President Obama and a Republican majority
As I was doing some of my daily reading and browsing through different blogs and news stories, I was suddenly struck with a thought. Correct me if I am wrong, but when President Obama was voted into office, he had something that a lot of sitting President’s have only been able to dream of. A 256-178 Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and what amounted to a 60-40 majority in the Senate gave him and his party a lot of political clout. There seemed to be no doubt that he had the votes to push through just about any legislation he desired. It worked for most of the year, but it failed when it came to health care reform. I believe this had more to do with the makeup of the Congress and it’s leaders than anything else. The general citizenry of the United States came to despise and distrust what was happening on Capital Hill, behind closed doors.
President Obama is a very charismatic man and he can certainly give a good speech. As the question and answer session with the House Republicans showed, he can also answer off the cuff questions, thinking quite well on his feet. In spite of all that, he has been unable to work his magic and pass a large portion of his agenda. Since the Republicans were outnumbered and outvoted to the point of being nearly irrelevant, I have to conclude the problem lies elsewhere, possibly within the Democratic Party. Let’s face it, the President has had competition during his first year in office, in the persons of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
There are a lot of people in America who think President Obama is about as much of a left-wing liberal as one can be, but Nancy Pelosi makes him look nearly moderate. I believe the biggest part of the blame for the failure of this Congress to act on the super majorities they have and continue to hold lies solely at her feet. She is a very unyielding and stubborn woman. That brings me to the thought that I had while doing my reading.
Am I the only one who has ever wondered how someone would respond in a particular situation, if faced with a particular set of circumstances? In that same spirit, I want to ask a question. What would Obama do? If he found himself faced with working with a Republican majority in Congress? If he found himself facing a Congress with at least enough Republican members to keep Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid from riding roughshod over the members of their respective houses of Congress? You may think it will not happen and you could be right, but what if the Republican Party builds on Scott Brown’s success in Massachusetts? What if they are able to either regain control of Congress in November or at least, gain enough seats to strengthen their voice in the process?
I perceive President Obama as liberal, with a strong liberal agenda and I am relatively convinced he would be willing to make some very radical changes to our country, if given the chance. However, I also see him as a very pragmatic man and one who is willing to compromise to get things done. Agree or disagree, let me ask you a question that I would like everyone who reads Political Realities to consider. What will President Obama do if he finds himself facing and having to work with, a Republican majority? Feel free to leave your answers in the comment section. No simple yes or no answers are allowed, as I want to know why you answer the way you do.
“The general citizenry of the United States came to despise and distrust what was happening on Capital Hill, behind closed doors.”
Larry, Americans have ALWAYS despised and distrusted what goes on on Capital Hill, The White House and The Supreme Court…..as well as each and every government agency.
“Since the Republicans were outnumbered and outvoted to the point of being nearly irrelevant, I have to conclude the problem lies elsewhere, possibly within the Democratic Party.”
Larry, your conclusion that it is the democrat party is just wrong. The problem is Obama made the mistake of trying to include Senate Republicans. If Reid would work to change Senate rules to disallow filibusters, then majority rule (something this nation was founded on) would carry the day, something MOST Americans would agree with.
I say “Run roughshod” over obstructionist republicans!
David W. Walters´s last blog ..War sucks
David,
You cease to amaze me. Again, you have taken what I have written and have changed the context. I wanted to address the question of what President Obama would do if the Republicans gain control of Congress. I will not have this discussion hijacked. Enough is enough.
you left me no place to write a rebuttal to your error, so i did it here.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..War sucks
My point about the Democratic Party was aimed specifically at Pelosi and Reid, not the party in general. The Republicans are not the only members of Congress she has ran over and pushed around. Her own party has felt it as well.
As for America being founded on majority rule, are you sure about that? We are not a democracy, which is a majority rule. We are instead, a republic.
Larry, you are correct, this country was not founded on majority rule. The one form of government that the founders distrusted almost as much as monarchy was democracy. They feared a government where 51 people could tell 49 people what to do, that is why they set up a representative Republic.
Mr Pink Eyes´s last blog ..Congress may withhold funds for trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a criminal court
David,
I closed the comments on the other post because the discussion had gone completely off topic. Now you insist on bringing it to this post where it is also off topic. I will not close the comments on this article, but I will delete your comment. How much plainer do I need to be?
Larry,
I think it is possible, even probable, that Obama would take a Republican majority and work with them for successful compromises that would get our country’s legislation moving again. This happened during the last six years of the Clinton administration, and it happened under Reagan, as well. Clinton, also, was “percieved” to be a crazy liberal, mostly because of spin. Yet instead of carrying out perceptions, he carried on with governing and did a good job. Were there bumps? Sure, and I think it’s hard to look at a conversation about the banking collapse and Graham-Leach and not wonder whether it’s “all good”, as the kids say. But under that system each party had a charge and a responsibility to legislate, not just whine about how the other party is either obstructing or bullying.
I actually look forward to the possibility of our political process leaving the extreme, polarized arena of today, where only minds are changed, to a more centrist, direct arena of the center, where lives are changed, often for the better.
