Voting for President, for the wrong reasons?

[DGuller]

What do you think a more competent Obama administration could have done to thwart that?

I think he could've done more to make Republicans pay for holding the country hostage, if he had a better control of the message. 

Then again, I'm not sure how fair this reproach is.  After all, it's not like Republican Congressmen were doing something their voters didn't want them to do.  How often do you hear some moron actively wishing for a gridlock in Washington?

[Sheilbh]

That was the debt ceiling wasn't it?  If he'd stared them down surely there's the not-insignificant chance there were enough crazies in the GOP House who wouldn't compromise and the markets would've gone mental.

I suppose this is my problem with the way Berkut put it (which I think is fair) if one party is willing to govern and the other isn't, then doesn't the former always have to give in or force things through regardless of the level of competence or who's in charge?

So politically I get your point that the mess would've been entirely the responsibility of the crazies.  But it would still be a mess with real effects in the US and global economy.  Is a political point worth that?  At that point doesn't the responsibility to govern matter more, even if it means you've got to give in or whatever else?

[Berkut]

Ended up voting pretty much a straight Dem ticket.

Pretty pissed off that I had to choose between voting for the assholes who decided to refuse to govern over the guy who didn't have the competence to stop them from doing it.

Kind of ridiculous really that I decided to go with the choice of well meaning incompetence over successful maliciousness.

How could one side force the other to govern?  What you're saying is basically that the Republicans haven't operated in good faith these last four years, and I agree, but I don't see how any super-competent President could change that?

There's that great (and entirely accurate) Mitch McConnell line 'we worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals, because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the 'bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward.'  So there's that and the 'one-term President' priority.  In the Senate (where Republicans filibustered the very first bill Obama proposed, which passed 77-20) you can more or less stop anything from happening, doubly so once you won the House.

What do you think a more competent Obama administration could have done to thwart that?

I don't know - but to some extent, this is like asking someone who is complaining that the plane crashed if they could build a better one themselves.

Obstructionism has been around a long time - it isn't anything new. Obama failed at fighting through it to get his priorities done, and I don't think I am willing to chalk that up to a failure of the system entirely.

[Sheilbh]

I don't get the analogy I'm afraid.  In anything if one side refuses to operate in good faith, then does the competence of the other matter?  It's as true of negotiations over rent as governing a country.

The sort-of related question is doesn't it work politically?  As I say if one side has the responsibility of governing and the other side won't work in good faith, don't the former ultimately have to cave.  I agree it's not a problem of the system - though I've said for a while that I think US parties are becoming more parliamentary, which will not work with your non-parliamentary system - but I think the precedent of McConnell could be one taken up by other Senate minorities in the future.

Obstructionism has been around a long time - it isn't anything new. Obama failed at fighting through it to get his priorities done, and I don't think I am willing to chalk that up to a failure of the system entirely.

His priorities were healthcare and stimulus.  Which he got - by forcing it through in what looked nasty and partisan, see McConnell's quote above.   Then he lost the election which meant other priorities had to go, though this has still been the least productive Congress ever.  But even nominees with large Republican support were put on hold for long time, timetabled out of being voted on and filibustered by the Senate minority.

I agree it's not a failure of the system.  My view is it's a feature of the system that McConnell perhaps was better at exploiting than anyone else.  The problem is it could become part of the system in the future.  Which is why I wonder about the competence thing.  If you've got a party that behaves in this way then is there a way to competently manage them?  That is, not to give in or to look like you're ramming things through in a partisan way.  Because if there's not I can't see why any opposition party would ever want to cooperate again.

Edit:  I suppose it's an extension of an old problem that if you cooperate with the President to do something, even if you believe in it, he's going to get the credit.  If you don't cooperate, even if you believe in it, very often you can pass on the blame - he didn't make an effort with you, he didn't concede enough or want to be bipartisan and when he blames you can accuse him of petty party politics

[frunk]

That was the debt ceiling wasn't it?  If he'd stared them down surely there's the not-insignificant chance there were enough crazies in the GOP House who wouldn't compromise and the markets would've gone mental.

I suppose this is my problem with the way Berkut put it (which I think is fair) if one party is willing to govern and the other isn't, then doesn't the former always have to give in or force things through regardless of the level of competence or who's in charge?

