Why do people keep saying that Obama negotiates too much with Republicans?

[BzaDem]

Every day, I keep hearing things like "Obama needs to realize the Republicans want him to fail, and stop negotiating with them solely for the sake of bipartisanship." Or that Obama needs to be less of a "consensus builder" and more of leader.

Last time I checked, Obama was fully aware that Republicans want him to fail. He says as much all the time. Reading statements like the above, one would assume Obama waters down bills just for the sake of bipartisanship (and that instead he should tell them to go to hell and pass bills with the minimum votes required).

But let's look at Obama's three biggest accomplishments. The stimulus passed with exactly 60 votes. Healthcare passed with exactly 60 votes. Today, financial reform passed -- with 60 votes.

Each and every time, Obama negotiated with the fewest (and most liberal) Republicans he needed to pass the bill, and told ALL the rest to go to hell. Each and every time, his bills passed with not a SINGLE vote to spare. Not one.

So how is this argument anything other than a complete and utter straw man that has no relation with reality?

Are the people putting forth this argument the same people who actually deny the 60 vote threshold in the Senate (or think "making them filibuster" under the current Senate rules actually would change anything ever)? Or do they belong to the group that believes "setting up electoral contrasts" is more important than legislating?

Or is there another part of this argument that I'm missing?

[Hawkowl]

1. How many times did W get 60 votes?

That's right NEVER. He did it with 51. Guess Obama is a weak negotiator.

[BzaDem]

2. He got 60 or more votes on EVERY SINGLE non-reconciliation bill.

If you think I am wrong, point me to ONE example where he did not find 60 votes for cloture. I'm waiting.

[ProudDad]

22. They don't need 60 votes!

That's the BIG LIE that's repeated over and over until people believe that bullshit!

Harry Reid and the Dem "leadership" could change the rule anytime they wish...

Or even better, MAKE THEM ACTUALLY FILIBUSTER!!! The old Jimmy Stewart on the floor of the Senate until he collapses...but those repukes don't have the guts or moral fiber -- they'd fold...

STOP BELIEVING THAT LIE...

But the REAL TRUTH IS that the Dems LOVE the Filibuster just as it is...

When it's time to pull the repub thumb out of the people's ass, and the Dem thumb out of the people's throat and SWITCH THEM (as is the custom of the two, relatively interchangeable right-wings of the Big Business Party here in the undemocratic USAmerikan Empire) the Dems will be able to block stuff too - to pretend that they still have POWER...

Of course, when the Dems are back in the minority again, they won't block anything important like another Clarence Thomas or (YUCH) Patriot act or another fucking war but they'll surely block anything their corporate capitalist masters don't like...

[BzaDem]

30. Somehow, I think Bush would have privatized Social Security if he thought he didn't need 60 votes.

So I guess under your conspiracy theory, the Big Business Party (always doing Wall Street's bidding) didn't want Wall Street to have access to all that Social Security money.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ProudDad]

44. He couldn't get 51 votes to gut Social Security

Pretty lame...

There are some things that even the USAmerican Sheeple won't sit still for... Especially us Seniors...

Try again... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[fishwax]

13. bush didn't have an obstructionist opposition party to deal with

Dems didn't try to filibuster everything that Bush tried.

Besides, the truth is that Bush did get 60+ on a number of votes (the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind act spring to mind, although I'm sure there were more).

On some proposals he didn't--for instance, the 2001 tax cuts passed the Senate with 58 votes. Obama's major legislation isn't going to pass with 58 votes because the repubs are going to filibuster it.

[ProudDad]

20. Bush did get 60+ on a number of votes (the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind

Proof positive that Ralph Nader was RIGHT!!!

There ain't a dime's worth of difference between the two-right-wings of the BIG BUSINESS party...

[BzaDem]

31. People who say that there is no difference between the parties are simply spoiled.

They have no idea how good they have it. Luckily, the Naderites who said this at the time ended up later seeing the difference up close and personal. 90% of them fled Nader by the next election. Sometimes, it takes political pain (such as a Bush) for pepole to see reason. People can only inflict pain on themselves for so long before they become rational like clockwork.