Thanx for bring up Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Yes Clinton in an orgasm of trying to out republican the republicans, signed this bill into law. The results are still here today. I wonder how far Obama will go to appease the right wing of the republican party. If he does, it will only end badly for our nation because right wing plans have ALWAYS failed. To wit: “Trick Down, or Reaganomics”. It never put a dollar in my pocket, yet many in my bosses pockets.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..War sucks
You raise some good points, Laurie. That is exactly why I said I felt like Obama is a pragmatic man. He is a liberal, but he is willing to compromise on some issues, in order to get something accomplished. I think an Obama presidency with a Republican majority would be a little different than what we are seeing today.
Larry,
As far as Pelosi is concerned: I know you dislike her, but I think you discount something. She, not Reid, has come as close to pushing the original intent of Obama’s initial health care reforms as possible, and with her large majority she got it done. Whether you like her personally or not, whether you like the intitial legislation or not, she took her large Democratic majority and effectively passed HC with little drama and/or fanfare. As House Speaker, she’s currently a lieutenant in the Obama Administration, and a very effective one at that.
Again, you may not like her, the results of the legislation or the contents of the bill, but Pelosi and her branch of government actually did their job, as far as carrying out Obama’s agenda. So I just don’t understand how you can possibly blame her.
One last quesiton about “blame”:
In a previous thread, you accurately commented that Bush had called for Freddie Mac and Fannie May reforms in 2003, but it never got done. There was a clear GOP majority in both the House and the Senate at the time. So, do you blame Bill Frist and/or Denny Hastert for the failure to enact the legislation? As I recall, you said this was the fault of the Democrats.
(“There was a clear GOP majority in both the House and the Senate at the time. So, do you blame Bill Frist and/or Denny Hastert for the failure to enact the legislation?”)
-Laurie, this is smokin’!
David W. Walters´s last blog ..War sucks
I can think of two words which describes why Obama has failed to bring about health care reform despite having the political numbers on his side:
1. Transparency, or the lack thereof. What is in the bill? No one knows. Worse, politicians didn’t even care until Americans began to read it for themselves.
2. Intransigence, which has highlighted his refusal to compromise. Obama says that he will listen, then he talks. And talks. And talks, talks, talks.
Will he learn? I hope not. Congress needs to be shaken up once again with Americans of all political stripes insisting that their voices be heard without the extremists getting the upper hand.
Matt Keegan´s last blog ..Guest Bloggers Now Have An Ally
Matt,
I tend to agree with you that our politicians don’t know what’s in the bill. But good golly- are you really going to tell me that they and their staffs haven’t had time to read it by now? And, perhaps if they had read the bill, the GOP might have discovered that some of the things they have held out for-buying across state lines is one example- were actually provided for. Maybe it wasn’t perfect, but it’s their JOB to find the shortcomings and negotiate for what they want.
I find it odd a more than a little disingenous that our politicians, with dozens even hundreds of staffers at their personal disposal and on the payroll, say they couldn’t POSSIBLY get through 1,100 one sided pages, yet many Americans (bloggers, pundits etc)claim to have read the bill and have offered anlysis. Don’t you?
I also have found the Republican whine about the length of the bill to be disingenuous on it’s face, since they themselves offered many bills that topped the 1,000 double sided pages, one (at least) that was over 3,000 pages. Never heard them whine about length when it was their bills…
Time for the politicians to actually do their job. How the heck can they whine about-or even support- something of which they claim to be ignorant?
But good golly- are you really going to tell me that they and their staffs haven’t had time to read it by now?
My answer: Yes!
We have Senators telling us they need lawyers to read these bills. Why would we think they have read them at all!
As for the Republican H/C there are several that are only a few hundreds of pages as well. I believe (correct my if I am wrong Larry) Coburn submitted one like that.
The Democrats, however, have only offered these multi-thousand page documents that mind blowing in their size.
Dominique´s last blog ..Figuring out I had been 3D’d
Matt:
(“I can think of two words which describes why Obama has failed to bring about health care reform despite having the political numbers on his side…….”)
Actually he doesn’t hAVe the numbers as you state, due to the fact that blue dog democrats are actually just Republican Lite®
David W. Walters´s last blog ..War sucks
David – What is up with you tonight? Having a bad day?
Dominique´s last blog ..Figuring out I had been 3D’d
I share Laurie’s view that Obama may find a lesser majority a blessing in disguise that will impose disciplined bipartisan efforts to accomplish results. Reid and Pelosi will be unable to unilaterally dictate policy and negotiate only within the party to lock in their votes. It will pull legislation toward the center and will enable more broadly accpetable ideas to come to light. One big if — will the GOP leadership “allow” their members to break ranks. Is the 2010 midterm election more important than passing policy that helps our country? I think Boehner sees it that way and will not permit any Obama or Democratic legislative “victory” on issues Obama considers high priority. Will that extend beyond the election? Hmmmm….good question and it depends on the outcome. I think Obama will extend the hand and Reid and Pelosi will be dragged along with him — but the hand will be slapped away in the name of political advantage. I sure hope I’m wrong.
