Garbon will be pleased that Cost lays much of the blame for the current situation on Nancy Pelosi.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/02/america_is_not_ungovernable.html
QuoteFebruary 08, 2010
America is Not Ungovernable
by Jay Cost
Recently, some analysts have suggested that the lack of major policy breakthroughs in the last year is due to the fact that America has become ungovernable. Ezra Klein argued that it was time to reform the filibuster because the government cannot function with it intact anymore. Tom Friedman suggested that America's "political instability" was making people abroad nervous. And Michael Cohen of Newsweek blamed "obstructionist Republicans," "spineless Democrats," and an "incoherent public" for the problem.
Nonsense. America is not ungovernable. Her President has simply not been up to the job.
Let's acknowledge that governing the United States of America is an extremely difficult task. Intentionally so. When designing our system, the Founders were faced with a dilemma. How to empower a vigorous government without endangering liberty or true republicanism? On the one hand, George III's government was effective at satisfying the will of the sovereign, but that will had become tyrannical. On the other hand, the Articles of Confederation acknowledged the rights of the states, but so much so that the federal government was incapable of solving basic problems.
The solution the country ultimately settled on had five important features: checks and balances so that the branches would police one another; a large republic so that majority sentiment was fleeting and not intensely felt; a Senate where the states would be equal; enumerated congressional powers to limit the scope of governmental authority; and the Bill of Rights to offer extra protection against the government.
The end result was a government that is powerful, but not infinitely so. Additionally, it is schizophrenic. It can do great things when it is of a single mind - but quite often it is not of one mind. So, to govern, our leaders need to build a broad consensus. When there is no such consensus, the most likely outcome is that the government will do nothing.
The President's two major initiatives - cap-and-trade and health care - have failed because there was not a broad consensus to enact them. Our system is heavily biased against such proposals. That's a good thing.
It's not accurate to blame this on the Republicans. From Arlen Specter's defection to Scott Brown's swearing in, Democrats had total control over the policy-making process. The only recourse the Republicans had was the First Amendment. They used it well, but don't let it be said that the President lacked access to it. Given Mr. Obama's bully pulpit and his omnipresence on the national stage, his voice has been louder than anybody's. If Mr. Obama has lost the public debate to the beleaguered rump that is the congressional GOP, he has nobody to blame but himself.
It's not accurate to blame this on "spineless Democrats," i.e. rank-and-file legislators who balked at the various solutions offered by Mr. Obama. Moderate Democrats might have defected because they were worried about their jobs - but the point of popular elections is to link the personal interests of legislators with the interests of their constituents. It often fails to work - but in a situation where "spineless Democrats" clearly voted with their districts, it seems to have been working pretty well. One might argue that they should have shown some leadership - voted for unpopular bills because they were good for the country. But ask those thirty to forty House Democratic defectors on the health care, cap-and-trade, and jobs bills whether they thought the bills were good for the country, and you'll hear a different answer than the one Newsweek is quick to give.
It's not accurate to blame this on the people. This country is most certainly divided, but not deeply so. Consider, for instance, the enormous goodwill that greeted Mr. Obama upon his inauguration. It is not tenable to suggest that there was no way to turn that into a broad consensus for policy solutions.
The responsibility for the government's failure in the last year rests with President Obama. Two significant blunders stand out.
First, President Obama has installed Nancy Pelosi as de facto Prime Minister - giving her leave to dominate not only the House, but also the entire domestic policy agenda. The indefatigable Speaker Pelosi has taken advantage of the President's laissez-faire attitude by governing from the left.
That's not to say that the left has been happy with the domestic proposals that have come up for a vote. Instead, the point is that policy has consistently been built from the left - thanks in no small part to the very liberal chairs of key committees - with compromises made to win just enough centrist votes to get passage. On the jobs bill, the health care bill, and the cap-and-trade bill, the Democrats won only narrow victories due to mass defections on their own side. Almost all of these defections were from the center. Faced with a choice between losing a moderate or a liberal, the Speaker has consistently chosen to sacrifice the moderate.
It's easy to blame the Senate for inactivity - but the problem is the House. It has consistently passed legislation that is too far to the left for the Senate and the country. Ultimate responsibility rests with the President, whose expressed indifference toward policy details has allowed the more vigorous House Democrats, led by an extraordinarily vigorous Speaker, to dominate. That the President consistently praised the House and blamed the Senate in his State of the Union address suggests that he remains unaware of this problem.
The President's second major failing has been his stubborn insistence on comprehensive reforms. Perhaps this is due to his inexperience in the federal lawmaking process, or his extraordinary vanity, or both. Still, this has been a grave mistake. If the truly great Henry Clay could not pass the Compromise of 1850 through the Congress in a single package, what made Barack Obama think he could sign comprehensive energy and health care reforms?
President Obama's desire for comprehensive legislation seriously damaged the chances for bipartisanship, given his decision to let Nancy Pelosi and her allies write the bills. Republican "extremism" is an easy rhetorical foil - but when we're talking about Mike Castle and Olympia Snowe voting against the President, it fails to explain the full story. Bipartisanship implies legislators with different world views working together. The larger a bill's scope, the more likely it favors one worldview over another, and the less likely it will attract bipartisan support. With an extremely liberal Speaker and a supporting cast of left wing committee chairs running the process, comprehensive legislation was bound to favor heavily the liberal worldview. Even the most moderate of Republicans would always have trouble with that. In fact, thirty to forty House Democrats have defected on the President's key items, meaning that the bipartisan position has been opposition to President Obama. This has made it difficult for a centrist public to support reforms. With very limited information on specifics, the public took unanimous Republican and substantial moderate Democratic opposition as cues about the merits of the bills. Public opposition is what ultimately ended the Democratic supermajority - in Massachusetts, of all places.
