How should Obama handle new, emboldened GOP?

[ProSense]

How should Obama handle new, emboldened GOP?

By Greg Sargent

I decree that from now on, anyone who criticizes Obama for saying he's going to try to seek compromise with Republicans should be required to say what it is Obama should do instead. Yes, it's grating when Obama does this. Yes, it's plainly obvious that we're headed for all-out partisan war. Yes, some Republicans have openly stated that they see no need to seek compromise and instead are out to ensure Obama's defeat in 2012 .

But what should Obama do about this? How should he proceed?

The other day, Brookings scholar and Congressional expert Thomas Mann got some attention when he on Obama in strikingly forceful termsto wake up and deal with reality:

Republicans are determined to defeat Obama in 2012; they have no interest in negotiating with him in order to provide him any sort of victory. This is a partisan war and the Republicans are playing to win. The only question is how long it will take Obama to accept this reality and act accordingly.

I thought it would be worth getting back in touch with Mann to ask what specifically Obama should do in order to "act accordingly." He emailed me this reply:

During his first two years in office, Obama had an ambitious legislative agenda to pursue. He had to adapt his strategies to the realities of Congress, most importantly the promiscuous use of the filibuster by Republicans in the Senate and the unreliability of support on many difficult issues of a half dozen or more Democratic senators. Repeated and extended efforts at negotiations with Republicans were essential, if only to deliver all 60 Democrats/Independents once Franken was elected and Specter switched parties. His campaign rhetoric on a postpartisan politics, however naive or disengenuous, had to be given a try.

The context in the 112th Congress is entirely different. With no expectations of passing important new legislation or of garnering anything from Republicans in Congress but political bait, he should pursue his substantive agenda where he can act on his own and use Congress as a place to submit a genuinely serious set of proposals to deal with the country's more serious challenges (with no expectation that any will pass) and couple them with high visibility straight talk to the American people about the course he is proposing.

This is similar to what former White House chief of staff John Podesta is now arguing. There seems to be a growing consensus that Obama's best route forward is twofold: First, go full throttle where he can on his own -- executive orders, rulemaking powers, and so forth. And second, lay down a clear vision and agenda in the full expectation that Republicans will oppose it, and use the presidential bully pulpit to wage a massive communications offensive hammering them relentlessly for their opposition and intransigence.

more

[Beetwasher]

1. And He Still DOES Have To Give LIP SERVICE About Bipartisanship

I really believe that he's got to talk bipartisanship, even though he realizes it is not really accomplishable.

Look, that's politics. Hell, even Bush TALKED about being bipartisan. It's how the game is played, and as much as it annoys us, the hyper partisans and wonks who really pay attention, there are a shitload of people in the mushy middle who don't want or appreciate aggressive, combative tones in the President, not to mention the fine line Obama has to walk so he's not labelled as "uppity" by the Corp. media.

There's never been a President held to such a high standard as Obama. The minute he let's go of his cool there will be no end to the stories about how he's "angry" and "bitter" and "combative" etc.

He has to keep up the talk of bipartisanship. It's the way the game is played.

[onehandle]

2. How should Obama have handle old, emasculated GOP two years ago?

He should have kicked them while they were down.

[ProSense]

3. "He should have kicked them while they were down."

How and to what end? A point I posted in another thread:

Some people are complaining that the President didn't effectively communicate the good things his administration achieved. Those same people are complaining that he should have rejected compromising with Republicans. The only thing Democrats are doing is complaining about messaging and strategy, and they wonder why the overall messaging sucks.

Bayh has a strategy. Nelson has a strategy. Sanders has a strategy (and I agree with him). The three of them agree that the President needs to get tough on somebody and do it their way. The difference between Sanders and the others is that he actually supports the President's agenda.

The President's strategy should be getting things done and not worrying about the mixed signals coming from his own party. He's not going to change Bayh's opinion.

You could point to many times when the President called out Republicans, even Fox News and the media, but at the end of the day, he has to get something done. This is the problem with the hyperfocus on everytime the President mentions bipartisanship. Do people expect him to never compromise and always say that he's unwilling to work with Republicans? People can pretend that compromise isn't necessary, but I guarantee that if the President failed on some of the key initiatives, he'd be hearing it from these same critics.

The tax cuts are not equivalent to health care reform, Wall Street reform or the other major policy achievements. If the tax cuts fail because of Republican vote against them, people will see Republicans for what they are. The tax cuts are not critical. The President can afford to stand tough here, and Democrats in the Senate need to stand tough with him.

[Life Long Dem]

10. From the article.

"Republicans should be required to say what it is Obama should do instead."

