KCRag Forum

KCMax wrote:The other thing is, Republicans can't even agree among themselves on issues, much less with Obama. Boehner showed how little control he has over his Tea Party faction, how can he deliver the votes needed to pass anything even if Obama does compromise with him?

Which shows even more Obama's lack of effort to compromise or, at least, killer instinct. Gingrich said that he could have divided the Republicans in half forever. If you don't have the political skills to pull a few stones out of a crumbling foundation, what does that say about Obama. But, I don't really event think that he wanted to govern. He was in it for the show.

Obama was more than willing to compromise on things that didn't tank his proposals. His biggest failure was not being able/willing to shmooze/suck up to the GOP leadership to get things done. Frankly I think moderate republicans were and are deathly afraid of being primaried from the far right. Until we fix the gerrymandering problem and get more districts in the 50/50 range we're fucked. Hell even 60/40 would probably work.

^^^ I agree. I once met with the Republican Missouri Speaker of the House. He explained that the results of the state are decided by 5% of the districts. The rest were pretty much decided Republican or Democrat. I asked him what that meant for me, someone who lives in a solidly Democrat area? If the goal is to throw all the money and favors at this 5%, my area would never benefit from the Republicans winning a state election. He didn't have a good answer and I've not been a Republican since. Our representatives should represent everyone, not just their main constituents. And, if the Republicans don't start representing the wants and desires of the urban core, they will soon be obsolete.

On a national presidential level you're right, but in congress and the state level, these districts are going to take a long time to change. Dems should focus on 2020 in a big way, it's a census year and a presidential year, so they should have the advantage of turnout to help win some state legislatures and get districts back on an even keel. 2010 being an off year along with the Obama push back really hurt.

The Republicans are real screw-ups.

grovester wrote:On a national presidential level you're right, but in congress and the state level, these districts are going to take a long time to change. Dems should focus on 2020 in a big way, it's a census year and a presidential year, so they should have the advantage of turnout to help win some state legislatures and get districts back on an even keel. 2010 being an off year along with the Obama push back really hurt.

That's been an underreported story, the Dems have allowed themselves to get clobbered at the state level, which has a much bigger impact on people's lives than the federal level.

Obama was more than willing to compromise on things that didn't tank his proposals. His biggest failure was not being able/willing to shmooze/suck up to the GOP leadership to get things done.

Boehner showed how little control he has over his Tea Party faction, how can he deliver the votes needed to pass anything even if Obama does compromise with him?

akp is determined to see Obama as a failure for not overcoming an intransigent Congress through "leadership" magic

Obama has vetoed only two bills during his administration. I believe the number is around 300 bills have passed the House, and quite a few bi-partisan, but Harry Reid has failed to even bring them up for discussion in the Senate. Just look at much of the blame going his way for the Dem seats lost in the Senate.

phuqueue wrote:akp is determined to see Obama as a failure for not overcoming an intransigent Congress through "leadership" magic. Because fifty years ago LBJ got the Civil Rights Act, or something. This is nothing new.

To address directly many of Obama's fellow Dems are doing a good job of that without any help from me.

The "Obama was never willing to compromise" narrative is complete revisionist history. He tried to get the GOP on board with health care reform (including by recycling their own plan), but they weren't interested, so he ultimately did it without them. He tried to do the whole "grand bargain" with the budget and debt ceiling, but the GOP didn't want to bargain -- which would have required some tax hikes in place of some spending cuts -- so it fell through. Criticism of Obama from the left has been, if anything, that he's too willing to compromise. To his credit, he seems to have learned the score ever since the 2011 debt ceiling crisis and has taken a harder line on those things that he should (eg the government shutdown) and has taken executive action on those things that he can, but this notion that it was Obama who came in and announced to Republicans that it would be my way or the highway is absolute bullshit.

He had to compromise with his own party on Obamacare it was so too the left. If it weren't for a hallow promise to Catholic Democrats to not fund abortion and a kickback to a Democrat in Nebraska, it wouldn't have even passed. Compromise is not, "Here's the bill, sign it as is or I'll push it through anyway."

That said, the Republicans were equally as inept. To follow through with a shutdown of the government was a really stupid idea. To not make a deal on sequester was a lack of leadership. And, a lack of will to initiate their own proposals was childish.

"So to the left"? Are you serious with that shit? The damn thing was originally dreamt up by Heritage, for Christ's sake. Plenty of Republicans who turned on it when Obama proposed it had been behind it when it was the GOP's own plan in the 90s. If they're not going to support anything you do, how can you compromise? You negotiate, you ask for input, you even use the framework they themselves drew up, but the GOP says they're not going to move, so then your options are, as you put it, "here's the bill, sign it as is or I'll push it through anyway," or give up and pack it in. What exactly would "compromise" have looked like to you here?

GOP: "I can't believe this guys won't swallow our poison pills!"

I think if this election shows anything, it's that it's time for Harry Reid to go. The Democrats must elect a new leader in the Senate.

The Democrats did a really bad job making their case. Obamacare is starting to work in the states where it's being fully implemented. Health care costs are growing at their slowest rate in 50 years. A depression was avoided. The economy is out of recession. The economy is growing at around 4 percent. Inflation is basically non-existent. Gas prices are at their lowest during Obama's presidency. The US car industry, and millions of jobs it employs, was saved. Unemployment is at its' lowest during the Obama presidency, and is going down, and hiring has been going up every quarter over the long-term. The annual federal deficit has been reduced a great deal. Federal income taxes are among the lowest of the last 60 years. The stock market is breaking records again. All of this happened despite the fact that Republicans made it clear they would not work with this president.

The Democrats lost the Senate because they failed at making their case. The Republicans won despite the fact that they had no program to offer during this election cycle to improve things for the American people, and no legislative successes to point to during the last two years. They won despite the fact they had no divisive social issues like gay marriage on the ballot to bolster their turnout from conservative voters. Abortion was not an issue in this election.

I absolutely agree. Reid was some kind of caretaker leader. Please bring in Chuck Schumer (not that he wants it).

If Obama wants to have a little fun during his last two years, he come out with enthusiastic support of everything Boehner and McConnell propose. He'll invite them to the White House and put his arms around them with a big smile. He'll go on TV regularly and refer to both of them as "his good friends."

This will drive the tea party crazy, split the Republicans, and doom any legislation the Republicans want to pass.

grovester wrote:I absolutely agree. Reid was some kind of caretaker leader. Please bring in Chuck Schumer (not that he wants it).

Claire McCaskill reportedly will challenge Reid for a leadership role. That would be all kinds of awesome.

KCMax wrote:Claire McCaskill reportedly will challenge Reid for a leadership role. That would be all kinds of awesome.

I couldn't quite tell from the article, is she going to run for the position or just vote against him?

beautyfromashes wrote:

KCMax wrote:Claire McCaskill reportedly will challenge Reid for a leadership role. That would be all kinds of awesome.

I couldn't quite tell from the article, is she going to run for the position or just vote against him?

Ah, the headlines made me believe she was going to run against him, but she is merely saying she is voting against him.

Not sure who would challenge Reid. Elizabeth Warren is the name I keep seeing.

No matter, Reid keeps his position.