Why Joe Lieberman is so much more powerful than Obama

[CTLawGuy]

(1) What Obama wants takes 60 senate votes and what Lieberman wants takes 1 senate vote.

(2) Obama could threaten Lieberman, but Lieberman could switch parties, giving the filibuster crew 41 votes thus preventing the Dems from passing anything of importance until 2011, if we're lucky.

(3) and most important, the Republicans refuse to govern in good faith, forcing Obama to shoot the moon among an ideologically diverse party/caucus in the senate in order to get what he wants, something that no president in HISTORY has ever (had to do/done) to get even the most controversial bills passed.

[Bonn1997]

1. Good points

[Buzz Clik]

2. crickets.

Solid logic is not popular at DU these days.

[CBGLuthier]

8. fear of the fillibuster is not solid logic

Spineless democrats in congress need to not be afraid to pass legislation by a slim majority. Let them fillibuster. Let them be seen as the obstructionists they are. Stop trying to be nice to those assholes.

Kick Lieberman out of everything.

[NYC_SKP]

24. Posts that thrash the president do well lately.

Rational posts that cut him slack or put a proper perspective on things often sink.

I'm recommending.

:donut:

[fasttense]

3. Is President Obama really that impotent?

He sounds as if he isn't really a President, more like a by-stander.

What happened to the bully pulpit? Obama is a great orator. Why isn't he in front of cameras calling Lieberman and Nelson out? Why doesn't he do press conferences every week? Why doesn't he address the people and ask them to contact their way-ward Senators?

How about threatening Joe with loss of his chairmanship? How about simply threatening using reconciliation at every obstruction? Or how about visiting the state these Senators supposedly represent and talking to those citizens directly?

If I can think of ways to use the power of the presidency so can he.

Have we been duped yet again?

[CTLawGuy]

4. Look at (2).

The president was not intended to be a powerful figure. The founders were afraid of a strong chief executive, i.e. a king. President Obama's power (and the power of any president really) legislatively comes in his use of the veto pen, which, if he is the one who wants reform, won't really help him.

Further, I think Lieberman realizes that this is probably his last term. He will not live down supporting McCain/Palin in CT. Powerful Dems will be unafraid to run against him. His only hope is to run as a Republican, but he ideally does not want to do that. He craves attention and he will get a lot less of it as a low level footsoldier in the R party. I think he would do it if he felt he had to, but he doesn't want to.

[Bonn1997]

11. Counterarguments:

A) I cannot think of many (if any) examples where a President's public attacks on those in your own party actually led to a positive outcome. With uncooperative mainstream media, this would be even harder. I think the Obama admin made a calculated decision that this would be highly unlikely to work. I find the situation terribly frustrating but cannot say I disagree with Obama's calculation here.

B) What exactly is needed to do reconciliation? I think committee chairpersons have to agree to it. Considering the strong power of insurance lobbyists, President Obama may have concluded that this was not possible.

[Armstead]

5. Democrats should not have placed themselves in a ;position where he could be so powerful

Remember the GOP "Medicare Reform" of a few years ago?

That was unpopular among many Republicans because it was contrary to their ideology (plus it was a messy plan.) A lot of individual republicans hated it. But guess what. The White House and the Republican leadership managed to get the party behind it, and also make the Democrats irrelevant, and got it passed by pulling out all the stops.

Democrats, on the other hand, manage to have a majority and the WH, and yet Obama and the Congressional leadership can't get through provisions that the great majority of Democrats really want.

Something is wrong withb this picture.

[CTLawGuy]

6. did they have to break a Dem filibuster?

did ALL Republican senators vote for it? Did they know in advance they would need absolutely all senators? That's the key here. We know that we need all 60 senators to pass anything. That condition itself is what makes one senator so powerful.

Also, are you saying that Obama should be more like Bush?

[Armstead]

10. Obama should have exercised leadership -- and it is a systemic Democratic problem

You may be tec hnically right about the situation right now. But it should never have come to this -- and didn't have to.

It's partially Obama's fault for being weak on the things that matter. (or he did not really want them, not sure which.) Now that he is desperate for a bill, any bill, is he actually using the power of his office to ram it through. But he waited until the bill was horrible instead of pushing for something that could have broader support.

In GOP medicare Reform, Bush had to prod and poke and...even worse... a number of democrats defected to the GOP side.

"The 54 to 44 Senate vote was not along party lines -- 11 Democrats voted in favor and nine Republicans voted no." (News reports)

In other words,we can't even be effective in opposition.

