Granholm: "Give him (Obama) majorities in Congress, and then we can talk."

[UrbScotty]

Enough! Just read yet another progressive column criticizing POTUS. Many want him to just "knock heads" or whip out the magic bully pulpit to get policies through Congress. Let's be clear: no matter how sound a policy, the far right is bent on denying him a victory. His agenda is shaped by people who believe their main role is to defeat him and drown government in a tub. Give him majorities in Congress, and then we can talk.

http://www.facebook.com/jennifergranholm

[dennis4868]

1. Obama said in 2010...

DON'T GIVE THE REPUBS THE KEYS TO THE CAR....well, we did and now what? TOTAL REPUB OBSTRUCTIONISM (but PL and DUers blame Obama and think SUPER BERNIE can save the day...hahaha!)

[GOTV]

141. That campaign rhetoric was not enough to counter all the praise Obama had given the GOP ....

... for working hard and coming together to solve our problems in a spirit of bipartisan compromise which is all we heard about the GOP from him until the campaign.

He's not doing that much better this time either with all his swipes at "congress" in general and appeals to compromise without telling his listeners every time that the democrats have done more than their fair share of compromise.

Anytime Obama uses the "C" word without explicitly mentioning Republicans as the whole of the problem he throws more voters into the arms of the GOP. Of course, it may be too late now. He should have started doing that 3 years ago.

[griffi94]

2. i thought he started with majorities

[polmaven]

16. He started with majorities in both branches,

and Speaker Pelosi's House passed a ton of progressive legislation. That legislation, however, never reached his desk, because it was never even voted on in the Senate. If we give him a big enough majority, he will be able to pass legislation the way we would all like it, without HAVING to compromise just to get any part of it passed.

[uponit7771]

41. Obama never had a CONTROLLING majority in congress for more than 5 months, GOP filibuster rule chang

[Dr Fate]

159. Liberals dont understand that we did not/do not/will not have the votes for their aganda.

Back when we controlled the majority, we told the Liberals "Look, we dont have the votes for that kind of stuff."

They refused to believe us, then they sabotaged and purged the midterms.

Thanks to their far left attitude, now that excuse is FOR REAL and they still wont believe us.

You cant tell the left anything around here.

[Little Star]

180. How did the Repugs ever get away with that filibuster rule change?

That's what I don't understand. And was there no way to un-do that?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

97. Majorities, yes. But not a filibuster-proof Senate, especially one that contained

enough progressive Democrats.

I wish people would stop repeating this false meme.

Yes, there were a majority of Democrats!

No, there were not a majority of *progressive* Democrats!!!

[Dr Fate]

160. What part of "We did not, do not, will not have the votes" do liberals not get?

????

[GillesDeleuze]

145. ding!

[madfloridian]

3. We DID do that in 2008. They compromised away their majority.

[littlewolf]

6. THAT !!!

[Little Star]

181. Yep. Then there was that!

[myrna minx]

8. That majority didn't count, I guess.

:shrug:

[Mojambo]

9. This times a billion. n/t

[Hydra]

10. Saved me from having to say it

He doesn't WANT the majority- he wants cover for doing Repub policies.

[Armstead]

22. I'll second that (or third or fourth or whatever)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

98. Armstead, I thought you were smarter than this. How many times do many of us have to keep

repeating the truth, huh?

Is it just cognitive dissonance? What is it?

If you want progressive policy outcomes, then you need more progressives serving in the halls of Congress.

I'm sorry, but you just can't argue with that fact.

Sadly, there aren't enough Russ Feingolds and Bernie Sanders in the Senate. There simply isn't.

So when you have DINO's blocking things or joining with the Republicans to stall legislation, what then?

Really, I tire of having to repeat this over and over again.

[1StrongBlackMan]

112. I hear you ...

When does a right-wing talking point (using the exact same wording) stop being a right-wing talking point? When it appears on a "democratic" site? I think not.

[Armstead]

116. Please see my response to your other post below

[Lorien]

25. Exactly. Used every excuse in the book to do Jack Squat. nt

[uponit7771]

35. Obama did NOT have a controlling majoirty in congress in 2008!!! It's a GOP meme to say he did

GOP Changed senate rules with filibuster!!! This has been repeated on this board ad-nausea!!!

Obama only had 60 senators for 5 months!!!


FDR had 70+% dem congress for more than 11 years!!!

[SnakeEyes]

67. What filibuster rules were changed?

Senate has had the 60 vote requirement since 1975 when Democrats changed it from 2/3 to 3/5ths.

And what about those 5 months? They squandered that opportunity.

[uponit7771]

69. Abusing the rule, that's what changed about it...

[SnakeEyes]

71. That's not a rule change

Elaborate on how the rule was changed, please.

Also, how did they abuse it?

[phleshdef]

74. Stop asking questions you know the god damn answers to.

This isn't the sort of thing you should need explained to you. We all witnessed this happen. We all witnessed all the holds put on nominees and the historically RECORD use of the filibuster threat on every single bill. The rules that "changed" are the political rules for how much of the filibuster threat is acceptable. Before this, it was not used all that often, When Obama became President, it was used for everything. But I'm sure you actually know all this.

[SnakeEyes]

105. Now that's a rude post

In addition to being ignorant and wrong. I'm all for going after the right, as there are a LOT of reasons to do so, but I firmly believe it must be in an honest and accurate manner otherwise you do yourself no good.

The other poster said the filibuster rule had been changed which it did not. Now the two of you are changing it to just they "changed the rules" for how often it's used. There has never been any rules on how often it can be used.

The idea it wasn't used much in the past but was used for "everything" when Obama became president is widely inaccurate. Fact is that over time it's been used more often, regardless of party. It's reflective of our divided politics.

That's what it's for, to delay/stop legislation one disagrees with strongly enough that they need to prevent a vote or for other political maneuvering. People can complain here but what happens if the right wing gets a hold of things again next year? I can't wait for Democrats to filibuster as often as possible the crazy things that we strong disagree with that they will do doubt come up with. "Abuse" of the filibuster is a highly subjective notion when there are no rules other than it's existence and the vote requirements.

[phleshdef]

109. Damn right it was rude. I'm rude to people when they spout garbage.

You are pretending that the poster wasn't using a figure of speech when they said "changed the rules". You aren't fooling anyone though. Its painfully obvious the poster was talking about the rules in a political sense, no matter how badly you want to parse the words in order to win an argument no one was even really having, thats what they meant. You aren't going to be able to spin that.

