Obama Misread His Mandate - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 17th, 2009, 12:58 AM   #1
RyeBread
Catch the wave
 
RyeBread's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Fenton
Posts: 7,959
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default Obama Misread His Mandate

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/hor...mandate_1.html

August 16, 2009 Obama Misread His Mandate

After a rough week for health care reform, Democratic leaders appear to be pulling back on their demand for a public option. It remains to be seen whether liberal Democrats, especially in the House where they are more numerous, will go along with this. But this is still a step in the right direction to get something passed this year.

The public option was an overreach. The White House's erroneous belief that it could get it through the legislature - or at least that it could let four out of five congressional committees push it - was a misinterpretation of last year's election results. It has already made a similar mistake with cap-and-trade - backing a House bill that appears to have no chance of success in the Senate.

Bismarck once commented that politics is the art of the possible. Up until now, the White House has not exhibited a good understanding of exactly what is possible in this political climate. It has been acting as though the President's election was a major change in the orientation of the country on basic social problems.

A lot of liberals certainly saw it as such. All the strained comparisons of Obama to Franklin Roosevelt were a tipoff that many were talking themselves into the idea that 2008 represented a substantial leftward realignment. Yet the election of 2008 was manifestly not like the 1932 contest. Similarly, it wasn't like '52, '56, '64, '72, '80, '84, or even '88. Obama's election was narrower than all of these. FDR won 42 of 48 states. Eisenhower won 39, then 41. Johnson won 44 of 50. Nixon won 49. Reagan won 44, then 49. George H.W. Bush won 40. Obama won 28, three fewer than George W. Bush in his narrow 2004 reelection.

This makes a crucial difference when it comes to implementing policy. Our system of government depends not only on how many votes you win, but how broadly distributed those votes are. This prevents one section or faction from railroading another. It is evident in the Electoral College and the House, but above all in the Senate, where 44 senators come from states that voted against Obama last year. That's a consequence of the fact that Obama's election - while historic in many respects, and the largest we have seen in 20 years - was still not as broad-based as many would like to believe. Bully for Obama and the Democrats that they have 60 Senate seats, but the fact remains that thirteen of those Democrats come from McCain states, indicating that the liberals don't get the full run of the show.

For whatever reason, the Obama administration has acted as if those hagiographical comparisons to FDR were apt. It let its liberal allies from the coasts drive the agenda and write the key bills, and it's played straw man semantic games to marginalize the opposition. For all the President's moaning in The Audacity of Hope about how the Bush administration was railroading the minority into accepting far right proposals - he was prepared to let his Northeastern and Pacific Western liberal allies do exactly the same thing: write bills that excite the left, infuriate the right, and scare the center; insist on speedy passage through the Congress; and use budget reconciliation to ram it through in case the expected super majority did not emerge. Then, what's done is done. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube; you can't kill a government program once it's born. This might have flown during FDR's 100 Days. But this is not 1933 and Barack Obama is no Franklin Roosevelt.

Now that his legislative agenda is stalling, we're seeing the predictable critiques about the outdated United States Senate, which is the real source of the bottleneck: the Connecticut Compromise was meant to protect the interests of small states, but not states that are this small. Rhode Island, yes. Wyoming, no! These arguments will be conveniently tabled whenever the Democrats return to minority status, so I won't bother to address their merits. The bigger question is: what did they think was going to happen? It's one thing to bemoan the fundamental unfairness of the Senate; it's another thing to overlook it when you're formulating your legislative program. The map is what it is: that big swath of red that runs through the middle of the country then swings right through the South should have been a tipoff that the stage was not set for coastal governance.

The President should have realized what was possible and what wasn't, and he should have used his substantial influence to push the House toward the kind of centrist compromise the Senate will ultimately require. That's called building a consensus - something he promised he'd do but has not yet made a serious effort at.
RyeBread is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old August 17th, 2009, 11:19 AM   #2
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeBread View Post
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/hor...mandate_1.html

August 16, 2009 Obama Misread His Mandate

After a rough week for health care reform, Democratic leaders appear to be pulling back on their demand for a public option. It remains to be seen whether liberal Democrats, especially in the House where they are more numerous, will go along with this. But this is still a step in the right direction to get something passed this year.

The public option was an overreach. The White House's erroneous belief that it could get it through the legislature - or at least that it could let four out of five congressional committees push it - was a misinterpretation of last year's election results. It has already made a similar mistake with cap-and-trade - backing a House bill that appears to have no chance of success in the Senate.