[Buzz Clik]

23. You make is seem that Obama gettting red-faced and beating his fist on the table...

... would have solved everything. It would not. Everyone knew that health care reform would be next to impossible to legislate, and it has come to pass. If a simple majority were that was needed, we'd have what we want.

[phleshdef]

30. Leadership to these people means making anti-bribe like threats that border on illegal.

[Buzz Clik]

21. You've got this backwards.

Imagine for a moment that Obama wanted to pass immigration reform legislation that the entire GOP adored but the Dems were split. Obama could leverage enough Dems to get it through.

The trouble is that the GOP are voting as a bloc against health care reform, and some Dems are breaking ranks. It only takes one rogue Dem to sink the ship. If Lieberman had switched parties to the GOP, health care reform wouldn't even be on the table. It's that simple. Truly simple.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[asdjrocky]

9. Poor Obama, I feel so bad for him.

The mean Joe Lieberman picking on him.

[NJmaverick]

14. Do you have any intelligent points to make?

[asdjrocky]

20. Several.

Do you know anyone intelligent enough to understand said points?

You are a fraud my friend, and everyone here knows. Don't bother responding because there is no need to ever have a dialog with someone like you.

Bye now.

[NJmaverick]

31. So your answer was actually no

Ok, got it

[Buzz Clik]

27. Save any electrons you might consider wasting in constructing a reply.

They'd be better spent elsewhere.

[NJmaverick]

12. These are all excellent points as is your over all OP

this is the reality of the situation that faces Obama and the Dems. What is frustrating is that the Republicans are being given a pass for their irresponsible and dangerous obstructionism in times of crisis.

[cornermouse]

15. The President, the Vice President, and

59 other people aren't smart enough to think of a way to circumvent little ol' Joe? What does that say about our leadership.

[NJmaverick]

16. Sometimes there is no solution to a situation

there are times when you just can't win. Still to address your point further, it's not like anyone in the entire nation has a great plan that would succeed that they are ignoring. You need to face the situation as it is, not as you wish it to be.

[Buzz Clik]

19. A calm, rational voice in a raging sea of irrationality.

sigh.

[BeyondGeography]

22. What does that say about the Constitution and congressional rules is more like it

Of course, it's harder to think along those lines than it is to personalize your frustration.

[NJmaverick]

32. You're correct and the issues of rules and the Constiitution are not

exactly cut and dry. If it wasn't for the filibuster I shudder and the sort of horrible judges Bush would have rammed through to the Supreme Court. They probably would have made Scalia look like a member of the ACLU.

[burning rain]

51. M'yeah. Roberts & Alito might've been confirmed to the Supreme Court.

.

[treestar]

49. So true

There are no complaints on DU against any Republican! Not Snowe, Collins, McCain, any of them. Free pass for Republicans.

[cornermouse]

13. I guess this means you think Lieberman should be president?

Since he's so great and powerful?


...:sarcasm:

[Buzz Clik]

17. Brilliant! You exactly captured the essence of the OP!

Do I really need a sarcasm smilie to express my complete disdain for the silliness of your post?

[NJmaverick]

18. Are you really that dense or are you saying this crap to get a rise out of the poster?

It's the situation not the people that makes the power

[Pirate Smile]

25. Those are actual governing facts which are ignored. Obama can magically force

the Senate to do what he wants but he just isn't trying according to them. He could have gotten single payer or a strong PO but HE personally chose not to - it isn't related to what can actually pass the Senate.

Facts are irrelevant anymore.

It is all Obama's fault. This is easy. It isn't related to the difficulty, complexity or enormous interests involved. It isn't related to the fact that seven previous Presidents couldn't do it either. Obama could but he wont. It's a massive betrayal. waahhhh

[lame54]

26. Since when do we need 60 votes?

[harun]

29. We don't, but don't waste too much energy on trying to convince

the masses, they won't listen.

[Buzz Clik]

33. You know the answer:

Saturday night’s vote was required because Senate rules and precedent have long granted a right of virtually unlimited debate, or filibuster, to the minority that can be curtailed only by a supermajority vote of 60 senators to move ahead. Currently, there are 58 Democrats in the Senate and two independents who routinely align with them. If the Democrats had lost the vote, they could have tried again, presumably after changing the bill to try to attract more votes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/health/policy/22health.html?pagewanted=2

If the bill never gets to the floor, we never get a vote.

[lame54]

34. let him fillibuster...

MAKE HIM FILLIBUSTER!

put him center stage

[CTLawGuy]

43. they can't

unless they keep 51 senators on the floor at all times. Otherwise, one repub could stop all business by making a quorum call and not have to speak.