The filibuster has NEVER been used the way it was used to thwart progressive Democrats in 09 and 10. The Republicans TRIPLED the record for the use of it during 2009 when 112 cloture votes were forced. Before that, the record was more along the lines of 40 in one year.

[SnakeEyes]

110. Your rudeness only works against your efforts

Perhaps some maturity might help.

I'm pretending nothing and it wasn't painfully obvious. That would require the poster to have used more words.

But again nothing has changed other than the Republicans used the Senate weapon more. Well, duh they would. Finally progressive Democrats were trying to implement their agenda. That's like saying a football abused the blitz because they were doing it more than a team normally does.

Again, complain now but if the crazy right... not just the right we saw during Bush but the even further right... gain an even bigger voice next year then I'll be glad to see Democrats use the filibuster just the same.

[phleshdef]

132. I don't have an "effort". This is an internet discussion board where people talk political BS.

This is not an "effort". It achieves nothing but time killing. Stop deluding yourself into thinking your are doing something special or important. You aren't and you aren't.

[SnakeEyes]

142. Um, what?

What am I deluding myself into thinking I'm doing that's special or important?

I suggested no such thing. Why the strawman?

[SwampG8r]

117. did they ever actually call them on the filibuster threat?

or are we taking their word for it? in any other instance whatever the gop says would be discounted but the "threat" of a filibuster
not a filibuster mind you but only the threat of one sends everyone scurrying all aquiver

[Dr Fate]

161. Obama would have tried, but the media would have just censored him or cut his mics.

So he fooled them by never giving them the chance.

[dionysus]

189. our "60" included 6-7 blue dogs and lieberman. it never was 60 votes.

[Tx4obama]

101. Obama was not sworn in until 2009. n/t

[phleshdef]

72. Bullshit. Pelosi's majority passed some very progressive stuff.

It was the Senate that watered stuff down. Don't revise history, most of us reading remember and know better.

The majority that got lost in the first place was in Congress and thats not where the push for these compromises you speak of came from. And considering that the filibuster proof majority only last a few months (between the Franken/Coleman debacle and losing Kennedy's seat), you can't really claim much there either.

[bvar22]

86. + a bunch

Give him majorities, and THEN we can fucking talk?

:rofl:

[1StrongBlackMan]

114. Are you kidding me? Or, ...

Is your history different from mine. In 2008, the Democrats had a majority in Congress, only in terms of party registration. Do you recall that that "Majority" had bluedog democrats that had no more interest in passing progressive legislation, than their republican opponents. And they proved it early in PRESIDENT OBAMA's term by voting, en mass, against the stimulus,the bank and auto bailouts, health care reform, the Lilly Ledbetter Act and ... in short PRESIDENT OBAMA's agenda.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

124. I'm in love with you!!! :) +1,000,000!! n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

174. So is my wife ...

I think. :-)

[bvar22]

137. I see that you admit that our BIGGEST problem lies within The Democratic Party.

I agree with you,
and until we can FIX the Problem INSIDE the Democratic Party,
we are destined to MORE failures.


There are many ways to hold Party members accountable,
and Obama KNOWS how to use them.
He used these methods on the Progressive Caucus members who were
standing against Mandates without a Public Option.

You should read up on how other Presidents manages to bring their Party in line.
Here,
I'll help you out.
We'll start with LBJ:

"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

Can you imagine wimpy Joe Lieberman stamping his foot telling LBJ, "NO!!! I'm NOT going to support your Health care Plan?"
:rofl:

Many on this site will tell you that the Presidency is weak and powerless, and can only do what Congress lets him do.
THAT is a pathetic excuse...and just plain BULLSHIT!!!!

"Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17

SEE!!!!
Now THAT is ONE way.
There are others.

I'm glad we agree that the Problem is INSIDE the Democratic Party.
Once the PROBLEM is correctly identified,
we can take the next step.


------------------------------------------------------------------

Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
The California Progressive Caucus WILL!!

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Carolina]

163. Loved your post

and recall how LBJ got things done. I'm so tired of Obama apologists pointing at Congress for BHO's failure to fight and to lead.

[1StrongBlackMan]

173. I was too young to remember how LBJ did stuff, but ...

My studies suggest that he was a master at strong arming members of his caucus. But to suggest that PRESIDENT OBAMA could, or even should, employ such tactics ignores certain political and social realities.

First, the Democrats of LBJ's day weren't opportinistic republicans posing as Democrats because the "fifty state strategy" told them that the electorate was pissed at the republican party and anyone with a "D" behind their name, but spouting the same conservative rhetoric of the republican incumbent was bound to win ... with the blessing of the Democratic party. We went for numbers, not caucus votes. The Democrats of LBJ's day may have disagreed on tactics, but they were down for the Democratic mission and largely voted the caucus line.

Secondly, politicians of every stripe are different today than those of yester-year. In LBJ's day, you got your political ass kicked and you fell in line, or not; but you didn't call a press conference to whine about how and who kicked your ass.

This leads to a third, but related, difference that many would wish to ignore ... PRESIDENT OBAMA is a Black man! If he was to get up in any politician's face, LBJ-style, there would be blow by blow details leaked by "staffers", and a wounded Democrat press conference 10 minutes later, recounting how that big, bad, angry (unspoken) Black man had the nerve to try and strong-arm said wounded Democrat.

And the media would take that press conference and leaked details and pump the "very unpresidential, angry Black man" meme to a waiting "I knew he was an angry Black bigoted socialistic narcacistic secret muslim marxist" audience, and crickets by many here on DU ... those who aren't getting up early to post the first "I knew PRESIDENT OBAMA really wasn't the presidential type" posts.

[Dawgs]

193. Just imagine if he had the majority Bush had when he was Prez?

What? He didn't have as big a majority?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. What happened the last time we did that?

The party supported Lieberman. The fact that it blew up in their face doesn't make me feel guilty.

:shrug:

[Armstead]

23. Placate Lieberman and Nelson, while shoving aside progressives and liberals

Not a great formula

[madfloridian]

5. No more lectures to us.

[polmaven]

11. So those of us

who do not think the president is completely to blame and has done nothing at all worth while should not contribute to the conversations, 'cause it is all a "lecture" to those who do think that way! Got it!

