In The News Today...

Quote: AZDuffman

I think he honestly believes if you do not antagonize your enemy then your enemy will leave you alone. He also really seems to believe it is better to be liked than feared, an idea proven wrong time and time again.

He's like every Lib in the schoolyard. Give
the bully your lunch money, turn the other
cheek, make him feel good about himself,
and maybe he won't beat you up. That's the
Lib mindset on world hostility.

Quote: Evenbob

He's like every Lib in the schoolyard. Give
the bully your lunch money, turn the other
cheek, make him feel good about himself,
and maybe he won't beat you up. That's the
Lib mindset on world hostility.

Cherish this time because two more years You'll have your own puppet in the whitehouse and it won't be as interesting. You'll probably hate half he does and will be too programmed to be able to say anything. Presidents are puppets just like everything else and just lying delusional politicians trying to keep as many people happy liking them. I doubt there will ever be a truly good, honorable president in anyone's lifetime born today.

Quote: s2nickelmiracle

Cherish this time because two more years You'll have your own puppet in the whitehouse and it won't be as interesting. You'll probably hate half he does and will be too programmed to be able to say anything.

LOL! :D

*Just having some harmless fun. I figure I'm entitled to it after having insult after insult after insult after insult after insult after insult thrown at me. :D

Is a truly good, honorable president even possible anymore with the vitriol and stubbornness in Congress and the Senate? There are great, great things that the US can do but have been stymied by ideological differences despite the ideas being widely good for the country.

What makes a good president? It's not just good ideas, but the ability to execute the ideas. The fact that Obama ran on "change" and was unable to really accomplish anything is disappointing at best.

Quote: boymimbo

Is a truly good, honorable president even possible anymore with the vitriol and stubbornness in Congress and the Senate? There are great, great things that the US can do but have been stymied by ideological differences despite the ideas being widely good for the country.

Oh, come on. Do you really think that a stubborn Congress is a post-1980 phenomenon? It has been this way from the start, the only times Congress has not been "stubborn" is when the POTUS has a supermajority, most current examples being FDR, LBJ, and Obama pre-2010. Otherwise Congress is not being "stubborn" but just doing its job as a check and balance.

Quote:

What makes a good president? It's not just good ideas, but the ability to execute the ideas. The fact that Obama ran on "change" and was unable to really accomplish anything is disappointing at best.

The point is Obama is as I predicted totally incapable of getting even basic functions accomplished as he does not understand how to work a deal when he does not have the majority power. All his political life he had it, but as POTUS when he lost it he was like, "well, the guys I told to shut up and let me drive won't work with me so now what do I do?"

Even with the supermajority he had, LBJ had issues, like when Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But he knew how to work the phones and deal. Obama thinks he can just say, "so it is written, so it shall be done." He can't.

Quote: AZDuffman

The point is Obama is as I predicted totally incapable of getting even basic functions accomplished as he does not understand how to work a deal when he does not have the majority power...

Even with the supermajority he had, LBJ had issues, like when Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But he knew how to work the phones and deal.

That's a great point about LBJ. His success working with members of Congress goes back to his days as Senate Majority Leader. Bush 43, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter were former governors. Bush 41, Ford, and Nixon were former Vice-Presidents.

Obama? Former community organizer.

This is why you do NOT send community organizers to the White House, folks!! *facepalm*

Quote: Beethoven

That's a great point about LBJ. His success working with members of Congress goes back to his days as Senate Majority Leader. Bush 43, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter were former governors. Bush 41, Ford, and Nixon were former Vice-Presidents.

Obama? Former community organizer.

This is why you do NOT send community organizers to the White House, folks!! *facepalm*

+1000

Yeah, LBJ had it hard. The 88th Congress (63/64) where the Civil Rights passed occurred where LBJ had a 65-35 supermajority and a 258-175 majority in the Congress. He had an even bigger supermajority in the 89th (65/66) he had 68 in the Senate and 295-140 in the Congress. That's when a number of major acts were passed. He continued his supermajority in the 90th as well.

