
There's growing sentiment on the left--most recently evinced by SEIU President Andy Stern and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman--that the Senate's quiet acceptance of the filibuster--and therefore a 60 vote threshold for most legislation--is dangerous to the country's ability to govern itself, no matter who's in power. Well, they may have a powerful new ally.
"[A]s somebody who served in the Senate, who values the traditions of the Senate, who thinks that institution has been the world's greatest deliberative body, to see the filibuster rule, which imposes a 60-vote supermajority on legislation - to see that invoked on every single piece of legislation, during the course of this year, is unheard of," says President Obama in a yet-to-air interview with PBS.
I mean, if you look historically back in the '50s, the '60s, the '70s, the '80s - even when there was sharp political disagreements, when the Democrats were in control for example and Ronald Reagan was president - you didn't see even routine items subject to the 60-vote rule.So I think that if this pattern continues, you're going to see an inability on the part of America to deal with big problems in a very competitive world, and other countries are going to start running circles around us. We're going to have to return to some sense that governance is more important than politics inside the Senate. We're not there right now.
Obama even suggested that the filibuster, as it's currently being employed, harms democracy.
Look, the fact of the matter is, is that if used prudently, then I don't think it's harmful for our democracy," Obama said. "It's not being used prudently right now. And my hope would be that whether a Sen. is in the majority or is in the minority, that they're starting to get a sense, after looking at this year, that this can't be the way that government runs."
Some might like a firmer statement than that. But everything's gotta start somewhere. For instance, that's slightly different from what Obama was saying earlier this month.
These days you need 60 votes for everything because of the filibuster, which it used to be was applied rarely, but now the opposition just evokes it for everything. I mean, you can be -- try to pass a bill to rename a post office, and they'll say, no, we need 60 votes for that and we need two weeks of debate [...] You know, sometimes it gives you a headache just thinking about it, but, look, that's democracy. That's part of what makes our government stable is, is it's not easy to get anything done. But it's also what makes it frustrating when we have emergency situations.
Then came the triple health care filibuster. You can read the entire exchange below.
MR. LEHRER: How do you feel about the way the 60-vote filibuster rule has been employed on the health-care debate?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I am very frustrated.
I think that right now that's the way things are operating. And we've had to make sure that we fight through those issues. I think Harry Reid has done a very good job grinding it out.
But as somebody who served in the Senate, who values the traditions of the Senate, who thinks that institution has been the world's greatest deliberative body, to see the filibuster rule, which imposes a 60-vote supermajority on legislation - to see that invoked on every single piece of legislation, during the course of this year, is unheard of.
I mean, if you look historically back in the '50s, the '60s, the '70s, the '80s - even when there was sharp political disagreements, when the Democrats were in control for example and Ronald Reagan was president - you didn't see even routine items subject to the 60-vote rule.
So I think that if this pattern continues, you're going to see an inability on the part of America to deal with big problems in a very competitive world, and other countries are going to start running circles around us. We're going to have to return to some sense that governance is more important than politics inside the Senate. We're not there right now.
MR. LEHRER: Is there anything you can do about this as president of the United States? Isn't it a Senate situation?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: It is a - it is a matter of Senate rules. Look, the fact of the matter is, is that if used prudently, then I don't think it's harmful for our democracy. It's not being used prudently right now. And my hope would be that whether a Sen. is in the majority or is in the minority, that they're starting to get a sense, after looking at this year, that this can't be the way that government runs.
And one of the things that I think Democrats and Republicans have to constantly do is try to put themselves in the other person's shoes. If we had a Republican president right now and a Republican-controlled Senate, and Democrats were doing some of these things, they'd be screaming bloody murder. And at some point, you know, I think the American people want to see government solve problems, not just engage in the gamesmanship that has become so customary in Washington.

Barack ObamaJob Approval |
45.3%Approve | 50.0%Disapprove | -4.7Spread |
CongressionalGeneric Ballot |
41.1%DEM | 45.4%GOP | +4.3SpreadR |
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

margaret
December 23, 2009 6:50 PM
So let's scream bloody murder.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
December 24, 2009 9:11 AM in reply to margaret
Instead of screaming, maybe the democrats should try actually making the republicans, um, you know, filibuster. Part of the reason republicans throw it around so carelessly is that there is no downside for them; the democrats will cave and they won't actually have to show the American people what obstructionists they are.