Bismarck once commented that politics is the art of the possible. Up until now, the White House has not exhibited a good understanding of exactly what is possible in this political climate. It has been acting as though the President's election was a major change in the orientation of the country on basic social problems.

A lot of liberals certainly saw it as such. All the strained comparisons of Obama to Franklin Roosevelt were a tipoff that many were talking themselves into the idea that 2008 represented a substantial leftward realignment. Yet the election of 2008 was manifestly not like the 1932 contest. Similarly, it wasn't like '52, '56, '64, '72, '80, '84, or even '88. Obama's election was narrower than all of these. FDR won 42 of 48 states. Eisenhower won 39, then 41. Johnson won 44 of 50. Nixon won 49. Reagan won 44, then 49. George H.W. Bush won 40. Obama won 28, three fewer than George W. Bush in his narrow 2004 reelection.

This makes a crucial difference when it comes to implementing policy. Our system of government depends not only on how many votes you win, but how broadly distributed those votes are. This prevents one section or faction from railroading another. It is evident in the Electoral College and the House, but above all in the Senate, where 44 senators come from states that voted against Obama last year. That's a consequence of the fact that Obama's election - while historic in many respects, and the largest we have seen in 20 years - was still not as broad-based as many would like to believe. Bully for Obama and the Democrats that they have 60 Senate seats, but the fact remains that thirteen of those Democrats come from McCain states, indicating that the liberals don't get the full run of the show.

For whatever reason, the Obama administration has acted as if those hagiographical comparisons to FDR were apt. It let its liberal allies from the coasts drive the agenda and write the key bills, and it's played straw man semantic games to marginalize the opposition. For all the President's moaning in The Audacity of Hope about how the Bush administration was railroading the minority into accepting far right proposals - he was prepared to let his Northeastern and Pacific Western liberal allies do exactly the same thing: write bills that excite the left, infuriate the right, and scare the center; insist on speedy passage through the Congress; and use budget reconciliation to ram it through in case the expected super majority did not emerge. Then, what's done is done. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube; you can't kill a government program once it's born. This might have flown during FDR's 100 Days. But this is not 1933 and Barack Obama is no Franklin Roosevelt.

Now that his legislative agenda is stalling, we're seeing the predictable critiques about the outdated United States Senate, which is the real source of the bottleneck: the Connecticut Compromise was meant to protect the interests of small states, but not states that are this small. Rhode Island, yes. Wyoming, no! These arguments will be conveniently tabled whenever the Democrats return to minority status, so I won't bother to address their merits. The bigger question is: what did they think was going to happen? It's one thing to bemoan the fundamental unfairness of the Senate; it's another thing to overlook it when you're formulating your legislative program. The map is what it is: that big swath of red that runs through the middle of the country then swings right through the South should have been a tipoff that the stage was not set for coastal governance.

The President should have realized what was possible and what wasn't, and he should have used his substantial influence to push the House toward the kind of centrist compromise the Senate will ultimately require. That's called building a consensus - something he promised he'd do but has not yet made a serious effort at.
Obama Sucks Ass, and so does his Communist Health Insurance and all his other liberal big government will take care of you plans.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2009, 11:22 AM   #3
Pokerob
hug life
 
Pokerob's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-25-06
Location: G-Rap, MI
Posts: 10,148
iTrader: (25)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

WWBD?

i think i should start selling those bracelets, i could make a fortune of off dumb asses.
Pokerob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2009, 10:44 PM   #4
RyeBread
Catch the wave
 
RyeBread's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Fenton
Posts: 7,959
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokerob View Post
WWBD?

i think i should start selling those bracelets, i could make a fortune of off dumb asses.
WWBD? Who gives a crap? Is that the best the Obama/Pelosi Apologists can come up with for this? IMHO this is a fairly centrist article, and it makes some pretty decent points as far as I am concerned over Obama and the Democrat's leadership missing the mark as far as having their pulse on the will of America.
RyeBread is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2009, 12:18 AM   #5
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokerob View Post
WWBD?

i think i should start selling those bracelets, i could make a fortune of off dumb asses.
Yes, before doing anything everyone should stop and ask "What Would Brewmenn do", and then do it. The world would be a much better place.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2009, 08:10 AM   #6
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,607
iTrader: (36)
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Yes, before doing anything everyone should stop and ask "What Would Brewmenn do", and then do it. The world would be a much better place.
I already try to live my life like that.
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:13 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.26558 seconds with 38 queries