Both of these failures get back to the idea that this country can only be led effectively when there is a broad coalition supporting her leaders. That requires those leaders to have a breadth of vision that this President has so far lacked. He has allowed a very liberal Speaker to lead the House too far to the left, and he has demanded comprehensive reforms that were destined to alienate a significant portion of the country.
He has been narrow, not broad. He has been partial, not post-partisan. He has been ideological, not pragmatic. No number of "eloquent" speeches can alter these facts. This is why his major initiatives have failed, why his net job approval has dropped 50 points in 12 months, and why he is substantially weaker now than he was a year ago.
This strategy might have made sense if the country was really in the midst of a "liberal moment." But it is not. While the President won a decisive victory in 2008, his congressional majority in both chambers depends entirely upon members whose constituents voted for John McCain. In fact, the President's election 16 months ago was one of the most polarizing in recent history. This remains a divided country, which creates complications in a system such as ours. The President should have recognized this, and governed with a view to building a broad coalition. But he has not.
America is not ungovernable. Barack Obama has so far failed to govern it.
Pelosi controls shit. She can pass the most liberal bills in the world and it won't do a damn thing given that they have to accept Senate language or else lose that precious 60th vote. Comparing her power to that of a prime minister is ludicrous. Although she is a favoraite target of GOP ire, so right leaning blogs like RealClearPolitics must exaggerate her influence in order to justify the fixation.
It is Obama's fault again? :rolleyes:
G.
:blink: :tinfoil:
This is such a misinterpretation of how checks and balances are supposed to work. Pelosi doesn't introduce every bill, and frankly, Obama can't do anything about it if it passes the House and not the Senate. Veto power only kicks in once both houses approve a bill.
Backing out and looking at the article as a whole, it sounds like his major beef with Obama is not being able to sell Republicans on his policies, but certain Republicans lately wouldn't allow themselves to be sold air if they were suffocating.
If the author's analysis is so incorrect, why did the health care bill not pass?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 10, 2010, 08:59:59 AM
:blink: :tinfoil:
This is such a misinterpretation of how checks and balances are supposed to work. Pelosi doesn't introduce every bill, and frankly, Obama can't do anything about it if it passes the House and not the Senate. Veto power only kicks in once both houses approve a bill.
Backing out and looking at the article as a whole, it sounds like his major beef with Obama is not being able to sell Republicans on his policies, but certain Republicans lately wouldn't allow themselves to be sold air if they were suffocating.
Why did they need the Republican's at all?
Quote from: Lndhand on February 10, 2010, 09:03:34 AM
If the author's analysis is so incorrect, why did the health care bill not pass?
The author's analysis is incorrect, but the fact that there's a lack of broad-spectrum support isn't. Obama can go on about healthcare until he's blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is he
has no authority before the bill comes to him for a veto. Also, given the behavior of about-facing senators like Joe Lieberman, I don't think healthcare is the best example of the system operating as it should.
Call it a flaw in the system if you'd like, but his inability to ram through his campaign promises is only proof that the system of checks and balances
is intact.
In the realm of healthcare, high-profile Democrats wanted to push a bill they knew was crappy through just to satisfy campaign promises. On the other hand, high-profile Republicans wanted to show they could still successfully block a "liberal" agenda. The middle ground was critical, and swayed by the sheer crappiness of the bill (which, IIRC, was NOT drafted by Pelosi).
The lousy bills is an issue, and I think it's one that needs to be addressed soon, but I find it a little silly that people are complaining about Obama
not taking on yet another issue after so many have complained that he's taken on
too many causes.
More telling than the crappy bill failing the first time, though, is the Republican blanket refusal to compromise on healthcare. A failing bill is one thing, but the Republicans using the marginal electoral gains to completely block out the issue and neglect a majority of Americans' concern for fixing a broken system is inexcusable. What they're doing is refusing to admit to the basic principle of democracy and allowing themselves to be ruled by the majority, both in political terms, and in terms of the voting base.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 10, 2010, 09:24:08 AM
Quote from: Lndhand on February 10, 2010, 09:03:34 AM
If the author's analysis is so incorrect, why did the health care bill not pass?
The author's analysis is incorrect, but the fact that there's a lack of broad-spectrum support isn't. Obama can go on about healthcare until he's blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is he has no authority before the bill comes to him for a veto. Also, given the behavior of about-facing senators like Joe Lieberman, I don't think healthcare is the best example of the system operating as it should.
Call it a flaw in the system if you'd like, but his inability to ram through his campaign promises is only proof that the system of checks and balances is intact.
In the realm of healthcare, high-profile Democrats wanted to push a bill they knew was crappy through just to satisfy campaign promises. On the other hand, high-profile Republicans wanted to show they could still successfully block a "liberal" agenda. The middle ground was critical, and swayed by the sheer crappiness of the bill (which, IIRC, was NOT drafted by Pelosi).
The lousy bills is an issue, and I think it's one that needs to be addressed soon, but I find it a little silly that people are complaining about Obama not taking on yet another issue after so many have complained that he's taken on too many causes.
More telling than the crappy bill failing the first time, though, is the Republican blanket refusal to compromise on healthcare. A failing bill is one thing, but the Republicans using the marginal electoral gains to completely block out the issue and neglect a majority of Americans' concern for fixing a broken system is inexcusable. What they're doing is refusing to admit to the basic principle of democracy and allowing themselves to be ruled by the majority, both in political terms, and in terms of the voting base.