If the had done this on the stimulus, I think we could have gotten a much stronger bill and the republicans would have pushed themselves further off the political cliff. Instead we got a package that was so watered down that republicans could plausibly argue it didn't work. (It "worked". There just wasn't nearly enough to do the job.)
Make them filibuster!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
December 24, 2009 10:13 AM in reply to cawleybo
I agree. Roll out the cots.
Of course, it's probably worth NOT overlooking something that Reid did just force to happen over there in his happy world of filibuster land: At least he DID force everybody to stay at it for the last 10 days with no days off. Remember Byrd being wheeled in @ 1 am on Sunday? And that they were in full debate later that same day?
And the Ref&cks buckled. They were going to make today's final vote happen this evening.
So, yes: Total agreement. The Ref&cks MUST feel the pain of this former procedural butter knife they have turned into a stiletto. Bring out the cots and make them reach for the throat spray and force them to choose their sacrificial vocal filibuster lamb to start speaking and not relinquish the floor until s/he sprays forth the tatters of ravaged vocal cords.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cheesenstein
December 23, 2009 6:52 PM
Because he's done such a terrific job of bringing both sides together so far.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 23, 2009 7:12 PM in reply to cheesenstein
At least he has made the good faith effort to do so. That doesn't make him look basd -- unless one consistently forgets that there are Republicans in the room, as do the alleged "Progressives" in these threads.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
December 24, 2009 9:23 AM in reply to JNagarya
He gave up far too much in the attempt. Wound up with a stimulus that was too little to do the job and will, at best, leave us with 9-10% unemployment for the next couple years. Similarly on HCR - although I'm really starting wonder whether the problem here was the republicans or Obama's own vision - we're funneling hundreds of billions to the insurers each year with too little actually reform in return.
In both cases, failure to take a principled stand will make it harder, not easier to improve things in the future.
On the economic front, it will be harder to pass a second stimulus because republicans will be able to convince people that the first attempt proves stimulus doesn't work.
On the HCR front, he has simply further entrenched the insurance companies and PhRMA and they will be even harder to move, next time.
Take a stand. Make them filibuster. Give the American people a clear choice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
December 23, 2009 7:46 PM in reply to cheesenstein
What do you want to do? Bend over? He almost did [esp. for President Snowe], but the number of Republican votes for his key reform agendas seems not to waiver from the number zero.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davemartin7777
December 23, 2009 10:15 PM in reply to cheesenstein
The Republicans are doing everything they can for Obama to fail... it's not exactly a secret you know.
Like Jon Stewart said, "Conservatives hate Obama more than they love America."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
December 24, 2009 9:27 AM in reply to davemartin7777
And they were clear form the beginning that was their strategy. So why give away so much in doomed attempts at bipartisanship?
Seriously, he went into HCR announcing that he HAD to have "a bill." Try that with a car dealer some time. How do you think the negotiations will go? You're going to get rolled. And that's exactly what happened with HCR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goshen
December 23, 2009 11:23 PM in reply to cheesenstein
sock puppet alert.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
December 24, 2009 10:33 AM in reply to cheesenstein
By the power of his Big Majicks! I'm not certain which I feel is more sad: The fact Obama promised to turn lead into gold, or that there are those who believed it was possible.
No. This is and always was going to be a war with terminal greed junkies, with the goal being to cut them off from their Power fix.
Maybe you live a fortunate life and have never witnessed what happens when junkies are cut off from their addictions.
They fight. They fight dirty. They fight like their lives depend on it. And in many ways, that is true. Their lives are built around that fix.
Maybe you remember some few years ago when Rove declared that Ref&cks would have a permanent majority in government? He was not merely talking about congress, the WH and the courts. He was talking about how the neos were outsourcing the government to private contractors and got those revolving doors from government work to lobbyist groups spinning @ high RPMs.
That, BTW, was a virtual declaration of war against Government As We Know It. A one party system is not based on founding principles. (Okay: There are several founders who wanted a ZERO party system, but that's another discussion.)
And this Rovian world view has been highly successfully implemented. They will not go quietly or easily. And "bringing the sides together" can only be done after the radicals that pushed this anti-constitutional system, the neos, are removed from power, removed from their fix, and properly detoxed.