[Armstead]

24. No but things like the OP are intended to silence people who are not happy with him

[polmaven]

49. Things like the OP

are intended to counter the claims of the people who are constantly bashing everything he says or does.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

99. Not intended to silence, Armstead. Intended to inject reason *AND FACT* into

the conversation. Rest assured: no one is trying to silence Obama's critics. Those threads is pushed to the top of the forum day in and day out.

What we're trying to do--well, at least I am--is to get people to do is to see reality and stop suffering from amnesia. How soon we forget what really happened over the last three years with the record breaking obstructionism.

[Armstead]

113. Well sometimes people see reality differently -- or at least interperet it different

The OP says "Get a progressive majority. Then we'll talk."

Well I'd say to the governor: "It's a chicken and egg thang and a two-way street. It would certainly be helpful if President Obama would give more support and align himself more with the liberal/progressive members that are already in Congress, and his liberal/progressive base. That'd be a start."

Frankly the problem I've seen over the last three years is that Obama did not have the backs of those progressive and liberal moderates. I believe that if Obama had actually worked with and publicly supported the moderate liberals and the progressive members of Congress, they could have united to at least give the GOP and the obstructionist Holy Joes more of a fight, publicly expose their bullshit and possibly win.

Many specific examples I can think of but won't rehash here. But the pattern is that too often, he would cater to the obstructionist Dems (Holy Joe, ben nelson, etc.) and "work with" obstructionist Republicans, while either ignoring or telling liberals (in and outside of Congress) to basically "suck it up." He only kicked his very effective political skills and machine into gear to pressure lib Dems to pass crappy legislation AFTER Dems had their backs to the wall because of the lack of earlier PRO-ACTIVE strategiues to really fight back against the GOP obstructionism.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

123. Bottom line: The essence of the OP is correct. Rather than dismiss it,

are we going to work to get a progressive majority, regardless of how we may feel about Obama?

If so, let's *really* talk. Then, get to work!

[Armstead]

133. I agree with you on that...But I do see it as a chicken-and-egg thang

Obama and the team he surrounds himself with and the national Democratic leadership do set the overall message and means of support, which affects the context for the individual Congressional races.

So it's not just a question of "talking" after the results are in. It's a matter at this point of setting a context for all of the races next year. And, frankly, I worry that Obama and the Hacks could make the goal of a more progressive Congress more difficult if they waffle and set a "watered down" phony centrist tone as they go up against the unified GOP Blitzkrieg next year.

But that's just my opinion. (I must admit that I live in one of the bluest counties in the US, so personally I'm quite happy with the Congressional representation we've got, with the exception of one Senator.)

[Number23]

107. I could live to be 400 and I will NEVER UNDERSTAND

the mentality of people who do nothing but complain, castigate and criticize but the MILLISECOND someone calls them out on it, put on the Cloak Of Victimhood so fast it will make your head spin. They can make the most nasty, horrible, UNTRUE accusations against the president or this adminstration but every attempt to refute that is a "lecture" or "propaganda" or "an attempt to silence" his critics. This is why "Teh LIST!one" is greeted with such gnashing and wailing around here.

If you can sit on your ass and complain about everything under the damned sun then get ready to take some well-earned and completely deserved heat for it.

[polmaven]

111. I hear you!

It is growing very, very old, very, very fast.....No, wait! I'm wrong. It has actually grown way past old now.

[Armstead]

115. Whose playing the victim?

If you tell people to shut up and basically go to hell they have every right to say the same back.

It's an idiotic cycle -- but it doesn't help when people who air their differences about Obama are personally criticized as being naive, closet Republicans, whining, etc.

You want to counter the complaints? Respond to the actual criticisms, and why you think they are misguided without the personal vitriol. That'd be a much more successful way to promote unity -- (assuming you actually do prefer unity).

[Number23]

118. This response from you makes even less sense than usual

If you tell people to shut up and basically go to hell they have every right to say the same back.

Where in the WORLD has anyone said that to anyone? The OP has a direct quote from a former governor. There is no "go to hell" or "shut up" in the OP and yet, folks in this thread are acting as though this woman took a whiz on a self-described liberal and stole his wallet.

You make my point, beautifully. There is no vitriol in this thread outside of the heads of the people taking offense to it for some inexplicable reason and yet, people are acting as though someone has told them point blank to "shut up" or "go to hell" when no one has done that. And I don't think it's a coincidence that the people seeing "shut up" where it doesn't exist are the same ones who minimize or ignore every accomplishment from the man while acting as though they are the only ones President Obama and the democrats should be listening to.

[Armstead]

121. Whatever....

There was a lot of snide condescention in the governor's comments. The words "shut up" didn't neef to be stated. That was the gist of it.

NO some of us don't think we are the only ones Obama and the Democrats should be listening to. But it would sure be helpful if he and the party leaders did at least take the views of people who are on their side but are also critical into account.

[Number23]

151. I've found that whenever someone starts a statement with "whatever"

it soon becomes achingly apparent they have no real point to make.

[PVnRT]

153. Kind of like all your responses

[Number23]

172. Awww... Was that your friend?

lol

[1StrongBlackMan]

175. Hush truth ...

[saras]

7. We did. He sided with the Republicans, against them, repeatedly. Give us a reason to try again.

[phantom power]

12. Another condescending pundit who thinks nobody remembers they *had* a majority 2008-10

:boring:

[woodsprite]

19. Wasn't the majority around for only 49 days? n/t

[Armstead]

21. Partly because Democrats didn't take care of business in Massachusetts

The national Democratic Party sat back and allowed a poor candidate to hand the election to Scotty, without doing anything to prevent that debacle.

[sundancekid]

136. not to mention all the "progressive" folks who stomped their feet,

and chose to stay home and NOT vote ... r.e.a.l.l.y? they didn't know enough civics or had tuned in to the goopers' "bathtub government" intent to fail to understand the m.e.a.n.i.n.g of possibly losing the 60th vote for cloture????? yea, many of my MA friends did have buyer's remorse, but it was too little too late

[bluescribbler]

190. Wrong! The Democratic Party tried to help

There's really only one person responsible for Scott Brown's victory, and that person is Martha Coakley. She did not campaign, and therefore deserved to lose. My city, Waltham, was a "bellweather community" for Suffolk University polling, meaning that the city's demographic and voting patterns closely matched the statewide percentages. I think we all recall the poll they released in the weeks leading up to the election, the one which put Brown up 7 points. That was based primarily on results from my city. What was the final result in Waltham? Brown by about 7 points. What was Brown's final margin of victory? About 7 points, IIRC.