Thanks for the reply and I agree with many of your observations. I find it difficult to blame the Republicans though because the Democrats had the ability to pass the law without their input (correct?). I could be mistaken, but in essence people seem to be saying that Republicans are to blame for not stepping into the shoes of Democrats who would not follow their own party's agenda so that a bill could get done. For the record, I am no Republican homer. My voting record of late has been Gore, Kerry and McCain. I just find it amazing that with the White House, the Senate and the House all in Democratic hands the Republicans are to blame for no healthcare reform bill.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 10, 2010, 08:59:59 AM
:blink: :tinfoil:
This is such a misinterpretation of how checks and balances are supposed to work. Pelosi doesn't introduce every bill, and frankly, Obama can't do anything about it if it passes the House and not the Senate. Veto power only kicks in once both houses approve a bill.
Backing out and looking at the article as a whole, it sounds like his major beef with Obama is not being able to sell Republicans on his policies, but certain Republicans lately wouldn't allow themselves to be sold air if they were suffocating.
Pelosi and the liberal leadership in the House are the ones responsible for the contents of major bills even if an other congressman is the one who introduces them. They're the ones who've made the decision to gain liberal votes at the expense of moderate ones. Obama may not have any authority in the house but he had immense political influence. He could have pressured the House to do things differently instead of giving Pelosi and the House leadership free reign.
Quote from: Lndhand on February 10, 2010, 09:04:22 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 10, 2010, 08:59:59 AM
:blink: :tinfoil:
This is such a misinterpretation of how checks and balances are supposed to work. Pelosi doesn't introduce every bill, and frankly, Obama can't do anything about it if it passes the House and not the Senate. Veto power only kicks in once both houses approve a bill.
Backing out and looking at the article as a whole, it sounds like his major beef with Obama is not being able to sell Republicans on his policies, but certain Republicans lately wouldn't allow themselves to be sold air if they were suffocating.
Why did they need the Republican's at all?
They didn't - the failure to get anything done is because the Dems running things have not managed to sell their ideas to the middle, and that includes both Dems and Republicans.
They thought they didn't need to, and so didn't bother trying. Now that they realize that was a mistake, blaming it on the Republicans is a handy scapegoat. Where the republicans obstrucionist? Of course they were - but if that had meant that the Republicans were going against the will of the majority of the people (which is typically centrist and moderate) it would be them looking at losing more races and their power declining, rather than the other way around.
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2010, 10:01:32 AM
They didn't - the failure to get anything done is because the Dems running things have not managed to sell their ideas to the middle, and that includes both Dems and Republicans.
They thought they didn't need to, and so didn't bother trying. Now that they realize that was a mistake, blaming it on the Republicans is a handy scapegoat. Where the republicans obstrucionist? Of course they were - but if that had meant that the Republicans were going against the will of the majority of the people (which is typically centrist and moderate) it would be them looking at losing more races and their power declining, rather than the other way around.
Partially true. You're ignoring the vast array of polling that showed popular support for healthcare reform. But the devil's in the details; the Democrats lost support for their methods of trying to ram a bill through with the most concessions possible to everybody. What happened to that bill was not compromise, it was totally disorganized because everybody involved wanted to defend their little piece of the legislation. Stupak, Lieberman, and Snowe in particular come to mind as forcing the compromise to be non-viable.
I'm not trying to come across as a Democrat apologist here, but the Republicans have been just as strident in denying any share in the blame as the Democrats have been in placing all of the blame on the Republicans, and both have been getting on my nerves.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 10, 2010, 10:23:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2010, 10:01:32 AM
They didn't - the failure to get anything done is because the Dems running things have not managed to sell their ideas to the middle, and that includes both Dems and Republicans.
They thought they didn't need to, and so didn't bother trying. Now that they realize that was a mistake, blaming it on the Republicans is a handy scapegoat. Where the republicans obstrucionist? Of course they were - but if that had meant that the Republicans were going against the will of the majority of the people (which is typically centrist and moderate) it would be them looking at losing more races and their power declining, rather than the other way around.
Partially true. You're ignoring the vast array of polling that showed popular support for healthcare reform. But the devil's in the details; the Democrats lost support for their methods of trying to ram a bill through with the most concessions possible to everybody. What happened to that bill was not compromise, it was totally disorganized because everybody involved wanted to defend their little piece of the legislation. Stupak, Lieberman, and Snowe in particular come to mind as forcing the compromise to be non-viable.
I'm not trying to come across as a Democrat apologist here, but the Republicans have been just as strident in denying any share in the blame as the Democrats have been in placing all of the blame on the Republicans, and both have been getting on my nerves.
Oh, I do think the republicans have been completely obstructionist - but I don't think that should come as any surprise - of course they are - the republicans these days are a disaster, and pretty much operating under rather narrow and silly "we are against whatever they are for" mode.
But that is to be expected, even if it is rather annoying.
The republicans, however, could not really succeed with this obstructionism if the Dems didn't decide to try to get it all, rather than governing in a manner that the reflected actual public sentiment, which is, as usual, rather moderate and centrist. Instead they went nuts and tried to ram through every little ultra-left wet dream pork project they could come up with, including a health care reform package that turned into something that nobody actually wanted. The stim package was the ebst example of this - they knew they had support for pretty radical spending, and they went nuts like a 4 year old in a candy store who got a hold of their moms credit card.
Well, they badly over-played their hand, and now they are going to pay for it - they've alienated the rather tenuous support they had from the moderate middle of America, and that backlash is going to help the republicans a LOT, even though it won't be because the Republicans have done *anything* to deserve it.
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2010, 10:39:25 AM
Oh, I do think the republicans have been completely obstructionist - but I don't think that should come as any surprise - of course they are - the republicans these days are a disaster, and pretty much operating under rather narrow and silly "we are against whatever they are for" mode.
But that is to be expected, even if it is rather annoying.
