the throw, and so it has to

go on elsewhere. All through the gaming around DADT, they whined and cried and accused those throwing to the President that we were throwing too hard, too soon, that we needed to sit on the sidelines and 'chill' like they do.
My entire region elects Democrats to Congress, and when we elected the President, we sent him a new Democratic Senator as well. So what you are asking is that we CONTINUE to do what we always do? Guess so.

[JoePhilly]

26. What I recall is all of the folks who claimed that Obama ...

was against the repeal.

Those who predicted that he wasn't going to sign it.

And then later predicted that after he signed it, he was still going to let the military wiggle out of it.

And then it ended. For good.

Because he dotted the Is and crossed the Ts.

In the case of DADT, some demanded that Obama throw the Hail-Mary ... instead, Obama used a sustained ground game, moved the ball down the field, and then scored the touch down.

Those complaining about whether the touchdown came by throwing the bomb, or by grinding it out on the ground, seem to be searching for a criticism.

[Bruce Wayne]

22. Yes, he can

catchy

[JNelson6563]

28. Catch AND throw? That's nothing!

Some expect he will make the football, build the stadium, fill the stands and THEN catch & throw the football. Then of course here come the tears when such unrealistic expectations go unmet.

lolz Morons.

Julie

[vaberella]

29. Clarification please. Give him a Progressive/Liberal Congress---Democratic does not equate the two.

n/t

[Laura PourMeADrink]

33. +1 SUPERB mixed metaphor. Love it ! nt