[Angry Dragon]

3. I am one of those people you speak of

I do feel he consensus builds too much, worries about a filibuster too much and the HCR is very weak without the public option. The majority of the people wanted it in and he would not fight for it.

The times that this country is in demands a strong and vocal leader and I do not feel he is that man. He is much better than if mccain was in.

[BzaDem]

4. On HCR, he actually didn't get any Republican votes.

When you say "worried about a filibuster," what you really mean that he is worried that the bill wouldn't pass. You need 60 votes to bring up a bill for a vote. Lieberman wasn't going to invoke cloture on a PO even if 100% of the US wanted the bill to pass (and in this case, a consistent majority wanted the bill to fail). Leaders fight when they think they can win, not when they are certain to lose.

[Angry Dragon]

6. It would seem that you and I will disagree

on what is important to fight for.

Why pass a bill if it will not get you what is important, what will really help the people of this country.
The HCR helps the insurance industry the most and not the people.
The people are the most important thing in this country and not the corporations.
Our politicians have forgotten this.
Finance reform is not going to help that much, it is a watered down bill.
They could not even get back to Glass-Siegel.
Where is the unemployment extension??
Where is the jobs bill??

[BzaDem]

8. Your post proves my point exactly.

You ask where the unemployment benefit extensions bill and jobs bill are. They are being filibustered. Obama has fought for them, countless votes have been called over many weeks, and yet the Republicans don't budge. They RELISH voting no each and every time. Yet you fall for their games each and every time by blaming Democrats. That attitude isn't part of the solution; it is part of the problem.

[Angry Dragon]

14. So if what you say is true

why does the President not get on the news and attack these people??
Not once, but often, and loud.

[BzaDem]

16. What have you been doing for the last several weeks?

Obama has been attacking them loudly, in public, at rallies, and often.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. People are so wedded to the idea that "fighting" a filibuster actually changes anything that they just pretend that Obama isn't actually fighting when a bill fails (notwithstanding the actual truth of the matter).

[depakid]

17. LOL- denying the cognitive science and failing to learn the lessons won't "make it stop"

People in real life don't think like you like YOU want them to. They think and behave the way Lakoff, Westen and others have observed, tested and written about.

The failure to properly frame the health care debate- and use the myriad examples of egregious behavior by insurers and PhARMA to drive the public option resulted in fail- both on the policy and on perception of the party. Hence, the drop in support in polls, the election losses and now, due to other instances creating the patter- a loss of confidence and credibility of the President himself.

[BzaDem]

18. It is so funny to hear you blather on about "lessons"

I am not describing how I want people to think. I am describing the reality of the situation. You may not like that reality, but that doesn't make it somehow not the reality. Sometimes, people fail to learn their lessons (such as Nader supporters), but at a certain point political pain forces people to learn them (such as 8 years of Bush).

Even after Bush, there will still be people like you who learn all the wrong lessons from events, but the extent of political pain reduces the damage they inflict on the country.

[depakid]

41. One thing you've proven-

And this is another principle we get from cognitive science which broadly applies:

The more evidence or analysis one produces- the more certain types of people are likely to become recalcitrant in dysfunctional ways. Blaming others because they don't see things like they "should" or how they're "supposed to" as opposed to ho they are.

Pretty interesting stuff- the research findings- and once one grasps the concepts, the more they explains -a lot -not only in political and sociological realms -but also in interpersonal relationships that any reader here can see for themselves in their own lives.

Your posts quite literally represent the abusive spouse who never gets it in therapy.

No matter how many poor outcomes outcomes there have been in the past.

[laughingliberal]

33. +1000 nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. They haven't got anything good to complain about.

[depakid]

7. We actually say more damning (and quite true) things than that-

We say that he preemptively concedes- rather than negotiates. We say that he enables and legitimizes- rather than decries and condemns Republicans for the consequences of their failed ideology.

We say that he buys into and reinforces their narrative, rather than creating and commanding a progressive Democratic narrative of his own.

We say that he's promoted a climate where there's no accountability for political behavior, even among members of his own party who cross over and vote with the opposition.