The republicans, however, could not really succeed with this obstructionism if the Dems didn't decide to try to get it all, rather than governing in a manner that the reflected actual public sentiment, which is, as usual, rather moderate and centrist. Instead they went nuts and tried to ram through every little ultra-left wet dream pork project they could come up with, including a health care reform package that turned into something that nobody actually wanted. The stim package was the ebst example of this - they knew they had support for pretty radical spending, and they went nuts like a 4 year old in a candy store who got a hold of their moms credit card.
Well, they badly over-played their hand, and now they are going to pay for it - they've alienated the rather tenuous support they had from the moderate middle of America, and that backlash is going to help the republicans a LOT, even though it won't be because the Republicans have done *anything* to deserve it.
Ah, then that sounds like we're arguing the same side or close to it. Personally, I'd prefer to see a few Democrats replaced with more moderate counterparts, and a few of the extreme left replaced with moderate Republicans; supermajorities are silly because they fail in situations like healthcare where the populace is nearly evenly divided. Without a supermajority, the two sides are at least forced to come to discussion to achieve any kind of agenda.
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2010, 10:39:25 AM
Oh, I do think the republicans have been completely obstructionist - but I don't think that should come as any surprise - of course they are - the republicans these days are a disaster, and pretty much operating under rather narrow and silly "we are against whatever they are for" mode.
But that is to be expected, even if it is rather annoying.
The republicans, however, could not really succeed with this obstructionism if the Dems didn't decide to try to get it all, rather than governing in a manner that the reflected actual public sentiment, which is, as usual, rather moderate and centrist. Instead they went nuts and tried to ram through every little ultra-left wet dream pork project they could come up with, including a health care reform package that turned into something that nobody actually wanted. The stim package was the ebst example of this - they knew they had support for pretty radical spending, and they went nuts like a 4 year old in a candy store who got a hold of their moms credit card.
Well, they badly over-played their hand, and now they are going to pay for it - they've alienated the rather tenuous support they had from the moderate middle of America, and that backlash is going to help the republicans a LOT, even though it won't be because the Republicans have done *anything* to deserve it.
Agreed with pretty much all, including the Repubs didn't really do anything to deserve their gains, but just are now the other choice. The unique, new thing may be that people seem to really be looking at things (politics, parties, legislation processes) quite differently and it seems there's a demand for more accountable governing, legislation and such. It's still hard to expect real change in how legislation gets done with all these entrenched politicians and views, but both parties are at least getting some hits upside the heads.
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2010, 10:39:25 AM
Well, they badly over-played their hand, and now they are going to pay for it - they've alienated the rather tenuous support they had from the moderate middle of America, and that backlash is going to help the republicans a LOT, even though it won't be because the Republicans have done *anything* to deserve it.
Hrmm. Have you seen this from Nate Silver?
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/republicans-not-obama-more-often-on.html
Quote from: Faeelin on February 10, 2010, 11:11:57 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2010, 10:39:25 AM
Well, they badly over-played their hand, and now they are going to pay for it - they've alienated the rather tenuous support they had from the moderate middle of America, and that backlash is going to help the republicans a LOT, even though it won't be because the Republicans have done *anything* to deserve it.
Hrmm. Have you seen this from Nate Silver?
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/republicans-not-obama-more-often-on.html
Sounds about right to me - of course, the Dems are screwing up their ability to get things done on the things most Americans do agree with them on, by either pissing people off on the big things they do not agree with them on, or because Obama is just not willing to spend political capital on those things, since he has blown a lot of it on more contentious issues, often without getting any return on that investment.
There is still a long way to go though - we are still pretty much in the toddler stage of the Obama admin. They have plenty of time to turn things around still, and start governing from the center. Funny though that if they do, the radicals are REALLY going to start screaming bloody murder.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 10, 2010, 08:59:59 AM
:blink: :tinfoil:
This is such a misinterpretation of how checks and balances are supposed to work. Pelosi doesn't introduce every bill, and frankly, Obama can't do anything about it if it passes the House and not the Senate. Veto power only kicks in once both houses approve a bill.
Backing out and looking at the article as a whole, it sounds like his major beef with Obama is not being able to sell Republicans on his policies, but certain Republicans lately wouldn't allow themselves to be sold air if they were suffocating.
Pelosi hands out the committee assignments and I think, not sure, has some influence over which committee a given bill is assigned to.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 10, 2010, 09:24:08 AM
The author's analysis is incorrect, but the fact that there's a lack of broad-spectrum support isn't. Obama can go on about healthcare until he's blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is he has no authority before the bill comes to him for a veto.
Obama has zero legal authority to introduce, amend, or vote on bill. He has immense political authority to draft the original proposal and negotiate with the prinicples.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2010, 11:31:59 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 10, 2010, 09:24:08 AM
The author's analysis is incorrect, but the fact that there's a lack of broad-spectrum support isn't. Obama can go on about healthcare until he's blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is he has no authority before the bill comes to him for a veto.
Obama has zero legal authority to introduce, amend, or vote on bill. He has immense political authority to draft the original proposal and negotiate with the prinicples.
And this is precisely where Obama failed. He shoudl have known that neither Pelosi not reed could lead a congressman into an intern's bed, and yet left them in charge of the legislation... which is why we have around 500 health care reform plans all rolled into one.
If Obama had been serious about health care reform, and had known how Washington worked, he would have had a health care plan to pass. My guess is that he wanted the reform but never bothered to figure out how the legislative process worked.
Dunno if he's learned his lesson and, if so, it is in time to still accomplish something with his presidency. His speech about jobs creation tells me that he still just doesn't get it.