Good anlysis, Mike.
I think that meangful legislation will be a rarity until AFTER the 2010 elections. GOPers must be able to run, in 2010, on a “we stopped the Socialist” ticket and they can’t do that if they are helpful even a bit. Thus, I think the outlook for a new jobs bill with bipartisan support (or even input) may have to wait.
After 2010, though, as long as they pick up seats, the GOP will have no choice but to be productive or risk moving into 2012 being portrayed as obstructionists. Not the way to gain independent voters, who tend to vote for those they think can move us forward.
Obama is as much of an Old School Progressive as I am an Old School Conservative – the evidence is overwhelming! The reason he’s having trouble is not the fault of the progressives in the Democratic Party, but due to the lesser left-wing Blue Dog’s, and others who wish not to get voted out of office.
Luckily, a president cannot enact legislation. If he could, Obama would have crammed single-payer health care, cap and trade, and all sorts of other economically destructive progressive agendas down our throats. “I won,” remember?
The thing about Republicans winning back a majority that concerns me, is that they’ll be able to pass some of this nonsense with “bi-partisan” support. But on a positive note, the Tea Party’s are having a wonderful effect on the Republican primaries. Progressive Republicans are going to face every bit of an uphill battle as progressive Democrats.
Side Note: David, Our country was not founded on majority rule. Since this isn’t directly related to this topic, I won’t discuss it with you here. I really liked your post about war being hell. Good stuff! Maybe I’ll come over there to discuss it with you.
theCL´s last blog ..New Information on Abdulmutallab the Underwear Bomber
Thanx…..i am holding on to a LOT of anger over it too.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..War sucks
I totally agree with you in respect to the Tea Party movement. I don’t think the GOP or the Democrats realize the depth of this movement nor the passion of those involved.
It truly is a grassroots movement. One I am proud to be part of though Tea Party Patriots!
Dominique´s last blog ..Figuring out I had been 3D’d
Yeah, the Tea Parties are re-sparking the spirit of the American Creed! I went to my first one last April 15th in Lansing, MI, and it gave me hope again. All the Tea Parties here in MI have been fantastic!
It’s funny … At the Tea parties, everyone from libertarians to social conservatives, to the many attending Democrats get along, discuss the issues, have a lot in common, and have a good time.
Bring the major parties into the equation … and we’re all at each other’s throats.
theCL´s last blog ..New Information on Abdulmutallab the Underwear Bomber
LD, I’m new here and not nearly as informed as you or the forum members. I do believe that in the event of a Republican majority in Congress that Obama will be as obstructionist as possible, compromising as a last resort and then blaming Republicans (or anyone who doesn’t agree with him) at every turn for not endorsing his original policies. The SOTU address was a good indication of this man’s real demeanor. We’ll see more behind-closed-door deals with Congress and lobbyists – he’s already ignored campaign promises there. And of course, more appointed czars. The attitude is ‘No problem, we’ll just bypass the rules’.
I also expect to see many more Executive Orders signed. Even if they’re toothless, he can claim it was the best he could do with a hostile Congress. He’s playing to the world, and to his vision of history, not to the will of the people he represents. His ego and ambition won’t let him do otherwise.
Good blog too. Clear and non-psycho. I like that.
Xavier,
Thanks for taking the time to comment on Political Realities. I am not all that informed, but I try to learn all I can about the issues of the day.
Honestly, I do not know if Obama would be obstructionist or not, but I suspect we would see a different style of governing if his party were to lose their majority in Congress.
I am not sure how Obama would respond. I think that he may be more of an idealogue that President Clinton was. During the campaign he tried to come off as more of a centrist than he has been since becoming president. The question is, is he really more of a centrist and did Pelosi and reid pull him left, or is he really a leftist who was hiding during the campaign? We just don’t know because Obama had a knack for not voting when he was a state senator. Does this mean he will be willing to work with a Republican majority? If he is the idealogue that I think he is I don’t think he will be willing to compromise what he believes in.
Only time will tell and hopefully we will have the chance to find out after November. I guess I didn’t answer the question but a really do not have a feel for how he would react.
Mr Pink Eyes´s last blog ..Congress may withhold funds for trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a criminal court
I had to think about your question Larry and I think that from what I have seen this past year…Obama will say he has moved to the center and may even look like his is in the public, but I personally believe he will continue to work as a far left progressive behind the scenes.
I don’t the part demographics which change who he is at the core.
Dominique´s last blog ..Figuring out I had been 3D’d
Obama is an ideologue and i do think that given the opportunity he would push an agenda further left than we would like; but he is also a pragmatist and faced with a Republican majority (or even a 59-41 Senate) he will accomplish what he is able to accomplish.
I admire your positive thinking. I think Mr. Obama is a Progressive or maybe even something worse than that. Most of the time he is a gifted speaker and is very good at saying what people WANT to hear. I think even if we take the House and the Senate he will continue with his agenda. He may become less cynical towards the Republicans, but then again he may even
get worse. Some will call it Political suicide but others will commend him. Mr. Obama will continue to have a large base of groupie’s following him no matter what.