What's my point? My point is that during that all too brief election season, the Mass Democrats came out to rally for Martha 3 times. Governor Patrick came once. Congressman Markey came once. Senator Kerry came once. Our complete State House delegation was at every rally. Waltham Democrats canvassed, went to phone banks, called ane talked to people until we had no voices left, all in support of Martha Coakley. How many times did Coakley come to Waltham? ZERO!!!!!!! She never showed her face. One would think, if a candidate wanted to win an election, one would at least put in an appearance at a "bellweather community".


Also, don't forget, that President Obama, himself, came to Boston to campaign for Coakley. Of course, by then it was too little too late.

[Enrique]

47. and extended the Bush tax cuts with those majorities

total fucking bullshit from Granholm. I'm going to email her if I can find an address.

[NatBurner]

57. we got an extension of unemployment benefits in that deal, no?

do you really think he extended the bush cuts because he loves them so much?

you're one of those all or nothing types, huh?

[Enrique]

66. it was triangulation

just like drilling and deficit reduction and all the rest: it helped him politically with conservatives and independents. And he hopes it won't hurt him politically with liberals because we will just keep quiet like Granholm wants us to.

[ClarkUSA]

82. It was compassion, which is more than I can say about those who attack him for compromising.

[TheKentuckian]

119. Except it didn't. The idea (for whatever reason) is that the fuckload of fail

would sell but that hasn't turned into reality because it is a fuckload of fail.

[theaocp]

13. Dear Gov. Granholm,

Who the hell are you to talk? Our state now has Rick Snyder doing whatever pleases His Grace with Republicans licking his boots. I'm glad you preceded him to show the state what Democrats are made of. Fuck off.

[sudopod]

53. The President might do better by asking someone other than the former Governor for advice

on how to get re-elected. :p

[Moosepoop]

106. Why would that be?

Granholm wasn't defeated, not the first time she ran for Governor nor the second time.

She's an ex-governor now due to term limits.

I'd say she knows a fair amount about getting elected (and reelected).

[blue_onyx]

150. I wish...

I could unrec individual comments. We have Gov. Snyder because it was a Republican year and the Dem nominated a lame candidate. Granholm would've even done better than Bernero if she had been allowed to run for a third term.

[theaocp]

152. Fail.

Granholm would've been crushed and Bernero was anything but weak. You don't like reality, put me on ignore.

[blue_onyx]

156. LOL

Granholm won her 2 elections. Bernero was a horrible candidate who couldn't articulate a plan beyond lame talking points ("fats cats"). Granholm, at the very least, would've broken 40%. Bernero had a low planned parenthood rating (as pointed out by Alma Wheeler Smith during the primary) and wouldn't even support a graduated income tax. I can see why many Democrats stayed home. Sorry that you don't like facts but his performance speaks volumes about kind of a candidate he was.

[Donnachaidh]

14. coz he did so WELL when he started with one, right?

:eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

31. FACT: He never had a solid-veto-proof Senate majority (i.e., Joe Lieberman and DLC Blue Dogs).

Despite this fact, the two years under Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Reid is widely acknowledged by the unbiased, presidential historians and other analysts to have been the most productive first two years in terms of passing liberal legislation since FDR. FYI: FDR enjoyed huge Democratic majorities in Congress as opposed to Pres. Obama's much more difficult political reality.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

100. And not only did FDR enjoy huge Democratic majorities, these two critical points

are always ignored by the ODSers:

1. That FDR enjoyed a very ****PROGRESSIVE**** Democratic majority!

and...

2. That FDR enjoyed a very moderate to liberal Republican contingent, such that when the Southern Democrats refused to go along with the majority of progressive Democrats, FDR could count on liberal and moderate Republicans to create winning coalitions around progressive policies.

Obama neither has 1. nor does he have 2.

So, why do the ODSers and the so-called "Progressive Left" continue to make this bogus comparison between the two? There is no equivalency of ANY kind!

Not to mention that at that time, there wasn't this prevailing anti-government sentiment throughout the populace. After Watergate, the number of Americans who distrusted government began to rise drastically! This ideology continues to pervade American political culture to the extent that it is not uncommon to hear Democrats themselves beat up on government. That's how we got "Reagan Democrats" voting against their best interests!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

176. yeah, all dat!

[ClarkUSA]

15. Too many folks are only interested in attacking Pres. Obama for everything to acknowledge this fact.

Their agenda seems as questionable and self-defeating as that of Republicans.

No matter, the smartest and sanest people in the Democratic Party understand how government works.

[polmaven]

18. You've got that right!

:thumbsup:

[slay]

27. He already had majorities in BOTH - for two years!

then again SOME peoples' agenda here is questionable in how they support EVERYTHING Obama does or says - no matter what - oh yeah and it's always someone else's fault, never Obama's to SOME people. never mind pesky little facts like oh yeah, he did have majorites in BOTH house and senate for 2 years. whatever dude. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

28. Pres. Obama never had a solid-veto-proof Senate majority (see Joe Lieberman and DLC Blue Dogs).

That said, the two years under Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Reid is widely acknowledged by unbiased presidential historians and other analysts to have been the most productive first two years in terms of passing liberal legislation since FDR (and FDR had huge majorities in Congress, as opposed to President Obama).

[slay]

32. So lets see.. a Dem prez, senate, house =not enough - now needs to be filibuster proof, and no DLC

so how many Dems will it really take? 80 in the senate? the whole system is broken. and Obama is most certainly NOT the bold leader we need to change it - he's too busy quoting his idol Reagan. ugh.

[ClarkUSA]

39. Are you planning on working for majorities in the House and Senate this year and next?

Are you going to vote for the Democratic incumbent president for re-election?

[SwampG8r]

183. did you work for majorities in congress in 2010

or did you push republicans over democrats?

[FrenchieCat]

50. When your opponents have sworn on stacks of bibles that their only wish is to defeat you....

than super-majorities in both houses for 49 days
fall short in being able to rationalize that
somehow Obama had all that he needed to make the Left's
dreams come true. He didn't....as the House had a large voting
block of conservative Democrats...and even still, I believe that 400+ bills
that Liberals would like did come out of the house, but were defeated in the Senate,
due to the fact that we didn't have as many progressives as we needed there.
Those are the facts......not your simple view of it, and sadder still, you know this
very well.