So politically I get your point that the mess would've been entirely the responsibility of the crazies.  But it would still be a mess with real effects in the US and global economy.  Is a political point worth that?  At that point doesn't the responsibility to govern matter more, even if it means you've got to give in or whatever else?

The thing is, if Obama showed that he was willing to go to the mat in that situation chances are he'd get some of the less crazy crazies to cave.  If he would have pushed that deal hard he could have pitched it as "this deal goes through or the debt ceiling gets raised or these are the drastic (and unpleasant) measures I'll have to take".  You don't need all of the holdouts to change, just enough to get the bill passed.

[Berkut]

What do you think a more competent Obama administration could have done to thwart that?

I think he could've done more to make Republicans pay for holding the country hostage, if he had a better control of the message. 

Then again, I'm not sure how fair this reproach is.  After all, it's not like Republican Congressmen were doing something their voters didn't want them to do.  How often do you hear some moron actively wishing for a gridlock in Washington?

I agree with DGuller (and that has been happening with disturbing frequency the last few years) - a stronger President would have been better at making that kind of obstinence pay; And that circles around to his second point - Obama (and the Dems) badly failed at the job of creating an alternative message to weaken the Tea Party crazies so that those Republican Tea Party assholes maybe would not have the power they ended up with - this is all politics, right? Who else do you blame for one side "winning" but the other side for not playing the game better?

[Berkut]

Edit:  I suppose it's an extension of an old problem that if you cooperate with the President to do something, even if you believe in it, he's going to get the credit.  If you don't cooperate, even if you believe in it, very often you can pass on the blame - he didn't make an effort with you, he didn't concede enough or want to be bipartisan and when he blames you can accuse him of petty party politics

Of course - that is always the tough part about being the minority party, or even the majority with another party President.

That is tolerable to some extent, even expected. Such is politics.

In my opinion though, there are times when that is NOT tolerable - it is not ok to try to get the Executive to fail in times of crisis, for example. FDR might be President, but that doesn't mean that it is acceptable for the Republicans to try to throw WW2 in order to get him out of office.

I saw (and complained) about this with the Iraq War - where some Dems seemed willing to see the US fail in wartime rather than see Bush succeed at a war they opposed. Or even the very basis of opposition being primarily driven by the politics, rather than the actual issue. So this happens even when you don't want to see it happening.

It is the job of the guy trying to get things done to overcome it though - that is what is the mark of a excellent leader. Arguing that there was nothing Obama could do? Of course there were thing she could do, he could lead, he could win the political war, he could do the things that politicians do to convince people, he could use the legislative process to his advantage, rather than letting others use it to theirs, etc., etc.

[Razgovory]

What do you think a more competent Obama administration could have done to thwart that?

I think he could've done more to make Republicans pay for holding the country hostage, if he had a better control of the message. 

Then again, I'm not sure how fair this reproach is.  After all, it's not like Republican Congressmen were doing something their voters didn't want them to do.  How often do you hear some moron actively wishing for a gridlock in Washington?

I remember Derspeiss saying he was pleased with it.  It does beg the question though, if Romney wins why shouldn't Democrats block everything the Republicans do, if for no other reason then to prove that Romney is an incompetent.  After all, if Romney wins that proves it's a successful political strategy.  It's a nasty strategy that hurts the country, but what else can the Dems do?

[CountDeMoney]

Then again, I'm not sure how fair this reproach is.  After all, it's not like Republican Congressmen were doing something their voters didn't want them to do.  How often do you hear some moron actively wishing for a gridlock in Washington?

I agree with DGuller (and that has been happening with disturbing frequency the last few years) - a stronger President would have been better at making that kind of obstinence pay; And that circles around to his second point - Obama (and the Dems) badly failed at the job of creating an alternative message to weaken the Tea Party crazies so that those Republican Tea Party assholes maybe would not have the power they ended up with - this is all politics, right? Who else do you blame for one side "winning" but the other side for not playing the game better?

Part of the Tea Party attraction was to go to Washington DC in 2010 specifically to derail anything the President wanted to accomplish.  How a "stronger" President would've countered that by an alternative message to weaken the Tea Party--a president whose message was as alternative as it could get--is pretty illogical.

It's not within a Democratic President's abilities to fight the Republicans' internal battles, especially when the Republicans wanting to make him a one-term President.

[Razgovory]

What do you think a more competent Obama administration could have done to thwart that?

I think he could've done more to make Republicans pay for holding the country hostage, if he had a better control of the message. 