It is not pretty. It will not be pretty. And we can never stop, unless we decide to surrender and submit to this new, more rarified form of corporatocracy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
December 23, 2009 7:00 PM
He's just now getting tired of it? Welcome to last week, sir. Thanks for catching up with us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 23, 2009 7:14 PM in reply to Kuyleh
Even under the best of circumstances a legislator must have patience. You have declared yourself unqualified.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
December 23, 2009 9:30 PM in reply to JNagarya
Okies. I never wanted to be a politician anyway, nor was I under the impression I would muster up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
December 24, 2009 5:41 AM in reply to JNagarya
The president is not a legislator.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 24, 2009 7:57 AM in reply to expatjourno2
Current excuse of the day. Partially true but he has a bully pulpit, political pull and control of a large amount of campaign funds, and a veto pen. So far he has appeared willing to use carrots but not sticks much.
Until you see him using all the tools available to him don't give him a pass on the issues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
December 24, 2009 9:52 AM in reply to AJM
You are correct that he should be screaming bloody murder from his Bully Pulpit. Since nobody else (Corporate Mass Media, anyone?) is willing to do so.
However, let's play out your Obamanator or Raging Reid scenario just a couple of steps further: So he/they beat the bloody hell out of Nelson, LIEberman or Lincoln. Exactly what does that get you when you want to, for sake of argument, pass his next operating budget. Or energy policy legislation. Or anything else?
Will taking away their their committee seats (which should happen anyway, IMHO) work the majicks of getting their votes on the next thing to cross the filibuster line? I'm guessing that would be a "no."
LIEberman is the prime example of just how pissy those senate prigs can get over being primaried (but win anyway because their constituencies are far from liberal, just as they are far from liberal).
It only takes one. To. Grind. Everything. To. A. Complete. Stop...in filibuster land.
Everybody in the senate gets to be king or queen for a day unless or until the filibuster is itself killed.
The saddest of all facts is that there just might be too many kings and queens in there to muster the necessary numbers to nuclear option that thing into the stone age from whence it sprang.
And if you are of the many who are so-o-o-o-o disappointed that you will stay home next November or fritter away your campaign time and/or money on some third party that will never get elected or on candidates too liberal for their surroundings: The Dems become the minority, and then they will have a chance to filibuster every bowel movement of their opposition, as the Ref&cks are doing to the Dems right now.
Is that the desired goal? That's what we could get.
That's the problem with being in the middle of war. You can't just decide to stay in your billet because you're tired or disillusioned that the first or second engagement with the enemy didn't win the whole war.
The enemy isn't going to stop. The Ref&cks are not going to stop. They're in the process of seeking a purity only a good Klansman or Nazi could love. And if we all go Wee Wee Wee All the Way Home next November instead of going to the Market, thereby making way for this newly purified skinhead movement flying the elephant banner to take over again, then the market us little piggies may find ourselves in might just be a butcher shop.
Yeah. The filibuster is the once common cutlery of a humble butter knife that the Ref&cks have turned into a sharp weapon, and we are all bleeding a bit from its relentless use.
But there is zero probability for winning this war by engaging in Friendly Fire. THEY are the enemies here, not Reid or Pelosi or even Obama, no matter how disappointed we may feel (or wounded and bleeding from butter knife wounds).
They have publicly and unashamedly admitted they are the enemy and we are fools if we allow their strategies to work and start blaming ourselves for their foul deeds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
December 24, 2009 10:18 AM in reply to TheRealFish
You certainly are windy!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
December 24, 2009 11:28 AM in reply to TheRealFish
They were screaming "dictatorship" about 10 minutes after his inauguration and they've been waving the foam snakes behind the backboard every time he lines up a shot.
Bush Derangement Syndrome was mostly confined to blogs and some cable TV. Obama Derangement Syndrome has gone mainstream in media attention with Tea Parties led by 24/7 Fox propaganda, talk radio, foaming-at-the mouth rightwing blogs and Sarah Palin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bk
December 23, 2009 7:04 PM
He's certainly tried, no thanks to Republicans who said early on that they were going to do everything in their power to have Obama fail.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
December 23, 2009 8:44 PM in reply to bk
exactly
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
December 23, 2009 9:36 PM in reply to AhTrini1
Indeed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
December 23, 2009 7:16 PM
I guess this is the way he, as a self-restraint intelligent guy, expresses how much he is pissed. President McCain would certainly throw a "Bomb-bomb-bomb Congress" tantrum in public in similar situations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scarpy
December 23, 2009 7:16 PM
What gets me, and maybe this isn't something he can say for political jujitsu reasons, but -- you have to have something that appeals to people's baser natures, not their better natures. Democrats talk and talk like they just wish Republicans would work with them for the good of the country. That's fine, that's boilerplate. But where is the Machiavellian strategy behind the niceties? Where are the wedge votes, where are the irresistible carrots and the unbearable sticks?