Look...if Pres. Obama loses, he will survive....
if we lose, we lose everything.

I suggest that instead of taking time out to point the finger at Obama
claiming that it is all his fault, post after post...
I urge that we work very hard in giving him a victory and putting
in as many progressives in office as possible in both houses in 2012.

To discount folks stating the truth about the fact that it would have been impossible
for a congress to pass legislation more liberal than the most conservative Democrat
when they IN FACT had the deciding votes is revisionist history at its most cynical.
All that this cynical view does is offer a glimpse of how much easier it is to indict
one person than to simply state the factual full truth as it was.

[1StrongBlackMan]

177. Well stated

[uponit7771]

42. +1000

[JoePhilly]

125. +1000

[SwampG8r]

182. how ddoes working against the election of democrats help?

how does working to see a republican get one of these valuable senate seats work into this grand plan
kendrick meek and i would like to know

[Vinnie From Indy]

17. These guys are taking crazy pills

There are some of us that actually remember the recent past accurately and we ain't buying this notion that Obama never had a chance to govern as a progressive.

[truedelphi]

75. My household stands with you. And

As far as the Blue Dogs in Congress making it hard for him, if Obama's buddy Rahm hadn't spent the mid Aughts going around the nation, pushing progressive candidates out of primary races, and handing big bucks from the DLC to the more conservative folks running, if that hadn't happened, we might not have had all those Blue Dogs.

[frylock]

20. give him ANOTHER majority in congress, and then we can talk.

can't get fooled again.....

[ClarkUSA]

29. CAVEAT: He never ever had a solid-veto-proof Senate majority (see Joe Lieberman and DLC Blue Dogs).

[griffi94]

38. exactly

and we can't expect the president to champion democratic ideals with any less than a supermajority. it's just not his fault. until every single member of both chambers is a democrat, he just doesn't have the power to do anything except enact long held gop wet dreams of union busting...privatizing...ss slashing.

so while we may feel like we're getting bent over...we need to give him a pass...cause it's just not his fault...LOL...right.

[ClarkUSA]

43. Yes, it's clear that Gov. Granholm's words are falling on deaf ears from the dumb rhetoric I read.

[griffi94]

51. here ya go

HOORAY OBAMA
does that help that awful truth from stinging so much. lol

chill the fuck out...haha

[ClarkUSA]

52. Thanks for illustrating my point so clearly. Again.

[frylock]

78. obama's mentor, joe lieberman?

and those blue dogs? yeah, progressives have been calling for their heads for years now. you might recall we were told to sit down and shut the fuck up at the mere mention of primarying a blue dog.

[ClarkUSA]

79. LOL! That slippery 2008 primary meme again? Are you serious?

Lieberman must've been lousy at it for an former DLC Chairman like Bill Clinton, because Senator Obama rejected DLC overtures directly:

“I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC,” said Obama, in a statement that substantially reflects a telephone conversation with Associate Editor Bruce Dixon, this weekend.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

Ben Smith of Politico knows this fact:

"The DLC sought for a time to identify itself with Obama's message and his campaign, but found itself relatively unwelcome there and the final move cements its place as a central force in Clintonism and the Clinton historical record."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0711/DLC_records_to_Clinton_Foundation.html

[frylock]

102. you'll have to forgive me if i look at the mans actions..

his words mean jack fucking shit to me. he may very well have "rejected DLC overtures directly," but he's adopted their centrist garbage hivemind.

[Dr Fate]

170. Obama clearly rejected the DLC's overtures.

If you are to truly judge him by his actions, then you should be glad about his ACTION of rejecting the DLCs overtures.

The far left is always confusing the DLC with people who have nothing to do with them.

If the far left cant tell the subtle difference b/t DLCers, Blue Dogs, Third Wayers, Centrists and Reagan Democrats, then how can we take them seriously?

[Dr Fate]

171. I try to tell the Liberals that Obama direclty rejected the standing ovations from the DLC.

Once you call them out on it, they always fall back on the popular trick of pretending that DLCers,Blue Dogs, Centrists, 3rd Wayers and Reagan Democrats are all more or less the same thing, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Not gonna work this time. Obama really is too a centrist AND a progressive.

[uponit7771]

40. Obama never had a CONTROLLING majority in congress for more than 5 months, GOP filibuster rule chang

...made sure of this.

[frylock]

77. so what got done when that precious little window was open?

as i recall, many progressives were telling obama to lay on the throttle and get as much progerssive legislation in before the window closed. we were shouted down by the sensible centrists who were ever so kind enough to explain that obama really needed to ease into the role. now those same sensible centrists are bemoaning the fact that obama just didn't have enough time with a majority congress. fuck that shit. really.

[frylock]

103. it's only a two-minute prayer

[adekoye]

130. Please stay at home and don't vote

in 2012. That will do wonders for the country and show Obama how angry we are. I hear every candidate in the Republican field is keen to: ensure that health insurance companies keep their end of the bargain by strengthening health care; give unions more right to fight for better working conditions and pay; ensure everyone gets to vote; enact yet more consumer-friendly financial reform so that banks and credit card companies don't hoodwink you into signing unfair contracts (in the process, they'll also appoint a stronger advocate for consumers that'll make Elizabeth Warren look conservative); ensure religious freedom and sexual/women's reproductive rights are respected (and you just know the latter issue has received such good reviews following the Kansas example). And we'll finally get to resolve that decades-long problem called social security (and its evil siblings medicare and medicaid). Hell, we might even get real immigration reform and perhaps close the borders for good. How nice would that be?

It will be so much better. I bet you can't wait!

PS:Oh, I neglected to mention that as a member of that exclusive, top-earning club in America, you can be rest assured that more tax cuts are on their way to you.

[frylock]

138. oh, i'll vote, n00b..

i may not vote the way you'd like me to, but i never skip out on voting.

[adekoye]

139. Sure thing

... I bet you can't wait. You'll come back after the inauguration of Obama Perry/Romney and tell us where and how much more your bone-headedness hurts, won't you?

Ignoramus-in-residence.

[slay]

26. He already had that - and accomplished very little

the guy who ran in 2008 - candidate Obama - and the guy we have now as president Obama - are two totally different versions of a person. i wanted candidate Obama and no amount of Dem congress-critters will change his pro-corporate ways. while i would prefer Dems to return to being the party of the people and always have majorities - it's bullshit to claim Obama would be a better leader with them. he had it that way for 2 years already and it made no difference.