[calico1]

28. Yes, I saw on Countdown last night somebody explaining

the predicament they are in. Because this handful of Democrats are the key to 60 votes it gives them power to make demands. And the Liberals are in a difficult position because if they succeed in killing the bill then it hands over a big political victory to the right. It's a tough situation no matter what.

Sigh.

I would love to be a fly on the wall and hear what Barbara Boxer and others who supported Lieberman in his last election think and have to say now.

[Clio the Leo]

35. And Lieberman is the Senate sponsor of the ENDA bill.....

...... which makes this whole ballgame all the more interesting.

[grassfed]

36. Bush got around that

[jgraz]

37. Lieberman is powerful because Obama lets him be powerful

When the White House needed to drop the hammer on Byron Dorgan's drug reimportation amendment, they got the votes they needed to preserve their sweetheart deal with Big Pharma.

But when they need one pathetic, vindictive little douchebag to shut the fuck up, they somehow can't seem to manage it.

[CTLawGuy]

38. when that douchebag, and he is, might

switch parties and kill any chance of legislation from now until 2011, Obama will rightly tread carefully.

[jgraz]

45. He's already switched parties. Kick his bony ass out of the caucus.

The Democrats need to quit being afraid of everything. Do you think Bush/Cheney would have put up with a little pissant like Lieberman?

If the Democrats had tried 1/100th of the shit the Repukes are doing now, Bush/Cheney would have used the nuclear option, killed the filibuster, and steamrolled anyone who got in their way.

Why the FUCK can't we do the same -- especially since we got such a clear, unambiguous mandate last fall?

[dsc]

39. did you sleep through 1993 and 1994?

Clinton passed his budget with not one single solitary Republican vote. Not one. Heath care failed, in large part, because not one single solitary Republican would vote for it. The one and only thing the Republicans cooperated on was NAFTA.

[CTLawGuy]

40. No democrats voted against it?

Clinton HAD to get all the Democrats in the Senate and succeeded?

I must have missed that...

[dsc]

41. my point was that the unified GOP opposition isn't as unique as the OP stated

I am disputing this:

and most important, the Republicans refuse to govern in good faith, forcing Obama to shoot the moon among an ideologically diverse party/caucus in the senate in order to get what he wants, something that no president in HISTORY has ever (had to do/done) to get even the most controversial bills passed.

The GOP refusing to govern in good faith happened in 93 and 94.

[CTLawGuy]

42. the historic thing

is the NEED for EVERY SINGLE Democratic senator. Not even Bill needed all Dem Senators to pass his budget, but one Dem goes by the wayside and HCR goes down.

In fact 6 dem Senators voted against Clinton's budget. Obama would KILL for that kind of flexibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993
"the Senate passed the conference report on the last day before their month's vacation, on Friday, August 6, 1993, by a vote of 51 to 50 (50 Democrats plus Vice President Gore voting in favor, 6 Democrats (Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bryan (D-NV), Nunn (D-GA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) and 44 Republicans voting against)."

[DailyGrind51]

44. Lieberman also knows that a senator can have a life-time job, whereas, a President can only serve

a maximum term of 8 years. Obama is a mere chapter, Lieberman a book.

[BlueMTexpat]

46. Joementum is still a douchbag, albeit for the moment

a cynically powerful one.

Obama is not a douchebag. Therein lies the entire difference.

[Phx_Dem]

47. Sad but true. It's not just Leiberman, it's any Dem senator as well.

As long as Republicans hold together as the party of no, any one Democratic Senator (or Lieberhole) can kill any bill simply by voting no. That's not Obama's fault, that's the way the founders created this process.

The Senator I am most disappointed and disgusted with is Olympia Snowe. She seems to be sticking with the party of no. Collins doesn't surprise me because she almost always toes the GOP line. I had hoped for more from Snowe and maybe she'll surprise us yet. Not holding my breathe though.

[treestar]

48. The Bush era Republicans have become batshit insane

Or maybe I should say the Rush era Republicans.

I remember when there were moderate Republicans. Some were even pro-choice. That animal does not exist anymore. Maybe they've become the Blue Dogs? Even the Blue Dogs are more conservative, with Nelson being anti-choice.

[burning rain]

50. Democrats could easily make it so they could pass solid legislation...

by exercising the "nuclear option" and ending the 60-vote rule in favor of simple majority. That they choose not to do so, suggests they don't have a powerful desire for major reforms.