And we say that all of these things are highly dysfunctional -and that the Quixotic quest for "bipartisanship" and the search "common ground" with the corporate right has led to the Democrats staring down another 1994- at a time when Republicans could and should have been relegated to the fringe for a generation or more.

[aquart]

9. Yup. Pretty much.

It's the pre-emptive concessions that gall me.

[BzaDem]

11. Yes, Obama would rather have a bill pass with a concession than have a bill fail without one.

This is why I am happy that Obama is president, and that people who think otherwise are in such a small minority of the party.

[aquart]

25. My, isn't oversimplification a power choice.

Compromise is necessary for this government to work. It was deliberately set up that way. Which is why YOU DON'T GIVE AWAY THE STORE BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS START. The goal is to move them to us, not us to them.

It isn't concession I object to. It is walking into negotiations with the weakest possible position and giving up more. It is CRAPPY strategy.

The Dems got bills? The Dems got sucky bills instead of adequate bills. We screwed OURSELVES before the other side even started. And that, my friend, is inept leadership.

[BzaDem]

29. Why do you think that there is any negotiation at all?

To the extent there is any negotiation, it is more of a hostage negotiation. The 60th vote (or the last few votes) demand what they want, and in order to pass a bill, their demands must be met.

In a normal negotiation, both parties have an incentive to negotiate (and a disincentive to tell the other party of the negotiations to shove it). For example, in a labor negotiation, both management and the union do not want a strike. An agreement that neither side necessarily wants is weighed against the disincentive of a strike.

In the Senate, it is not a true negotiation, since someone like Lieberman has no disincentive to tell everyone else to fuck off. He simply demands whatever he wants, and as long as what is left is still worth passing, Democrats will give it to him. They don't have another choice, because there is no disincentive for Lieberman to just walk away. (While some people say that he could have lost his chairmanship, it actually takes 60 votes to remove a chairmanship mid-session, and next session he would just become a Republican anyway once their intentions were known.)

Just imagine if in Bush's fight to privatize Social Security, he came to Democrats and said "look, let's just enact 90% of my plan. That's my concession." Democrats would laugh at Bush, and rightly so. Even if Bush lowered it to 80% or 70%, Democrats would still laugh at him. If Bush wanted a bill, he would have to produce a bill that Democrats actually wanted passed. Otherwise he would get no bill. Similarly, if the Democrats wanted a bill, they have to produce a bill that Lieberman wants passed. There is no "negotiation" with people like Lieberman. Lieberman would have LOVED to see the bill fail if they didn't give in to his demands.

[BzaDem]

10. Some people think the President's job is to set narratives, rather than to actually change anything.

Lucky for us, these people are few and far between (to say the least).

[depakid]

12. "These people" are by far the majority- and reflect how things work in real life

Something that- to everyone's great misfortune the DLC crowd refuses to learn, despite many harsh lessons.

Without effective frames and an overriding narrative to command, you lose support, lose policy fights- and then lose elections.

[BzaDem]

15. No, actually, they aren't.

Obama's support among liberal democrats is in the high 80s, as is the support of the HCR bill, the financial regulation bill, and the stimulus (among liberal democrats).

Of course, that is evidence against your position, and to you, it is therefore wrong per se. There are also people who don't believe in evolution, and any evidence in support of evolution is similarly invalid to them by definition. All I am saying is that I am happy that most people think otherwise (notwithstanding anything you might say to the contrary).

[Jim Sagle]

34. Yes, actually they are, and everybody goddamn well knows it.

[BzaDem]

35. Your "everybody" = about 15 percent of Liberal Democrats.

The rest of the liberal Democrats approve of Obama and the stimulus/HCR/financial reform, even if you don't like that fact or proclaim it to be false.

Nice try though.

[Jim Sagle]

38. More DLC hogwash from you.

[ProudDad]

24. Some people think that the pResident's job is to

toady for his corporate capitalist masters...

And it always has been...

Those people are called prescient...

I'm glad to be among their number...

[aquart]

26. We were promised CHANGE, not "narrative."

[BzaDem]

27. And you got it. Just because you deny it doesn't mean you didn't get it.

Obama specifically campaigned on an HCR bill very similar to what he passed. He also specifically campaigned AGAINST single payer, calling it extreme.