Well? What it is Obama should do instead? :shrug:

[Enrique]

4. I agree with this consensus:

First, go full throttle where he can on his own -- executive orders, rulemaking powers, and so forth. And second, lay down a clear vision and agenda in the full expectation that Republicans will oppose it, and use the presidential bully pulpit to wage a massive communications offensive hammering them relentlessly for their opposition and intransigence.


But I don't see it happening. If it were happening, he would be hammering the GOP right this second for blocking unemployment benefits, and for Kyl's betrayal on the treaty, and for the GOP failing to meet with him, and any number of other things.

But maybe I'm wrong, maybe I missed Obama's response to these things. Any response? Any "hammering them relentlessly?"

edit: here's Gibbs's response to the unemployment vote. Imo, this doesn't count as relentless hammering:

The White House criticized Congress for voting to cut off unemployment benefits with the holiday break approaching.

"I don't think we want to leave here having fought for tax cuts for millionaires and against unemployment insurance for those that have lost their jobs," spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

[DCKit]

5. Give 'em enough...

Even the baggers'll get it.

[leftynyc]

6. Kick em in the junk daily

Make it clear he's working for the vast majority of Americans and not for those who have no need for a tax cut - EVERY DAMN DAY.

[treestar]

7. Doesn't matter what he does

All the "advice" he'll get from here is vague generalities and oversimplified actions.

Mainly he should "twist their arms" and "grow a spine." He should rant and rave while the M$M calls him an angry black man or the next Howard Dean.

Or play chicken with Congress, so that nothing gets done and all the tax cuts expire. So the M$M can repeat over and over that he "raised taxes" on the middle class.

[AlinPA]

8. They control the House. They control the Senate with the filibuster and they have

Landreiu, Nelson, Pryor and Lieberman. He has already decided to to compromise while they won't. They will try to destroy him with investigations, so no legislation except repeals will pass the House. He doesn't have much to work with except the veto. It will be an ugly 2 years.

[DFLforever]

9. The filibuster can be used to our advantage

what with the expected nasty bills coming over from the House. Although they can just be killed by overlooking them I suppose. Reid has to consent to their scheduling.

Still there are some measures that will have to be agreed on like budget and debt ceiling etc.

The Pres would only have to veto objectionable bills that somehow get through the Senate. I'm not sure how much of that is going to happen.

I;d like to see them create a special office to deal with Issa and other investigative issues; detail press and legal advisers to it and not spend a single moment of regular governmental time with it. Treat it like the nuisance factor it will become.

Reid will have Pryor Landrieu et al on important procedural votes per usual. That is one advantage of their being part of the Dem caucus.

[StarsInHerHair]

11. he has to go out & speak like he did in Campaign Mode &

make sure America hears what he is trying to get passed in Washington that the GOP refuses to pass. He of course would have the specifics on who voted how, PLUS since he would be constantly moving & rarely in Washington he wouldn't be closely associated with it like the obstructionist GOP. It is vital that America knows what his goals are & how the Right is stopping him.

[craigmatic]

12. 2 ways

First he needs to understand the way they operate. It's well known that republicans like to squeeze every ounce of power out of whatever authority they have. Look at bush he used the power of the presidency to his advantage every day of his administration. Second he needs to let them overplay their hand so people don't trust them anymore and thereby allowing him to fill the vaccume. In short he needs to let them shut down the government. Once they overreach in that big of a way they'll lose legitimacy and we'll win back the house in '12.

[DemocraticPilgrim]

13. EXACTLY, when people say don't compromise they are talking from ego and not logic...

It's not sport it's politics and requires compromise. I do wonder are the right more smart?? sure they say crazy sh** but there is a method to the madness. Our side staying home this midterms was just not the wisest move in the book. Now sure we have great intellectuals on our side but when we act collectively it's mystifying chaos??

[Mass]

15. You need somebody to compromise with. The GOP has said again and again they

dont want to compromise, so with whom do you want to do that?

[Mass]

14. I think the only people who disagree with that is the White House, who continues talking about

compromises, and a few blue dogs like Evan Bayh.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. Do what he seems to do best

Humiliate the Republicans whenever possible. Whenever he confronts them, he invariably gets the best of him. He should make sure to take every opportunity that he is able to in order to directly and publicly challenge them, their policies (or lack thereof), and their ideology. The more people see what he stands for versus the Republicans and, even better, when he actually has an opportunity to publicly call them out on their LIES, the more people will think favorably of him IMHO (and the less chance there will be of people going with a Republican in 2012).

[DailyGrind51]

17. Since "Citizens United" it's "BUY partisanship"!