Well, he did serve in the Senate prior to his presidency (albeit for about 20 minutes), so I think it reasonable to expect that he should know how the legislative process works.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2010, 11:31:59 AM
Obama has zero legal authority to introduce, amend, or vote on bill. He has immense political authority to draft the original proposal and negotiate with the prinicples.
Which is a fancy way of saying his recommendations can and should be taken seriously, but at the end of the day, they're just recommendations. Arguing the same side.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 10, 2010, 08:28:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2010, 11:31:59 AM
Obama has zero legal authority to introduce, amend, or vote on bill. He has immense political authority to draft the original proposal and negotiate with the prinicples.
Which is a fancy way of saying his recommendations can and should be taken seriously, but at the end of the day, they're just recommendations. Arguing the same side.
When was the last time a President drafted a bill while his party was in control of congress and the congress ignored it to do their own thing? They always at least negotiate with him on the particulars and it usually ends up relatively close to what he wanted.
If Obama had his staff draw up a health plan at the beginning of this process and had one of their minions introduce it in the House, a health bill that looked more like his proposal than not would have been signed into law before the Brown election.
The 'America is ungovernable' critique isn't based solely on healthcare. If healthcare passes it will be the first major domestic legislation since either Reagan's tax cuts in the 80s, the Clean Air Act in the early 90s or, arguably, welfare reform. There are and there have been serious problems in America that need systemic reform and since the Great Society there have been maybe 4-5 major domestic reforms. Add to that a political culture that's built around the free lunch ('you can have a big military, an expensive military, a moderate welfare state and low taxes - you just need to cut pork in the other guy's district') and it's a worry.
QuoteWhen was the last time a President drafted a bill while his party was in control of congress and the congress ignored it to do their own thing?
I think that would have been Hilarycare.
Down with Pelosi!
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2010, 10:35:42 PM
Down with Pelosi!
Assuming you're at least semi-serious, I think that's something we can all agree on. The woman's a walking disaster for the Democrats.
I'm totally serious. I was one of her constituents and voted against her. :thumbsup:
Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2010, 12:55:31 AM
I'm totally serious. I was one of her constituents and voted against her. :thumbsup:
Ah, OK. I get paranoid about facetiousness on here; seems like every day, my sarcasmometer ends up less and less up to the task of dealing with conversations on here. :thumbsup:
Haha. Yeah, Pelosi is on my list of people I most hate in contemporary America.
Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2010, 01:07:16 AM
Haha. Yeah, Pelosi is on my list of people I most hate in contemporary America.
Maybe we can engineer an ultimate time-bomb based on locking Pelosi and Palin in a room together for 12 hours.
I don't get the Pelosi hate. What's she done that makes everyone hate her so much?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2010, 09:46:56 AM
I don't get the Pelosi hate. What's she done that makes everyone hate her so much?
You know how I frequently complain about assholes on the right who won't compromise? Well, she's the lefty counterpart to that. She tends to act like only the ideas coming from her camp matter, not to mention she's just a somewhat creepy person in general that seems really hard to like.
EDIT: Oh, and she's a pork queen of the Stevens/Murtha variety.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 13, 2010, 09:54:17 AMYou know how I frequently complain about assholes on the right who won't compromise? Well, she's the lefty counterpart to that. She tends to act like only the ideas coming from her camp matter, not to mention she's just a somewhat creepy person in general that seems really hard to like.
Okay but she's not got any of the bills she got the House to pass. Every single one of them have been heavily changed to please the Senate and Senate moderates at that. That sounds like compromise to me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2010, 09:57:08 AM
Okay but she's not got any of the bills she got the House to pass. Every single one of them have been heavily changed to please the Senate and Senate moderates at that. That sounds like compromise to me.
The compromises typically don't come from her office. They're typically done after both houses have voted on the bill, and the compromises are up to a bicameral compromise committee.
Also, she really ticked people off with the double-speak about torture when she was on the House Intelligence Committee.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 13, 2010, 10:05:07 AM
The compromises typically don't come from her office. They're typically done after both houses have voted on the bill, and the compromises are up to a bicameral compromise committee.
I'd always assumed the Speaker and the Majority Leader were quite important at conference stage, at least in picking negotiators. She could be bad at compromise (ie. she always loses) but that's not a sign that she won't compromise.
QuoteAlso, she really ticked people off with the double-speak about torture when she was on the House Intelligence Committee.
What's this about?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2010, 10:09:40 AM
I'd always assumed the Speaker and the Majority Leader were quite important at conference stage, at least in picking negotiators. She could be bad at compromise (ie. she always loses) but that's not a sign that she won't compromise.
Actually, the conferees are nominated by motion and elected by the House or Senate members.
Quote
What's this about?
When we got caught up in the "waterboarding=torture" debate, it turned out that as part of the House Intelligence Committee, she'd been implicit in the practice, even while she was shrieking and threatening to metaphorically burn torture-approving Bush admin officials at the stake. Her excuse? She thought the techniques were "still in the planning stages."
A WSJ article from May on the matter, that sums up the brouhaha pretty nicely: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124226863721018193.html
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 13, 2010, 11:08:32 AM
When we got caught up in the "waterboarding=torture" debate, it turned out that as part of the House Intelligence Committee, she'd been implicit in the practice, even while she was shrieking and threatening to metaphorically burn torture-approving Bush admin officials at the stake. Her excuse? She thought the techniques were "still in the planning stages."
I assume that that excuse really is as unbelievable as it sounds to me?
Anyway, as for Pelosi, we don't get to know much about her on this side of the Atlantic. However, the couple of times I have seen on television her my instinctual response has been negative, whereas my response to such appearances by Obama have been quite positive, despite him being the lightweight he is.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 13, 2010, 05:11:43 PM
Anyway, as for Pelosi, we don't get to know much about her on this side of the Atlantic. However, the couple of times I have seen on television her my instinctual response has been negative, whereas my response to such appearances by Obama have been quite positive, despite him being the lightweight he is.