Then again, I'm not sure how fair this reproach is.  After all, it's not like Republican Congressmen were doing something their voters didn't want them to do.  How often do you hear some moron actively wishing for a gridlock in Washington?

I agree with DGuller (and that has been happening with disturbing frequency the last few years) - a stronger President would have been better at making that kind of obstinence pay; And that circles around to his second point - Obama (and the Dems) badly failed at the job of creating an alternative message to weaken the Tea Party crazies so that those Republican Tea Party assholes maybe would not have the power they ended up with - this is all politics, right? Who else do you blame for one side "winning" but the other side for not playing the game better?

Exactly how would he make the "pay"?

[CountDeMoney]

It is the job of the guy trying to get things done to overcome it though - that is what is the mark of a excellent leader. Arguing that there was nothing Obama could do? Of course there were thing she could do, he could lead, he could win the political war, he could do the things that politicians do to convince people, he could use the legislative process to his advantage, rather than letting others use it to theirs, etc., etc.

Berkut overestimates the House Republicans' ability, or desire, to be reasoned with.  They are not a particularly rational political species at this moment in history.

[dps]

What do you think a more competent Obama administration could have done to thwart that?

I think he could've done more to make Republicans pay for holding the country hostage, if he had a better control of the message. 

Then again, I'm not sure how fair this reproach is.  After all, it's not like Republican Congressmen were doing something their voters didn't want them to do.  How often do you hear some moron actively wishing for a gridlock in Washington?

I agree with DGuller (and that has been happening with disturbing frequency the last few years) - a stronger President would have been better at making that kind of obstinence pay; And that circles around to his second point - Obama (and the Dems) badly failed at the job of creating an alternative message to weaken the Tea Party crazies so that those Republican Tea Party assholes maybe would not have the power they ended up with - this is all politics, right? Who else do you blame for one side "winning" but the other side for not playing the game better?

Exactly how would he make the "pay"?

Do what Clinton did to Gingrich--let the government get "shut down" and then blame Congress.

[MadImmortalMan]

That was the debt ceiling wasn't it?  If he'd stared them down surely there's the not-insignificant chance there were enough crazies in the GOP House who wouldn't compromise and the markets would've gone mental.

The markets did go mental. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

Edit:  I suppose it's an extension of an old problem that if you cooperate with the President to do something, even if you believe in it, he's going to get the credit.  If you don't cooperate, even if you believe in it, very often you can pass on the blame - he didn't make an effort with you, he didn't concede enough or want to be bipartisan and when he blames you can accuse him of petty party politics

Of course - that is always the tough part about being the minority party, or even the majority with another party President.

That is tolerable to some extent, even expected. Such is politics.

In my opinion though, there are times when that is NOT tolerable - it is not ok to try to get the Executive to fail in times of crisis, for example. FDR might be President, but that doesn't mean that it is acceptable for the Republicans to try to throw WW2 in order to get him out of office.

I saw (and complained) about this with the Iraq War - where some Dems seemed willing to see the US fail in wartime rather than see Bush succeed at a war they opposed. Or even the very basis of opposition being primarily driven by the politics, rather than the actual issue. So this happens even when you don't want to see it happening.

It is the job of the guy trying to get things done to overcome it though - that is what is the mark of a excellent leader. Arguing that there was nothing Obama could do? Of course there were thing she could do, he could lead, he could win the political war, he could do the things that politicians do to convince people, he could use the legislative process to his advantage, rather than letting others use it to theirs, etc., etc.

I'm okay with Obama, he's a moderate Democrat President. I wouldn't vote for him but I'm actually not that turned off by his policies. But I'm super turned off by him as a leader. As you said, Obama could have waged the political war and won it against the Tea Party. Why didn't he? To me it strikes at the core of what Obama is about, he has been extremely concerned, perhaps even slavishly concerned, with his reelection since about his 13th month in office and that's why he didn't go to war with the Tea Party. That would put him "out there" it would expose him to potential defeat, criticism etc. Obama doesn't tolerate that kind of thing very well, and he's obviously avoided it whenever possible (with the exception of during the actual campaigns, when it was unavoidable.)

[Razgovory]

Do what Clinton did to Gingrich--let the government get "shut down" and then blame Congress.

And how exactly would this work in the debt ceiling fight?  The US defaults on it's debts, and then be king of the rubble?