I guess this is just another way of saying the same old Dems-won't-fight line. But it just seems like they genuinely have this optimistic but perpetually disappointed view of human nature, which really is a luxury you can't afford in politics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
December 23, 2009 7:45 PM in reply to scarpy
well, i guess thats the difference between democrats and republicans...on the whole, i prefer the democrat way
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
December 23, 2009 8:28 PM in reply to scarpy
Um, so you say, but Obama's been in office less than a year, and there is actually a pretty impressive list of accomplishments and active involvement in world, domestic, economic and human rights issues, despite the fact that he inherited two wars and an economy in freefall. If you've forgotten, there are numerous articles on the subject. Here's just one: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-timeline-110309
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
December 24, 2009 9:05 AM in reply to Mr.E.
Yes, Obama has done quite a lot in this short time. Given hundreds of billions to bankers while gettting nothing in return, negotiated with himself on the stimulus until it was way too small to do the job (yes, put the brakes on recession, for now, but 10% unemployment is not success), continued Bush's policies on state secrets and unconstitutional surveillance and now on the brink of conscripting millions into the waitng arms of corrupt insurance companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 24, 2009 10:18 AM in reply to cawleybo
I hope you find the purity of your indignation to be comforting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
December 24, 2009 11:50 AM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
Not in the least.
I hope your comforted by TBTF banks getting bigger, 18 million unemployed/underemployed, further erosion in our civil liberties, $300,000,000,000 annually being driven into insurance company coffers.
Perhaps you'll find comfort in your smugness when republicans make major gains - and quite possibly take control of either the house or Presidency - in the next couple cycles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
December 23, 2009 7:34 PM
Gosh, I have been waiting for McCain to be that beacon of bipartisanship he talked so much story about during the '08 campaign and start putting some comity back in the senate like he did in that Iraq vote in 2003 he couldnt remember. Is it that he can't get Lindsey out of the leather bars anymore when he needs a wingman for that crossing the aisle stuff? What happened to Old Johnny? He just seems so grumpy. Or is it that the aisle doesnt have cameras from MTP, Face the Nation, LKL, George Smokeapolous, Fox Sunday?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
December 23, 2009 7:37 PM
"And my hope would be that whether a Sen. is in the majority or is in the minority, that they're starting to get a sense, after looking at this year, that this can't be the way that government runs."
I assure you, Mr. President. No one in the minority is getting that sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
December 23, 2009 7:43 PM
But Democrats will never do such a thing in the minority because they are pathetic cowardly scum and so republicans need fear nothing. There will be no consequences.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 24, 2009 2:43 AM in reply to MNPundit
Democrats care about governance; Republicans evidently do not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
December 24, 2009 3:02 AM in reply to slb
If Democrats cared more about crushing the Republicans they'd have an easier time exhibiting better governance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
December 24, 2009 10:24 AM in reply to MNPundit
...and you have tortured how many small animals and set how many fires?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
January 21, 2010 11:38 AM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
None. I have no desire to spend time in prison or have to repay people large amounts of money.
However the GOP is an enemy of humanity. Their extermination would be a public good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CharlesBrown
December 23, 2009 7:45 PM
This is just Obama registering the fact that the GOP is not interested in working with him.
Remember that his time frame is much slower than those of everyone else. He's just now realizing what you and I realized 11 months ago.
Things are looking up. All we have to do now is wait 3 years for him to get his act together.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
December 23, 2009 7:51 PM
Either he was too naive ["with in the clouds"] or too politically correct so far. I think its the former.
I honestly think, at least until the last few months, he seriously thought he could get at least a couple of republicans on board. I guess D.C. ha finally baptized Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Frex
December 23, 2009 8:10 PM
"Some might like a firmer statement than that. But everything's gotta start somewhere."