I agree on the waterboarding thing. That sounds like bullshit on her part.
My problem with condemning Pelosi is that everyone seems to hate on her. I don't know if anyone is really that insufferable or whether it's inevitable with her position or if she's just had a hard rap (and the Administration's dumping on her and Reid).
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2010, 10:28:47 PM...and the Administration's dumping on her and Reid).
That's just it. The Administration is NOT dumping on Pelosi and instead is letting her run roughshod even when it is counterproductive for the Obama Admin.
Quote from: citizen k on February 13, 2010, 10:54:17 PM
That's just it. The Administration is NOT dumping on Pelosi and instead is letting her run roughshod even when it is counterproductive for the Obama Admin.
But this is the thing. When has she run roughshod? When has she got what she wanted as opposed to the Senate or even moderate Democrats within the Senate?
The stimulus - $200+ billion smaller and more tax cuts than the House or Pelosi wanted. Credit card regulation that was significantly weaker than what Pelosi wanted. Cap and trade: shelved. Healthcare considerably to the right of what Pelosi and most of the House want. What's been her cracking victory over this White House?
It's worth remembering that there have been a number of stories that Pelosi is very unhappy with the White House (she has beef with Emanuel from years back) because she thinks in terms of legislation she's cut out and matters less than even one Senator. I'm not convinced she's wrong and I'm not convinced she deserves the amount of vitriol she gets.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2010, 11:02:47 PM(she has beef with Emanuel from years back)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkarmahd.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F08%2Fpelosi-emanuel-happy.jpg&hash=912b64516c236df83ede27ef7ed5a8ce0a6f9530)
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2010, 11:02:47 PM
Quote from: citizen k on February 13, 2010, 10:54:17 PM
That's just it. The Administration is NOT dumping on Pelosi and instead is letting her run roughshod even when it is counterproductive for the Obama Admin.
But this is the thing. When has she run roughshod? When has she got what she wanted as opposed to the Senate or even moderate Democrats within the Senate?
The stimulus - $200+ billion smaller and more tax cuts than the House or Pelosi wanted. Credit card regulation that was significantly weaker than what Pelosi wanted. Cap and trade: shelved. Healthcare considerably to the right of what Pelosi and most of the House want. What's been her cracking victory over this White House?
It's worth remembering that there have been a number of stories that Pelosi is very unhappy with the White House (she has beef with Emanuel from years back) because she thinks in terms of legislation she's cut out and matters less than even one Senator. I'm not convinced she's wrong and I'm not convinced she deserves the amount of vitriol she gets.
She can't roughshod the Senate because she has no power over the Senate. She running over the House, particularly by having all the bills drafted in secret in her office instead of through the relevant committees, then twisting and breaking enough arms to get her caucus to vote for the bill without even letting them see the bill prior to the vote. Add in her retarded comments at press conferences (denouncing the opposition as unpatrioting and comparing tea party protesters to terrorists and the KKK comes to mind), her pronouncements that strain credulity (on virtually any topic virtually nobody believes a word she says due to her tendency to make declarative statements which stand in direct opposition to reality). Then of course is her history of corrupt pork-barrel spending and you end up with a wholly unlikeable package. The Dems would've been much better off with Steny Hoyer as Speaker.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2010, 11:02:47 PM... I'm not convinced she deserves the amount of vitriol she gets.
She deserves it as much as any other sleazy politician does. :mellow:
Quote from: citizen k on February 13, 2010, 11:39:08 PM
She deserves it as much as any other sleazy politician does. :mellow:
If that's the extent of her crime then she's getting a raw deal.
I don't know much about her so I'm not really in a position to defend her - and I wouldn't want to - I just don't understand the dislike and don't know if it's justified. So far no-one's convinced me it is.
She's a strong woman in a man's world. Of course people hate her.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 13, 2010, 12:59:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2010, 12:55:31 AM
I'm totally serious. I was one of her constituents and voted against her. :thumbsup:
Ah, OK. I get paranoid about facetiousness on here; seems like every day, my sarcasmometer ends up less and less up to the task of dealing with conversations on here. :thumbsup:
Languish: Where your sarcasm means our strongly held belief. :P
Quote
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2010/02/19/ungovernable__nonsense
Charles Krauthammer :: Townhall.com Columnist
Ungovernable? Nonsense.
by Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- In the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say that the office had become unmanageable and was simply too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The president's own White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more parliamentary system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable.
Then came Ronald Reagan, and all that chatter disappeared.
The tyranny of entitlements? Reagan collaborated with Tip O'Neill, the legendary Democratic House speaker, to establish the Alan Greenspan commission that kept Social Security solvent for a quarter-century.
A corrupted system of taxation? Reagan worked with liberal Democrat Bill Bradley to craft a legislative miracle: tax reform that eliminated dozens of loopholes and slashed rates across the board -- and fueled two decades of economic growth.
Later, a highly skilled Democratic president, Bill Clinton, successfully tackled another supposedly intractable problem: the culture of intergenerational dependency. He collaborated with another House speaker, Newt Gingrich, to produce the single most successful social reform of our time, the abolition of welfare as an entitlement.
It turned out that the country's problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn't. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills and an ideological compass in tune with the public, the country was indeed governable.
It's 2010 and the first-year agenda of a popular and promising young president has gone down in flames. Barack Obama's two signature initiatives -- cap-and-trade and health care reform -- lie in ruins.
Desperate to explain away this scandalous state of affairs, liberal apologists haul out the old reliable from the Carter years: "America the Ungovernable." So declared Newsweek. "Is America Ungovernable?" coyly asked The New Republic. Guess the answer.