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/10/ad_health.html

[Jim Sagle]

37. He campaigned against mandates and then reversed himself after the election.

[ProudDad]

19. Yes there is something you are missing...

The Dem leadership in the Senate could have altered the 60 vote rule any time they wanted! Or they COULD MAKE THEM ACTUALLY FILIBUSTER!

But they LOVE IT!!!

They can blame the pukes for blocking everything decent, any REAL CHANGE (and not have to take the blame for the blue-dog assholes among their number and their own inclinations to kiss corporate ass)...

They know that when it's their turn to be in the minority (since each right-wing of the BIG BUSINESS party takes their turn), they'll have the 41 vote block on their side...

They know that their corporate masters, you know the ones that finance their corporate-funded Congress, will be happy with their "work"

[BzaDem]

21. Obama could also bypass Congress and legislate by fiat.

Though even if he did that there would be some here complaining that he didn't do it fast enough.

[ProudDad]

23. No, he can't

But what I've said about what the Senate leadership CAN DO is absolutely correct.

Quit replying with bullshit and red herrings!

[BzaDem]

28. No, he actually can't do what you are proposing (even if you repeat yourself many times).

The Constitution says that each house can set its own rules. Each house set its own rules at the beginning of the Congressional session. The Constitution does not say that a house can (AFTER that point) ignore its own rules to write new rules by fiat.

So even if we assume the Senate leadership (with 50 votes in the Senate) can do anything, they would only have been able to do it at the beginning of the session.

(Whether the Senate can do this at the beginning of the session is actually an open question, and while some people talked about it/threatened it at various points under Truman, Nixon, Carter, etc, it has never actually been done. The filibuster threshold was always lowered under the previous standing rules of the Senate for changing the rules.)

In other words, while there is indeed someone in this conversation replying with bullshit and red herrings, it isn't me.

[ProudDad]

45. You need to brush up on your reading and comprehension skills...

I never SAID that Obama could change the Filibuster rule...

I said that the Dem "leadership" in the Senate could change the rule (and take the consequences) any time they would wish to...

They don't wish to because it's a great excuse to blame the rule while they fulfill the desires of their real employers...

"Senate

In the United States Senate, rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, and in this case votes from two-thirds of the Senators present and voting would be required to break the filibuster. Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the so-called nuclear option. (Proponents also refer to it as the constitutional option.) In the modern filibuster, the senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses."

Quit the bullshit and red herrings... They are NOT good excuses for supine obeisance to your master Obama...

[laughingliberal]

32. This post should have come with Dramamine. nt

[jgraz]

36. Um... because Obama negotiates too much with Republicans?

Which part of that is hard to understand? :shrug:

[BzaDem]

39. The sentence isn't hard to understand -- it's simpy not true.

As I mentioned above, Obama's main bills passed with exactly the votes required, and not one additional vote in the name of "bipartisanship" (or any other name). The problem with your statement isn't its simplicity, but instead its accuracy (or lack thereof). Your repeating of statements that are not accurate says more about you than it does about Obama.

[jgraz]

42. That reasoning is silly beyond description

The votes counts don't matter a bit. It's the content of the bills that count. Both HCR and this latest joke of a reform bill are thin tissues of incrementalism masquerading as actual accomplishments. If Obama had actually led on either of these bills, we'd see real reforms like a Public Option or the elimination of Too Big to Fail banks. Instead, Obama "negotiated" all of this Change away, not only with Republicans, but also with congressional conservadems and corporate lobbyists.

[Jim Sagle]

43. Conservadems were fellated, single payer activists were jailed.

[upi402]

40. "Or is there another part of this argument that I'm missing?"

I'll go with that one. I'm too deflated to make the case. Should be obvious as hell by now.

His words say 'he's got our back'.
But his actions show that it's HIS knife in our back every time.
And his corporate masters will still never let him in the club.

I guess Clitnot is a rich man now... now that he's out of office and can't practice law, somehow he got rich.
Obama will get rewarded. But I can only promise to never keep silent about the betrayal of democracy.