Alas the experience with the cipher is that he back slides on everything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
velcro
December 23, 2009 8:45 PM
If you want endless bickering and no progress, the best course of action is for Obama and Democrats to give Republicans a dose of their own medicine. It will feel great - for a day. If there is any small chance that one or two Republicans actually want to help the country and extend a wisp of bipartisanship, then Obama is doing exactly the right thing. Of course, everyone has limits, and Obama may have reached his. It just means that the Republicans win, i.e. the country is immobilized with partisan hatred.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
December 23, 2009 9:22 PM
Do you people really think Obama is so stupid that he didn't realize this long ago? He's a politician. Just because he says it now doesn't mean it just occurred to him. The problem is what's obvious to us isn't obvious to the 90% of the American public that doesn't pay close attention to politics. Obama can only say something like this once it makes sense and becomes obvious to the public. That's how you build credibility with the people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
December 23, 2009 9:42 PM in reply to Xantar
Exactly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
December 23, 2009 9:53 PM in reply to cube3u
Right I think it was important that Lehrer brought it up in the form of a question and that Obama didn't. That's crucial.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
December 24, 2009 5:36 AM in reply to calchala
But again, he needs to dogwhistle us. Say things that will fly over the heads of the public but speak to the liberal base and say "I hear you." He's done none of that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
December 24, 2009 8:26 AM in reply to MNPundit
Why? Because we're babies and need coddling?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
January 21, 2010 11:43 AM in reply to Xantar
Looking at the behavior, yes.
Look we're human beings. We are essentially tribal. We need to know that Obama is ACTUALLY one of us to confidently back him. Otherwise you get nose-holding support that is shallow because why should we leave everything on table for someone who will never give a shit about our priorities. Why do so many support Howard Dean despite the fact that based on his record he was a very centrist governor?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HarpoSnarx
December 23, 2009 9:38 PM
So our perpetual choice is between obnoxious radicalism versus cool passivity?
I'm revising my estimate, the union won't last 20 more years of this shit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 23, 2009 9:54 PM
Frankly, this is the one area where I am wondering whether or not Obama is playing chess. He invites them to co-operate but by insisting that bipartisanship is so important leads them to believe that they have more power than they do so they co-operate even less than they would otherwise would if they knew that they had to in order to get anything at all. Result: they are seen as the party of no, opposing policies approved by the majority of voters. Game, set, match Obama and no one sees how he did it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beetlejuice
December 23, 2009 10:29 PM in reply to AJM
Interesting parlor game, but doesn't it seem odd to choose health care reform as the bait? I would have thought something more in the line of defense spending or opening war crimes investigations against individuals from the last administration would have been a more appropriate forum to test the waters. Seems odd to go straight to the fight without first playing them enough to get their fur raised and anger revved up on non-essential issues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kittylc
December 23, 2009 11:41 PM in reply to Beetlejuice
maybe, but what if you go straight to the fight and use the most controversial issue first, to show the absolute extremes of partisanship and gridlock?
I mean, if you start with something that might get Republican votes, then either your base gets lulled into passivity, the public loses interest in politics (natural after elections, but look at what health care did all year. People are actually talking about cloture, filibuster, and other alien words.), and independents give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt that they are a rational group of fellow human beings who can work with Democrats (building up the R's political capital).
Right now, the base is furious and demanding action, showing the conservatives that progressives too have a voice. The center left is demanding the bill pass and be improved upon, the public is interested in the outcome, and the right is being pulled over a cliff into the Sea of Crazy.
We live the horror of a dysfunctional Congress and maybe we finally demand that things Change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 24, 2009 2:54 AM in reply to Kittylc
He invites them to co-operate but by insisting that bipartisanship is so important leads them to believe that they have more power than they do so they co-operate even less than they would otherwise would...
So Obama was willing to sacrifice key elements of health care reform to Republican intransigence, and even risk having it fail altogether, so that he could make Republicans look bad?
Sorry, I don't buy it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ronbyers
December 24, 2009 7:37 AM in reply to slb
I don't know if I buy the argument either, but if he is successful, he can reintroduce the missing key elements later.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kittylc
March 31, 2010 12:57 AM in reply to slb
I don't mean that he was willing to lose health care reform, what I mean is he brought the conservatives' worst nightmare of a bill, health care, and then we saw how the sorry tale of a dysfunctional Congress plays out.
I think that he did plan to lead with the most controversial issue first; it did rile the bases on both sides and crystallized the differences between them. We realized that we needed to be just as loud and vocal as the tea partiers, and not just sit on the sidelines.
I don't think he knew to what depths Congress was dysfunctional; I think that's what paralyzed this Administration last year. They couldn't figure out what Congress would really do; if there was enough cojones in the Democratic party to get this done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 24, 2009 7:53 AM in reply to Beetlejuice
It's not just health care that he uses this approach for. And so far he's had the votes for the basics of whatever he cares about I don't see that he is sacrificing much.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
artgurrl
December 23, 2009 10:30 PM
It would be nice to see a high octane Obama for once. He has been far to passive and cool to be president. Maybe this is going to change. Let's hope so. Wow, there are those damn words again, hope and change. LOL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sambam
December 23, 2009 10:33 PM
Frustrating as it is to every red blooded progressives, let's remember Obama is easily the savviest politician of our generation. You don't get to be President when you're a 47 year old one-term senator by being naive.