Even when Nixon was elected, he faced both a Democrat Congress and Senate yet things got done. This is not because of superior negotiation power, but because congress and the senate were working on behalf of the public trying to get things done.

This is because Congress and Senate was voting not based on party lines, but on doing what was right. It wasn't until 1995 that Republicans secured both houses.

So I call your point "sentimental hogwash". And don't give me the crap about Obama having a supermajority. 58 were elected. Franken wasn't sworn in until July. Spectre changed sides in April, but Byrd was sick. When Kirk filled in September 2013, there was the 60 seats, until January 2014 when Scott Brown was sworn in. Five months.

Congress and Senators today on both sides of the aisle are supported primarily through lobbyists and Superpacs that force them to behave narrowly with policies. They don't get to vote with their conscious, certainly don't vote with its constituents, and don't get to do the right thing because of the force of money and hyper-expensive campaigns. They vote pretty much exclusively in blocks along party lines.

That's why the congressional approval rating sits where? Around 18%. Obama was naive about getting change done. He didn't reckon how much power lobbyists had. It has nothing to do with his previous role as "community leader". Governors accomplish things across the aisle because their representatives are closer to their constituents and don't face the high bribery that congress and senators do.

Quote: boymimbo

Yeah, LBJ had it hard. The 88th Congress (63/64) where the Civil Rights passed occurred where LBJ had a 65-35 supermajority and a 258-175 majority in the Congress. He had an even bigger supermajority in the 89th (65/66) he had 68 in the Senate and 295-140 in the Congress. That's when a number of major acts were passed. He continued his supermajority in the 90th as well.

Yet he still was known for working the phones and twisting arms like nobody's business. He had to break the Democrat filibuster of the Civil Rights Act for example.

Quote:

Even when Nixon was elected, he faced both a Democrat Congress and Senate yet things got done. This is not because of superior negotiation power, but because congress and the senate were working on behalf of the public trying to get things done.

Nonsense. Nixon got things through congress because his agenda was a largely liberal agenda. New agencies and new regs on business? Liberals love that so the Dems were more than happy to go along.

Quote:

This is because Congress and Senate was voting not based on party lines, but on doing what was right. It wasn't until 1995 that Republicans secured both houses.

So I call your point "sentimental hogwash". And don't give me the crap about Obama having a supermajority. 58 were elected. Franken wasn't sworn in until July. Spectre changed sides in April, but Byrd was sick. When Kirk filled in September 2013, there was the 60 seats, until January 2014 when Scott Brown was sworn in. Five months.

I have to question what kind of American History they are teaching you up in Canada. Congress other than in times of war has always voted along party lines, that is why parties form in the first place. Democrats called Reagan's budget "Dead on Arrival" before he even sent it over. Further back what went on in the 1800s makes today look like total cooperation.

Obama had a supermajority, you just stated he did. Thank you!

Quote:

Congress and Senators today on both sides of the aisle are supported primarily through lobbyists and Superpacs that force them to behave narrowly with policies. They don't get to vote with their conscious, certainly don't vote with its constituents, and don't get to do the right thing because of the force of money and hyper-expensive campaigns. They vote pretty much exclusively in blocks along party lines.

That's why the congressional approval rating sits where? Around 18%. Obama was naive about getting change done. He didn't reckon how much power lobbyists had. It has nothing to do with his previous role as "community leader". Governors accomplish things across the aisle because their representatives are closer to their constituents and don't face the high bribery that congress and senators do.

Again, this is nothing new. The difference is today we have more ability to put together a coalition to help fund a campaign of someone we want elected. 100 years ago the so-called Robber Barons could buy the election almost singlehanded. The approval rating of congress has always been low. I like it low, when people like congress and government I get scared.

Obama wasn't naive about getting change done, his voters were. Why anyone who thought a hack who never accomplished anything above getting elected is beyond me.

And don't give me the crap about executive order either. According to the American Presidency project, Obama has 187 EOs to date. Bush had 291, Clinton 361, Reagan 381, LBJ 325. In fact, Obama's rate of EOs at 33.49/year, is the lowest since McKinley. Yet the GOP wants to sue him for breaking the law.