[ClarkUSA]

30. Um, he never ever had a solid-veto-proof Senate majority aka. Joe Lieberman and DLC Blue Dogs.

Despite this fact, under Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Reid, President Obama is widely acknowledged by the unbiased, presidential historians and other analysts to have been the most productive president during his first two years in terms of passing liberal legislation since FDR.

FYI: FDR enjoyed huge Democratic majorities in Congress as opposed to Pres. Obama's much more frustrating political reality.

[slay]

33. Just how many excuses can people make for Obama failing to lead or act like a progressive?

n/t

[ClarkUSA]

34. Facts are not excuses. Gov. Granholm words are falling on deaf ears, I see.

No surprise there.

[GillesDeleuze]

146. weak in the pulpit,

you'll get weakness on the floor. same tired "we're only politicians" garbage.

we shouldn't have to do all the heavy lifting. look at republicans, they find principles and stick together.

too much to ask of obama and the apologistas

[uponit7771]

37. Hate reality much!?! Cut off Obama's arms, bashers complain and call not have any arms excuses

[Ikonoklast]

155. I guess Mathematics is an unknown science to you.

The numbers NEVER ADDED UP TO A FILIBUSTER-PROOF MAJORITY.


God, stupid people ignoring reality aren't all Teabaggers.

[JNinWB]

44. They can't HEAR you

They believe their own version of reality---where Obama had Progressive majorities in both houses, but refused to sign liberal bills because he is Reagan.

Or something like that.

[ClarkUSA]

46. LOL! You nailed it.

:rofl:

Love your dry wit.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

126. Perfect definition of ODS!! Congratulations! +1,000,000,000,000....!!!

[Enrique]

55. he campaigned for one of the Blue Dogs

Blanche Lincoln, who filibustered him, which was supposedly the reason he couldn't be a progressive.

i know, i know he had no choice blah blah blah. it's all bullshit.

Give him 99% majorities, he and Granholm will say give us 100%, then we'll talk. Give him 100%, they'll say, give us the Supreme Court, then we'll talk, blah blah blah

[ClarkUSA]

60. It was pro-forma. So did Bill Clinton and every other Democratic leader. She lost.

Next red herring? Also, see Reply #57 for what I really think:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=748058&mesg_id=748227

[Carolina]

166. Touche

You nailed Obama and his apologists on this board.

You know a person by their actions and the crowd thay hang with. BHO worked for Blanche but not for Martha in MA! Speaks volumes doesn't it?

[ProSense]

36. See,

while some are writing off the tremendous achievements of the 111th Congress and the President's first two years, unions like the SEIU are celebrating them:

The Affordable Care Act: Moving working families forward

NLRB Rule: A Positive Step forward for all Workers

Progress brought to you by a Democratic President and Congressional majorities.

[phleshdef]

70. What a load of shit - accomplished very little - thats a fucking lie and you know it.

That congress from 2009 and 2010 was one of the most productive in AGES. Just because they didn't get the heavy weight progressive stuff like a public option does not take away anything from all that they did do. The financial reform was in fact, quite huge. So was health care reform, whether people around here like it or not. They also repealed DADT and a lot of the stimulus that they did manage to pass went to a lot of good things like high speed rail. To say that they accomplished very little is a lie by common sense standards and by standards of HISTORY.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

48. Yep. And it's ridiculous to take the position that everything could have been

done in the first two years. The whiner brigade is just never happy.

[sudopod]

54. FTFY

Yep. And it's ridiculous to take the position that everything anything could have been done in the first two years. The whiner brigade is just never happy.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

61. Plenty was done.....

Just that some people would rather be able to say anything negative they want, even when it isn't the truth.


Obama Passed Health Care reform that none of the other Presidents were able to do, and which prevents insurance companies from denying insurance for pre-existing conditions, and allows children to remain covered by their parents' insurance until the age of 26, and provides subsidies for over 30 million poor who cannot afford insurance. Also expansed Medicaid to all individuals under age 65 who are up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Killed Osama Bin Laden, something that Clinton nor Bush were able to do. Withdrew the majority of troups from Iraq and set a timetable for Afghanistan. Repealed DADT which had been installed under Clinton. Signed Financial Reform law, established Credit Card Bill of Rights, eliminated subsidies to private lender middlemen of student loans, increased pell grants and created the first ever Bureau of Consumer Protection. Cut the cost of Medicare prescription by 50% for seniors. Extended same sex partners federal employee benefits and appointed more openly Gay officials than any other President. Passed the Stimulus and saved 3 million jobs lost by the last fucked up Republican President. Lifted restrictions granting Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island. Created more Private sector jobs via incentives in 2010 than Bush had created in 8 years. Allowed first ever Disclosures of White House Visitors to the public. Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers. Issued executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Reversed 'global gag rule'. Signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, giving the FDA the authority to regulate the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of tobacco for the first time . Reduced Crack Cocaine sentencing to same as powder Cocaine. Cut down on Nuclear arsenal via Start Treaty. Increased average fuel economy standards from 27.5mpg to 55mpg, starting in 2016.

[sudopod]

62. I know right.

Not only is everyone who disagrees with me a hopeless dead-ender or a Republican plant, but I also have stunning evidence that anyone who ever killed me on Team Fortress 2 was hacking.

Also, Communism.

[treestar]

64. That's ridiculous too

and just proves you would never be happy anyway

A benign dictatorship will not be occurring, so get over it.

[sudopod]

65. Honestly, the truth lies somewhere between everything and anything.

We could be closer to "everything" than we are, however.

[swilton]

58. Question

What happened in 2008-2010 when he had majorities in Congress? The public option was taken off the table, backroom deals with the pharmaceutical industry.....money for Wall Street and not Main Street - Wall Street cronies who worked in the Bush Administration were put on Obama's financial team - etc., etc.

[JI7]

59. Too many people on here who don't understand how Congress and politics works, reminds me of

Republicans and their abstinence crap and how they said iraqis would greet americans with flowers and candy as liberators.

if we just do this then magic will happen. it's sooooooo simple. never mind that there are very conservative districts in the country we need to win to have a majority in the first place. but in order to win those places we need more conservative candidates.

and what is this "we" did do that shit all the time. not everyone votes for every single congress members. different people vote in different districts.

things are just not as simple and easy as some think. if it was why isn't your ass out there winning in these districts ? of course we will get the responses about corporate control, media and other things which they seem to forget when they are so happy to criticize.

i don't think many of these people voted for Democrats in the first place and want to lose. i bet many even voted for the republicans.