Right now he's playing rope-a-dope with the Republicans - above the fray, reaching out, appearing to be bipartisan while the Repugs are rolling in the mud. If he can continue to do that and still get his major priorities accomplished (health reform, climate change, winding down the wars, dismantling Bush's illegal security apparatus) I would consider him a genius.
Yes this path does require compromises and some delays and watering down of policy, but it's much smarter than an in-your-face scorched-earth approach that would be more emotionally satisfying to progressives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Serine
December 24, 2009 12:12 AM in reply to Sambam
Best comment I've read on the board to date.
Serine
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mass_murdock
December 24, 2009 1:07 AM in reply to Sambam
Yes, well put. He's a tough SOB and a deadly political chess player. I'm not disappointed in him at all, obviously it's not his fault the GOP has been acting so undignified that it's hard to even address them. Would you have him deny that he is Hitler? Start trading inanities with freaking Sarah Palin LOL?
The GOP is searching for the bottom, and they haven't found it yet. No reason to go down there with them, at least not right now. I, for one, like the fact he can talk without sounding like a malevolent boob, still such a nice change.
There's a reason the GOP is in the wilderness now. The "good idea" cupboard is bare, and has been for a very long time. When the bill comes due, it will be more than they can pay. They have barely patched things up, they are a frankenstein of wedge issues, a circus act. Now is not the time to go for the throat, but it is coming. Popcorn?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
December 24, 2009 1:17 AM in reply to Sambam
Thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
December 24, 2009 5:49 AM in reply to Sambam
How does this grow the progressive movement or increase the acceptability and numbers of liberals in the country?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barrelhse
December 24, 2009 9:22 AM in reply to Sambam
Yes, I agree. The "scorched earth" policy would only result in handing the Repubelicans a (perceived) legitimate beef, in effect turning Obama into Sherman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
December 23, 2009 11:52 PM
The question is, to lose the filibuster, LIEberman demands removing the Medicare Buy In. That is, Democrats have to get themselves together and reframe the debate. If we continue to allow LIEberman, Nellie and the few others to hijack legislation by filibustering it, we have to start to place some rules around the filibuster.
The republic wasn't formed with super-majorities in mind. The senate is anti-democratic enough without the filibuster.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 23, 2009 11:54 PM
Glad to hear you say that, Mr. President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.Boots
December 24, 2009 12:55 AM
I don't understand why this is a revelation that government can't work this way. The Republican Party's platform has been that government doesn't work, and they should be elected to make certain that it doesn't.
Why would he ever expect to get anything done with them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
December 24, 2009 1:13 AM
Damn right, Mr. President, and thank you. More of the same, please. Two words: Bully Pulpit. Remember thsm. Use it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arias
December 24, 2009 2:24 AM
Hm. While I would love to give Obama the kind of credit some here are giving him, it can be excruciatingly difficult. Why?
Yes, I know he is an outstanding pol by any measure. And yes, I recognize that despite his excellence, we were all led to believe he was superman.
Bottom line, I believe, is that he could be much more of a partisan knife fighter without incurring the kind of political damage he has by appearing so passive. In fact, I think he would gain respect from the other side if he were to sharpen his teeth and gouge the other side once in a while, simply because that's what the other side understands and is how to gain their respect. Not by attempting to be a bipartisan soother, which they definitely perceive to be weakness. That's one thing that I think we can all respect about Clinton is that he was willing to get vocal and call the other side out.
Sure but he didn't get health care passed, but seriously though. Health care didn't pass, IMO, because Hillary would not settle for anything less than 100% of what they wanted. Bill was willing to compromise down to 95%. But Clinton was capable of using the bully pulpit to go straight for the other side's throat, which is a reason the rethugs hated him so much and tried so hard to destroy him.
I'm seeing too much rationalizing here over Obama's perceived weakness. And of course, in politics perception is reality. He's been outmaneuvered by his nemesis Netanyahu, who has made a sort of dandy fool out of him internationally. Sure, you can say he's been too busy with his domestic agenda, but the fact remains that he's been willing to put up with this filibuster charade of the republicans all year only now finally mentioning it.