The rage at the machine has produced the usual litany of systemic explanations. Special interests are too powerful. The Senate filibuster stymies social progress. A burdensome constitutional order prevents innovation. If only we could be more like China, pines Tom Friedman, waxing poetic about the efficiency of the Chinese authoritarian model, while America flails about under its "two parties ... with their duel-to-the-death paralysis." The better thinkers, bewildered and furious that their president has not gotten his way, have developed a sudden disdain for our inherently incremental constitutional system.
Yet, what's new about any of these supposedly ruinous structural impediments? Special interests blocking policy changes? They have been around since the beginning of the republic -- and since the beginning of the republic, strong presidents, like the two Roosevelts, have rallied the citizenry and overcome them.
And then, of course, there's the filibuster, the newest liberal bete noire. "Don't blame Mr. Obama," writes Paul Krugman of the president's failures. "Blame our political culture instead. ... And blame the filibuster, under which 41 senators can make the country ungovernable."
Ungovernable, once again. Of course, just yesterday the same Paul Krugman was warning about "extremists" trying "to eliminate the filibuster" when Democrats used it systematically to block one Bush (43) judicial nomination after another. Back then, Democrats touted it as an indispensable check on overweening majority power. Well, it still is. Indeed, the Senate with its ponderous procedures and decentralized structure is serving precisely the function the Founders intended: as a brake on the passions of the House and a caution about precipitous transformative change.
Leave it to Mickey Kaus, a principled liberal who supports health care reform, to debunk these structural excuses: "Lots of intellectual effort now seems to be going into explaining Obama's (possible/likely/impending) health care failure as the inevitable product of larger historic and constitutional forces. ... But in this case there's a simpler explanation: Barack Obama's job was to sell a health care reform plan to American voters. He failed."
He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise -- expanded coverage at lower cost -- led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes and more debt. More broadly, the Democrats failed because, thinking the economic emergency would give them the political mandate and legislative window, they tried to impose a left-wing agenda on a center-right country. The people said no, expressing themselves first in spontaneous demonstrations, then in public opinion polls, then in elections -- Virginia, New Jersey and, most emphatically, Massachusetts.
That's not a structural defect. That's a textbook demonstration of popular will expressing itself -- despite the special interests -- through the existing structures. In other words, the system worked.
Poor Obama.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2010, 11:02:47 PM
The stimulus - $200+ billion smaller and more tax cuts than the House or Pelosi wanted. Credit card regulation that was significantly weaker than what Pelosi wanted. Cap and trade: shelved. Healthcare considerably to the right of what Pelosi and most of the House want. What's been her cracking victory over this White House?
Pelosi is not competent to deliver even the votes of Democratic congressmen, so she ends up losing (not to the White House, but to temporary coalitions of Congressmen who want to see something happen - or not). This leads to...
QuoteIt's worth remembering that there have been a number of stories that Pelosi is very unhappy with the White House (she has beef with Emanuel from years back) because she thinks in terms of legislation she's cut out and matters less than even one Senator.
which further weakens her. It is a death spiral.
QuoteI'm not convinced she's wrong and I'm not convinced she deserves the amount of vitriol she gets.
She gets vitriol because she sounds like a moron and cannot deliver under extremely favorable conditions. If leadership were dynamite, she could not blow her nose.
Quote from: KRonn on February 19, 2010, 12:12:44 PM
Quote
He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise -- expanded coverage at lower cost -- led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes and more debt.
Obama dailed because the "health care plan" lacked one essential feature: the quality of being a plan. Obama never proposed any plan, and congress never even considered any plans. Obama expressed a hope and congress considered a mass of compromises and buyouts.
In a system with a strong presidency, smart but weak presidents will not prosper even as well as strong but stupid ones. That's been our lesson.
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2010, 12:50:41 PM
Quote from: KRonn on February 19, 2010, 12:12:44 PM
Quote
He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise -- expanded coverage at lower cost -- led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes and more debt.
Obama dailed because the "health care plan" lacked one essential feature: the quality of being a plan. Obama never proposed any plan, and congress never even considered any plans. Obama expressed a hope and congress considered a mass of compromises and buyouts.
In a system with a strong presidency, smart but weak presidents will not prosper even as well as strong but stupid ones. That's been our lesson.
Alas, Obama is the poisonous combination of both dumb and weak. A deadly combination of incoherent and weak.
It's not impossible to govern America. Merely pointless.
I was thumbing through the Ted Kennedy memoir, happened to be the section on passing Civil Rights. I have always been curious about the nuts and bolts of LBJ's masterful manipulation of the legislative process and what lessons Obama could take from it; unfortunately this book gave no specifics apart from the trick of getting Mansfield on board by pubicly calling him a great leader.
Anyone have any better insights, maybe from that ginourmos LBJ bio that came out a while back?
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 19, 2010, 05:00:46 PM
Alas, Obama is the poisonous combination of both dumb and weak. A deadly combination of incoherent and weak.
Then we should change his nick from Obamateur to Obameister.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 10, 2010, 09:24:08 AM
Quote from: Lndhand on February 10, 2010, 09:03:34 AM
If the author's analysis is so incorrect, why did the health care bill not pass?
The author's analysis is incorrect, but the fact that there's a lack of broad-spectrum support isn't. Obama can go on about healthcare until he's blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is he has no authority before the bill comes to him for a veto. Also, given the behavior of about-facing senators like Joe Lieberman, I don't think healthcare is the best example of the system operating as it should.
Call it a flaw in the system if you'd like, but his inability to ram through his campaign promises is only proof that the system of checks and balances is intact.