[ClarkUSA]

63. I think you're right on ALL counts.

Thanks, JI7. :thumbsup:

[uponit7771]

68. Those who ignore congress wanted to see Obama's birth certificate at one time :wink:

[Number23]

108. I absolutely agree. The comments in this thread alone prove your point

[BklnDem75]

73. Apparently, keeping us divided is more pressing...

than getting repukes out of office. Seeing the 'he already had majorities' responses shows me that majorities is not something we should strive for every election. We hate repukes with a passion, but not enough to keep them out of power. Magical thinkers that believe attacking ourselves will get us what we want.

[bemildred]

76. Another "shut up you Commies" thread.

He had majorities in Congress.

[ClarkUSA]

80. Another ridiculous strawman fallacy.

<< He had majorities in Congress. >>

Read Reply 35 if you're interested in the whole truth:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=748058&mesg_id=748181

[bemildred]

81. So you agree he has been a weak President? nt

[ClarkUSA]

84. That's another strawman fallacy. Want to shoot for a hat trick?

[bemildred]

85. If Congress controls the situation, then the President does not?

And that means he is a weak President. Strong Presidents get what they want. Bush the Lesser got damn near anything he wanted, no matter how stupid it was. Obama could take a whack at it too, what's he got to lose?

[ClarkUSA]

87. Review Civics 101 and study up on the roles of the three branches of gov't. for the answer.

<< Bush the Lesser got damn near anything he wanted, no matter how stupid it was. >>

Apples and oranges. Blame Vichy Democrats and lockstep Republicans for that, not President Obama.

[bemildred]

88. If you don't want stupid answers. don't ask stupid questions. nt

[Alenne]

83. If Obama had the majorities to pass a progressive agenda

why didn't the majorities pass these policies without Obama. Congress does not need Obama to pass a bill. He didn't veto all of these progressive bills that were passed. He didn't even threatened to veto them because they never got a vote in the Senate. Some of you are making up stuff.

[bemildred]

89. He was not elected to make excuses, and he will not be re-elected that way either. nt

[Alenne]

90. That didn't answer the question. nt

[bemildred]

92. It answered the excuses you advanced.

Congress is corrupt, and that's why they do what they do, because most of them are paid to do it.

[Alenne]

93. So you're saying there was no majority

to send progressive bills to the President. That's not an excuse. It's a fact.

[bemildred]

94. Whut?

Seriously, I don't see what you mean. I'll give you another free shot with no snotty comments.

[bvar22]

91. In 2008, the American People gave the Democratic Party:

*The White House

*A HUGE Majority in The House

*A filibuster-proof Majority in The Senate

*A dying & gasping Republican party

*Most Importantly, a HUGE Popular MANDATE for "CHANGE",
and an ARMY Standing in the STREETS!


They had to dig pretty deep to fuck up all that.




Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
The California Progressive Caucus WILL!!

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[bemildred]

95. Exactly. Lead, follow, or get out of the way, the nation needs REAL change, not excuses. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

96. Wait! None of us here at DU have been SCREAMING this for many months now!

:sarcasm::sarcasm:

[Tx4obama]

104. Obama was sworn in January 20, 2009. BUT ------

Senator Franken wasn't sworn in until July 2009.
Then Senator Kennedy died in August 2009.
Then Scott Brown (R-MA) was took over Kennedy's seat February 2010.

There were also Thanksgiving and Christmas/NewYears recesses in there too.

So, Obama did NOT have a filibuster-proof super majority for very much time at all.


With all the GOP obstruction the republicans are forcing 'cloture' on just about EVERYTHING and in the Senate it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture.

WE MUST get 60+ democrats in the Senate in 2012!!!

[flamingdem]

135. + too true

[Dr Fate]

165. Yup- and it was the far left who blew Kennedy's seat, not centrist strategty or popular HC mandates

nt

[sabrina 1]

179. How did the far left blow that seat when the far left went out

and voted for the Democrat, as they did in the 2010 Election. Nice revisionism there, but if you think anyone's buying it, you're very mistaken. We remember what happened and pretty much begged the party leadership to do something to show they actually cared about progressive ideals or they would lose the left/Independent vote, which they did. I totally blame Rahm et al for blowing what Dean worked so hard and so successfully to accomplish. He didn't succeed by trashing the people he needed to vote for his candidates.

Someone better get to this WH fast before the next election or they will help get a Republican in the WH and in the Senate with the way they are going. Btw, has that guy who lashed out at the 'left' again been fired yet? I have never seen more stupidity in politics as I have coming from these DLCers who are in charge of the WH. They lost us the 2010 election and now they are working hard to do the same thing in 2012. They are so immature and unprofessional it is stunning.

[SwampG8r]

184. plus all the numbers

i have been voting a straight ticket democratic since 1974
they way i am condescended to and rudely spoken to by those i feel in my bones are paid operatives has made me finally toss it off
you want my vote get it folks? i have something YOU want
now give me a reason to let you have it besides your snide snotty rude arrogance
besides some fear based bullshit that doesnt even scare a campfire girl
besides some carefully plucked half truths and weasel language
no more human pinata

[Dr Fate]

164. That excuse impresses Swing voters. I know because I tell it to them all the time.

They usually come away thinking that Obama really is the guy who will do a lttle extra to make things happen.

I may not convince them all to vote for him this time, but at least they get a little civics lesson on why they are wrong about Obama not actually working really hard for them.

And it WAS NOT failed centrist strategy that lost Kennedy's seat. That was also the fault of the lazy left.

[Lugnut]

120. We already did that.

We sent Pres. Obama to Washington with majoritites in Congress to carry our message. They big time blew it. Don't blame us for your capitulation.

[Tx4obama]

122. See comment #105. n/t

[SwampG8r]

185. see comment 121

[MadHound]

127. Let me be another one to point out the obvious,

Obama had large majorities in 2009-1/11. And what happened then? Very little, sadly.

And for those of you who are screaming about not having a super majority, the fact of the matter is that presidents rarely have super majorities and yet still, somehow manage to advance their agenda. But you folks would rather paint the President as powerless, despite him being the most powerful man in the most powerful country in the world.