I'm just hoping when it's all said and done, ten years from now we'll be reading what a skillful pol he's been working behind the scenes on breakthroughs that are still yet to manifest. But right now, I'm just not seeing it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jarl van Hoother
December 24, 2009 6:00 AM in reply to arias
Think of it this way--
If Obama is a progressive, then he's been rather weak and spineless, compromising on what his principles as a progressive surely must be in order to get any sort of legislation at all.
But what if he's a moderate? A real honest-to-god moderate? Then he's been rather strong and principled and uncompromising, willing to piss off both conservatives and liberals to get the legislation he wants. I have no idea what he really is, but I've preferred of late thinking of him as a moderate, cause it depresses me more thinking of him as weak than thinking of him as less-than-liberal....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Canismajoris
December 24, 2009 7:36 AM in reply to Jarl van Hoother
I began to see Obama as a blue dog after his support of telecom immunity, and other disappointments followed. This includes many of his appointments to the White House staff, e.g. Rahm & Summers, et.al. So, progressive, not so much.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CharlesBrown
December 24, 2009 8:47 AM in reply to Jarl van Hoother
Is Obama a progressive or is he a moderate? Neither. Nor is he a liberal or conservative, or any other political affiliation. He is a politician.
No I don't mean the career politician who goes to congress to advance the agendas of lobbyists or the people, although Obama is one of those too obviously. I mean the fundamental politician personality. The worst of the sort. The kind that give career politicians a bad name.
Believe it or not, there are a sub-type of people who go through life saying and doing all the right things, not because they are altruistic, but because saying and doing the right things make them popular. And being popular have all sort of advantages, like having people being nicer to them and giving them gifts that they don't deserve. Like a Nobel Peace Prize.
If they say stuff like "bi-partisan effort" or "incremental reform", they sound credible and people would listen to them. If they become a community organizer, people would think they are selfless and generous. And generally they are effective, because the usual "right" things they say and do are usually the appropriate things to say and do. These people have a gene for detecting these usual "right" things and use them to their advantage. Its a survival gene for the human species that has somehow bubbled to the top.
The problem with these politician personalities is that they are usually so successful that they get promoted to their levels of incompetence. In Obama's case, its the presidency. Why? Because the usual "right" things to say and do are not always appropriate, like in the Senate of the USA. When you have barbarians out to kill you, rape your women, and steal your stuff, saying stuff like "bi-partisan efforts" and "incremental reform" are fatal. And unfortunately for the rest of us, when politician personalities die, they drag a whole bunch of people with them.
Be wary of politician personalities. They are everywhere. They are usually in leadership position like captain of the Titanic. The only thing these people are competent in is how to be personally popular. They are good at giving pretty speeches but don't let them drive a ship or run a country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
December 24, 2009 6:57 AM in reply to arias
arias,
I agree. For the most part he was passive with domestic issues and he got crucified. He was practically AWOL during this health care debate, and now his numbers are in the toilet. Time to go to plan B. I think he needs to start being more publicly aggressive in dealing with the Republicans, let the public see he stands for something, that he's able to draw a line in the sand.
The country doesn't like a wuss.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnnyba
December 24, 2009 9:43 AM in reply to JohnW1141
"I think he needs to start being more publicly aggressive in dealing with the Republicans, let the public see he stands for something"
He is showing the public that he stands for something. Its called "cooperation". The GOP, regressive progressives, and the MSM don't get this since it doesn't stoke ratings or make one group of reality challenged idealouges feel superior at another expense but it is something important.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
December 24, 2009 11:56 AM in reply to johnnyba
Why? What exactly is gained by giving up your principles to "cooperate" with people who have sworn not to cooperate with you? You give up but get nothing in return.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
December 24, 2009 9:36 AM in reply to arias
"He's been outmaneuvered by his nemesis Netanyahu, who has made a sort of dandy fool out of him internationally."
A dandy fool with a Nobel, which Net n' Yahoo will,of course, never be foolish enough to receive.
Is this the same "arias" from the Dem Partybuilder blog?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
December 24, 2009 6:14 AM
If Dems hold onto majorities in both houses in 2010, the "filibuster everything" strategy will be significantly weakened. I think the GOP chose to repeat the Gingrich '94 strategy in hopes of a repeat of that year. If it doesn't work in returning them to power, I think they'll drop it or at least it won't work to hold their caucus together as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
December 24, 2009 6:22 AM
It's not a filibuster if you don't force them to talk WITHOUT BREAK. Make them talk 24/7 and the filibuster everything approach dies a natural death.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mphillip
December 24, 2009 7:08 AM
Yes,Zanter:
Some do take delight in calling the President stupid, despite evidence to the contrary.