In the realm of healthcare, high-profile Democrats wanted to push a bill they knew was crappy through just to satisfy campaign promises. On the other hand, high-profile Republicans wanted to show they could still successfully block a "liberal" agenda. The middle ground was critical, and swayed by the sheer crappiness of the bill (which, IIRC, was NOT drafted by Pelosi).
The lousy bills is an issue, and I think it's one that needs to be addressed soon, but I find it a little silly that people are complaining about Obama not taking on yet another issue after so many have complained that he's taken on too many causes.
More telling than the crappy bill failing the first time, though, is the Republican blanket refusal to compromise on healthcare. A failing bill is one thing, but the Republicans using the marginal electoral gains to completely block out the issue and neglect a majority of Americans' concern for fixing a broken system is inexcusable. What they're doing is refusing to admit to the basic principle of democracy and allowing themselves to be ruled by the majority, both in political terms, and in terms of the voting base.
This is laughable whining. Bush was able to push through most of his campaign promises because he worked with both parties in Congress to get it done.
When was the last time Obama lowered himself to talk to Republicans about health care? March 5th. That's right, in nearly a year Obama has refused to even talk to the GOP, and now whines that they won't just roll over and swallow an insanely bad bill for the greater glory of Obama. This is just absolutely pathetic.
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2010, 05:12:50 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 19, 2010, 05:00:46 PM
Alas, Obama is the poisonous combination of both dumb and weak. A deadly combination of incoherent and weak.
Then we should change his nick from Obamateur to Obameister.
Don't quit your day job.
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2010, 05:12:50 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 19, 2010, 05:00:46 PM
Alas, Obama is the poisonous combination of both dumb and weak. A deadly combination of incoherent and weak.
Then we should change his nick from Obamateur to Obameister.
^_^
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2010, 05:06:49 PM
Anyone have any better insights, maybe from that ginourmos LBJ bio that came out a while back?
Read the book. Have some pictures:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uiowa.edu%2F%7Ecommstud%2Fresources%2Fnonverbal%2Fimages%2Fjohnsontreatment01.jpg&hash=71a7db72aaf0eaa92fb01d3e1662ef81fb6f5505)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uiowa.edu%2F%7Ecommstud%2Fresources%2Fnonverbal%2Fimages%2Flbjrichardrussell.jpg&hash=8a272fe87692c5ed546cec4dbe35a3990a86646c)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uiowa.edu%2F%7Ecommstud%2Fresources%2Fnonverbal%2Fimages%2Fnytjohnson02.jpg&hash=c49d0cbefac4bc8ab13d66153c19e735e5fb9e7e)
Speaking to Congress:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uiowa.edu%2F%7Ecommstud%2Fresources%2Fnonverbal%2Fimages%2F551.jpg&hash=638343f9cb67e5e927c406a5d3fcefb827c3dce1)
Close talking passes controversial bills. Thanks Shelf, useful lesson.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2010, 09:35:25 PM
Close talking passes controversial bills. Thanks Shelf, useful lesson.
That's not close talking it's dominating their space, they're being told who's in charge. As a Senator someone once watched him working on Richard Russell and saw him kiss him, tower over him, shout at him, call him 'daddy', held both hands on the wall so Russell couldn't get away - and more. That was in less than 5 minutes.
Edit: Incidentally Obama's problem in terms of healthcare wasn't legislation I don't think. I mean no President's got so far in legislative terms. The final Senate bill looked a lot like Obama's Presidential plan - with two important exceptions that he campaigned against - now that doesn't happen by accident. Where Obama failed was in the campaigning style. He failed to do the permanent campaign thing and to keep people on board and convince them.
This is the irony of Obama's first year I think. In the campaign everyone knew this was a guy who could talk and who could convince people, but could he govern. My honest opinion, though, is that he's been good at the stuff people were worried about. I think the cool administrative stuff has gone well - again this is in my opinion - I think he's failed to keep people inspired and with him and so in the nation healthcare was lost and that's what hurt it in the legislature.
Does Obama need to be like Johnson?
and didn't Johnson arrange JFKs assassination? (allegedly)
Quote from: Jaron on February 19, 2010, 10:30:52 PM
Does Obama need to be like Johnson?
No-one needs to be like Johnson. Flashing your dick to Ambassadors and forcing your aides to sit on the bath while you take a shit aren't necessarily good things.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 19, 2010, 10:35:50 PM
Quote from: Jaron on February 19, 2010, 10:30:52 PM
Does Obama need to be like Johnson?
No-one needs to be like Johnson. Flashing your dick to Ambassadors and forcing your aides to sit on the bath while you take a shit aren't necessarily good things.
I can see how an Englishman might be offended by such forward behavior. Just imagine he's French. ;)
Quote from: Jaron on February 19, 2010, 10:30:52 PM
Does Obama need to be like Johnson?
No, he needs Reed to be like Johnson. He hired Emmanuel to be his LBJ, but Emmanuel is just a fuckup who is good at making enemies needlessly.
It was when Emmanuel was named CoS that I knew Obama had no idea of how to govern.
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2010, 11:04:10 PM
Quote from: Jaron on February 19, 2010, 10:30:52 PM
Does Obama need to be like Johnson?
No, he needs Reed to be like Johnson. He hired Emmanuel to be his LBJ, but Emmanuel is just a fuckup who is good at making enemies needlessly.
It was when Emmanuel was named CoS that I knew Obama had no idea of how to govern.
Who is Reed?
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2010, 11:04:10 PM
No, he needs Reed to be like Johnson. He hired Emmanuel to be his LBJ, but Emmanuel is just a fuckup who is good at making enemies needlessly.
Yeah to be fair Johnson was hired to be JFK's Johnson, much to Marilyn's disappointment.