I believe Obama backed off the public option to soothe some moderate democrats, not the republicans. I don't recall if the health care reform was before or after Scott Brown ended the super majority the Ds enjoyed.

The infamous quote he made has been referenced throughout this thread, specifically by yourself, rockmom & Trinity Alum. Aside from RM mentioning Rand Paul, I didn't see any other names listed.

 

I certainly don't condone what McConnell said, nor do I believe his words to be anything remotely resembling leadership. At the same time, I wholeheartedly believe other Congressional leaders over the last decade or so share similar desires & display just as little leadership.

 

I really can't put it any better than Rockmom, but McConnell's words stood out to me at the time, for a variety of reasons:

 

1) he is a KY senator.

2) he is a leader in the senate.

3) the expression on his face when he spoke of Obama. This mirrored the expression I remember from several colleagues the week Obama was elected. I remember thinking, "how can you hate him already? He hasn't even taken office yet?" It was a lesson for me. I swore that I will give any president, regardless of party, a chance to do their job before I make a decision about him/her.

So 2009 was the 'best of times'?

 

 

You are making the same point I am. Recent history has shown us that when one party has control of Washington, it is not good. It doesn't matter if it is the Democrats or the Republicans. I am saying those times are even worse than our current no compromise Congress.

You are making the same point I am. Recent history has shown us that when one party has control of Washington, it is not good. It doesn't matter if it is the Democrats or the Republicans. I am saying those times are even worse than our current no compromise Congress.

 

OK, got it. Thanks.

 

Normally I would be a fan of deadlock. But by basically avoiding the truly tough discussions previously we are left with 'automatic' actions (tax increases across the board and deficit cuts due to failed super committee) that may not be the best actions. No one wants these actions to happen 'automatically'. But without some teamwork in Congress they do.

 

 

 

'Teamwork' and 'Congress' in the same sentence......OK, that was stupid...

McConnell is an "elder" in DC. He should lead by example, IMO. He may have just verbalized what others thought, but that was terribly inappropriate, IMO. And he's not the only obstructionist. You are right. There are the likes of Pelosi and Reid and many more. But McConnell's comments escalated the bull-headedness in both parties. And with such a comment, I literally get a choking feeling in my throat when he makes a comment decrying Presidential lack of compromise.

 

I don't disagree with a lot of what you said here. I think the key, though, is what I've bolded. I certainly don't believe he should have said that. But even without saying it, I know that is one of his primary goals. The same could be said for Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, etc.

 

As for me, I'm far more concerned that their primary concern is retaining and/or obtaining power & influence.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you said here. I think the key, though, is what I've bolded. I certainly don't believe he should have said that. But even without saying it, I know that is one of his primary goals. The same could be said for Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, etc.

 

As for me, I'm far more concerned that their primary concern is retaining and/or obtaining power & influence.

 

The bolded is exactly right in my opinion. They are going to vote the mood of their constituents in order to get re-elected to retain that power and influence. That may be wrong, but it is what it is and an experience politician has to realize that when trying to get Congress to support him. Which is what made Reagan so effective in working with Tip and Co. Tip knew that Reagan had the power of extreme popular support behind him. Personally I never felt Reagan was very smart, but he knew how to work the room both in DC and in the homes of America. A superb communicator. It gave Reagan great negotiating leverage over Tip and the Dems in Congress.

 

Frankly I felt President Obama had those same skills. But, and I hate to keep bringing the same point up over and over again, he lost some Americans on his first stimulus bill. I'm a conservative (or at least I think I am....sometimes after reading this forum I question whether I am a conservative), but I am in favor of increased federal spending in down economic times. But a lot of Americans were not in favor of the increased spending and the bailout of the banks. I thought President Obama did a poor job explaining why the stimulus spending was needed. In one breath he talk about needing the stimulus spending, then he'd attack the banks viciously. The public felt the stimulus spending was, in part, to save the very same institutions that he was claiming caused the mess (for the record, I felt that President Obama's criticism of the banks was very unfair. He conveniently often left out the roles that the American borrower and Barney Frank and others in Congress played in the real property collapse). Americans associated the stimulus spending with bailing out the evil banks that supposedly caused the mess and they weren't happy about it.

 

Then he compounds that problem by not having the American public behind him when pushing healthcare reform. Again, no need to debate the merits of reform. A large percentage of Americans simply did not agree with the bill. It was in the 60 percent disapproval range.

 

Right wrong or otherwise, the Rs seized the opportunity and they recaptured the House in 2010 with an increased number of more radical conservatives getting elected by Americans. An already difficult job of working with Congress became much more difficult for President Obama.

 

I actually felt/feel bad for President Obama in some ways. In different times he could have been an amazingly popular and effective President. But he came into office at a time needing increased federal spending, but with a large percentage of the public extremely upset with and concerned about the federal deficit; and at a time when China (a country that a large percentage of Americans are very wary of) was flexing it's new found economic and military muscle and becoming America's lender for America's increased spending needs. For Americans used to America being the unquestioned economic and military leader of the world, it bothered and scared many that the increased spending of stimulus was going to place us even further in debt to China.

 

Health care reform of some type was definitely needed, but reform was going to be extremely costly, further scaring those worried about the federal deficit. If the reform was actually going to save the federal govt money in the long run, President Obama did not effectively communicate that to Americans. Nancy Pelosi's stupid comment definitely hurt matters. So did the rather dumb Cornhusker Kickback offered by President Obama. The simple fact is that President Obama handled the whole process of putting the health care reform bill together very poorly. He made the decision to allow leaders of Congress to take the lead and structure the legislation and when that failed, he had to get involved. But by then it was too late. In order to get the bill passed he was going to have to cram it through with no R support. The whole process became very ugly and turned off a lot of Americans.

 

He lost a lot of Americans, making it much harder to use the power of the people to push, manage, manipulate and lead Congress the way Reagan had done. I still feel that if President Obama had delayed the issue of health care reform until later in his first term after he had accomplished more and had proven himself as an effective president to Americans and after the economy had turned around (or at least stabilized), the process of putting the health care reform legislation together would have been much smoother and would have been accepted much better by Americans.

 

His ability to use the bully pulpit was lost and frankly has not been regained. I'm of the opinion that it will be extremely difficult or even possible for him to regain it, even if he gets re-elected. Maybe he can do so if the economy comes roaring back. But I don't see that as being very likely.

Edited June 15, 201214 yr by leatherneck