Hyperbolic, absurdist rhetoric is, of couse, the mark of the fringes, and it is in such rhetoric that the 2 fringes converge (left and right).
It is a postion of careless, provocative grandstanding that keeps the fringe, at the end of the day, irrelevant.
Take note, Jane.
BTW: I was born in 1954, did not sit in a desegregated classroom until 1972 (not integrated, but desegregated. There's a difference).
Full desegregation of TN's school systems did not happen until the 80s, and the Ayers case was decided in the early 90s (or somewhere around there).
Between Brown v Board of Education and this decade there have been a parade of cases, legislation, backlash movements around the struggle for equality of education (Boston riots - 70s?),
The Michigan case - five years ago?
All of this is to say that this is a beginning, but I think the fact that so few people seem to have a sense of how major change has happened in the past - well, says something else about the success of our educational sysem.
BTW: Yea! for the thoughtful, careful Left. Keep pushing the envelope so that less than the best is never the starting point of compromise.
Off to watch the vote!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mphillip
December 24, 2009 7:20 AM
correction:
"Course."
And...
despite the obvious gaps in our school systems' ability to impart critical thinking skills and some knowledge of history...
we keep trying, don't we, to improve our schools??
Happy holidays!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mphillip
December 24, 2009 7:21 AM
correction:
"Course."
And...
despite the obvious gaps in our school systems' ability to impart critical thinking skills and some knowledge of history...
we keep trying, don't we, to improve our schools??
Happy holidays!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnnyba
December 24, 2009 9:15 AM
"Is Obama a progressive or is he a moderate? Neither. Nor is he a liberal or conservative, or any other political affiliation. He is a politician."
Of course he's a politician, you don't get to be president without being one so its sort of obvious. But your characterization is pretty pedestrian here. Politicians are people as well not one dimensional cuts outs from central casting.
There are many things about your commentary that grate on my nerves but the central problem is that if you'd actually listened to what Obama said when he ran you'd know that he very intentionally and substantively said that he was not "liberal or conservative" when he was running. You know that bit about getting past the dorm room arguments of the sixties and all. He ran as a post-baby boomer pragmatist. He managed to make it sound inspirational and all but I listened pretty damn carefully to everything he said and supported him specifically for that approach. So I've been very happy with him while disgusted with the usual hysterical ideologues right and left who seem to think that everyone either agrees with them all the time and is good, agrees with the other side all the time and is bad, or is the worst kind of creature who compromises and thus supposedly has no backbone or character.
That kind of thinking not "politicians" is what has gone wrong in this country. Democracies only work when different sides are willing to talk and compromise. That work is what we should be hiring politicians to do not disparage them for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jarl van Hoother
December 24, 2009 9:42 AM in reply to johnnyba
It's true.
And besides--i'd rather have someone who "generally does the right thing" even if it's due to dubious "politician personality" motivations, than have a mcconnell or inhofe or cantor or (etc. etc.) who can be counted on NOT to do the right thing, and to hell with their motivation...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CharlesBrown
December 24, 2009 9:45 AM in reply to johnnyba
"Democracies [ONLY] work when different sides are willing to talk and compromise."
Precisely. What if that's not the case? What should you do when your the other side is filibustering all of your efforts? Not what Obama has been doing, that's certain. The country doesn't need a politician president who can mutter "bi-partisan" over and over. It needs a problem solver.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnnyba
December 24, 2009 10:12 AM
"Not what Obama has been doing" is in no way, shape or form an answer to "What should you do when your the other side is filibustering all of your efforts?".
I can't find any actual logic in what you are saying here. What is it that you think should be done?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CharlesBrown
December 24, 2009 10:28 AM in reply to johnnyba
Typical Obama cheerleader. Let me see if I can dumb this down for your consumption.
You said "Democracies [ONLY] work when different sides are willing to talk and compromise."
What should a president do when different sides are NOT willing to talk and compromise as is the case in the real life Senate.
The answer is (drum roles): Don't do what Obama did. Don't mutter "bi-partisan efforts" over and over.
Is that clearer?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TiltedTalkDomagoy
December 25, 2009 4:58 PM
Everyone should filibuster almost everything our federal government is trying to do - whether Bush or Obama are president and whichever party is in power. Our Federal Gov't is not supposed to do this stuff. Leave this up to the states.
Besides, with only 40 votes, the Republicans can't filibuster anything. With super majorities in both houses, the Dems can pass any bill they want.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?