Sad, truly sad.

[BlueIris]

128. Oh, please.

He had majorities in Congress, an adoring media and public and backing from both intelligence, the Pentagon and the corporations. And he failed to do anything except let us slide further into madness.

[apnu]

129. Its not a matter of driving legislation through Congress, its a matter of fighting for us.

I think all of us progressives and liberals would stand behind Obama if he actually stood his ground. If he negotiated from a position of strength instead of weakness. If he's just not capitulate to the right and their insanity.

He can lose the votes in Congress, but dammit! At least fight for our ideals Mr. President!

[Enrique]

131. out of touch party hack

dems still have no clue what's going on with people. They think we're all party hacks like them.

[LoZoccolo]

134. K&R! n/t

[Clear Blue Sky]

140. Didn't he have majorities for 2 years??

[Tx4obama]

147. See comment #105. n/t

[Dr Fate]

169. WRONG. He was forced by congress to keep all those Bush economic advisors, for instance.

Read your civics book, then read post 105.

[Fearless]

143. He had a majority. He did nothing. He doesn't have a majority. He's doing nothing...

I wonder what's going to happen next year... :eyes:

[Harmony Blue]

187. That sums up my position.

When you are attempting to triangulate the center you end up out foxing yourself. Truth.

[Beacool]

144. And what did he have when he entered the WH???

The Democrats had Congress until November 2010.

:shrug:

[Tx4obama]

148. See comment #105. n/t

[Dr Fate]

167. WRONG. That is myth from the professional left. Obama was powerless to fight for the PO.

And he was powerless to do anything about BP, powerless as to his Bush era economic advosors and powerless as to any thing else Liberals wanted.

What part of "We did not/do not/will not have the votes" for far out liberal stuff are we not getting here?

[cottonseed]

149. No More Dems!

That's what I'm getting from the comments here.

[ItNerd4life]

154. Sad, but I don't think Hillary would need this as an excuse. nt

[truebrit71]

157. Respectfully ma'am we did that already and he pissed it all away....

...or are you suggesting we give him a do-over and he'll do it right this time...?

[Dr Fate]

158. Exactly- then we can go back to the way things were b/f the midterms.

I cant speak for the malcontents on the far left, but I for one note that b/f the midterms, Obama and Democrats passed more Liberal/progressive/Democratic legislation than any Democrat in decades.

[Carolina]

162. She is so wrong

Plus any fool knows that majorities without STRONG LEADERSHIP aren't enough!

Check out http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/18-3

Symptoms of the Bush-Obama Presidency
The Saved and the Sacked
by David Bromwich

A damning article with a long yet only partial, very revealing recitation of those advisors Obama saved and those he sacked. The list clearly shows he really is Bush III, maybe worse, because of the duplicity of how he campaigned versus how he has led (if you can call it that).

Here's just a sample of this long (but partial) list!

"In these August days, Americans are ... still wondering what has befallen us with the president’s “debt deal” -- a shifting of tectonic plates beneath the economy of a sort Dick Cheney might have dreamed of, but which Barack Obama and the House Republicans together brought to fruition. A redistribution of wealth and power more than three decades in the making has now been carved into the system and given the stamp of permanence.

Only a Democratic president, and only one associated in the public mind (however wrongly) with the fortunes of the poor, could have accomplished such a reversal with such sickening completeness.


The philosopher William James took as a motto for practical morality: “By their fruits shall ye know them, not by their roots.”

... Translated into the language of presidential power .. the motto must mean: by their appointments shall ye know them.

Let us examine Obama... by the standard of his cabinet members, advisers, and favored influences... Whom has he wanted to stay on longest? Which of them has he discarded fastest or been most eager to shed his association with? Think of them as the saved and the sacked.

THE SAVED

Advisers whom the president entrusted with power beyond expectation:

1. Lawrence Summers: Obama’s chief economic adviser, 2009-2010. Summers arranged the repeal of the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act, which had separated the commercial banks -- holders of the savings of ordinary people -- from the speculative action of the brokerage houses and money firms. The aim of Glass-Steagall was to protect citizens and the economy from a financial bubble and collapse. Demolition of that wall between savings and finance was a large cause of the 2008 meltdown. In the late 1990s, Summers had also pressed for the deregulation of complex derivatives -- a dream fully realized under Bush. In the first years of the Obama era, with the ear of the president, he commandeered the bank bailouts and advised against major programs for job creation. He won, and we are living with the results.

In 2009-2010, the critical accessory to Summers’s power was Timothy Geithner, Obama’s treasury secretary...

Obama had majorities... and didn't fight. Past is prologue

[1StrongBlackMan]

178. A Strong, Dedicated and Focused Team ...

Makes for a strong leader.

PRESIDENT OBAMA is a strong leader ... maybe, not the hoopin' and hollerin' in your face "leader" that seems to be the wet-dream of the right and the envy of many on the left; but a strong leader none-the-less.

[Dr Fate]

168. If we give Obama majorites, then he can finally let congress fire all the Bush era appointees...

...that congress forced him to appoint when he had the NON-CONTROLLING Fake Majoritiy.

Give him a CONTROLLING, real majority of say, 80 Liberals, and then we can talk about appointing some progressives (But not liberals) to replace some of these Bush era appointees.

As long as he does not have a CONTROLLING majority, then his appointments are in the hands of the Koch Brothers and Sarah Pailin.

[great white snark]

188. Your schtick is becoming trollish and absurd.

Even the supporters deem you unbelievable.

Get it? There is no such person or persons you portray.

[Dr Fate]

191. So long as we agree that Obama is forced to keep his GOP appointees until we elect more DEMS

There are indeed centrists on DU who are assuring everyone that Obama cant be Liberal or perform any liberal acts until he gets a majority in Congress, and I am proud to be among the DUers who are spreading this truth.

[Enrique]

186. Congress has nothing to do with him taking the banks' side

in the state AGs investigations.

[Dr Fate]

192. Next you will tell us that Congress did not force him to appoint Bush era Republicans.

Bash Obama all you want- but he cant fire any of them until we give him the majorites he had when he hired them.

[Dawgs]

194. Not having majorities didn't keep him from picking centrists, bankers, CEOs, etc. for his admin.

We're still waiting to see if anyone can name a liberal in his cabinet.