Why it’s difficult for Obama to “beat” the GOP

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/02/why-its-difficult-for-obama-to-beat-the-gop/


Why it’s difficult for Obama to “beat” the GOP

Posted by Jamelle Bouie on May 2, 2013 at 12:05 pm

snip//

Here’s new evidence of the dynamic Obama is up against.

The Republican National Committee has released an ad — called “The First 100 Days” — which criticizes Obama on the failure of his legislative agenda. Including gun control. It features a still black and white photo of Obama as he embraces the mother of a Sandy Hook victim. The idea is that Obama is to blame for failing the Sandy Hook families — even though Republicans are the ones who killed the gun control proposals they wanted with a filibuster.

And this isn’t even the first time Republicans have attacked Obama for failing to overcome their opposition. Last year, for instance, Mitt Romney hit Obama for his inaction on the economy, ignoring the extent to which Republicans have blocked action — but it’s the most egregious. And it’s of a piece with the other GOP tactic of proposing policies — like Medicare and Social Security cuts, to use a recent example—and attacking Obama when he adopts them as his own.

What’s really happening here, as the Daily Beast’s Michael Tomasky writes, is that the Republican Party has departed from traditional norms of political behavior. He notes that the GOP has become “a radical oppositionalist faction, way beyond the normal American parameters both in terms of ideology and tactics.”

In other words, the GOP doesn’t behave like a party should — it isn’t trying to govern, and it doesn’t have a particular agenda. It opposes Barack Obama’s presence in the White House, and will do anything — kill its own proposals, hold the economy hostage — to damage his standing with the public. How do you bend a party to your will when it has decided that its only self-interested course of action is to deny you all cooperation at all costs?

[Parable Arable]

1. I guess I'm still on the fence regarding our current president but...

I'm sure Obama recognizes that the Republican party is basically out to undermine him regardless of what he stands for, even a simpleton could grasp that fact. So if this is the case, why does the president insist on adopting the charm offensive? I recognize that Obama is far from the liberal president many of us have hoped for, but he has to realize how politically dangerous it could be for him to tinker (or cut. I'm not an expert on the issue) with benefit programs during the negotiation process. He knows that if SS is "trimmed" in any way, the progressive caucus won't hesitate to oppose him and that the Republican party will simply attack him for it. I recognize that the president doesn't have the power to get legislation passed with a snap of the fingers, but I am troubled by the fact that many of the negotiations he's had with the GOP seem to be on their terms. But again, I'm not an expert on the machinations of Washington, so I'd very much appreciate a well thought out rebuttal.

[busterbrown]

4. Who the hell knows?

I agree with all your points and was blasted on a thread i posted which suggested that POTUS
might just be “taking a nap” and will hopefully come out swinging against these lunes like he did after the NRA shutdown of the background bill..

I have no clue...just no clue and now they are admitting that they are trying to screw him just because they don’t like him..

This is just amazing...fucking creeps!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/01/pat-toomey-background-checks_n_3192690.html

[Tennessee Hillbilly]

2. Repugs are traitors

The Repugs are traitors. They're intentionally trying to harm the country and the American people because they think it will help them politically.

[meow2u3]

3. Obama is not dealing with rational adults

He's dealing with irrational, overgrown, spoiled racist brats throwing public tantrums for the world to see just because they lost the Presidency to a black man.

You can't reason with a child, a stubbornly ignorant bigot, or a Republican.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. And this is why it is factually incorrect to want Obama to be like LBJ or FDR

It's contrary to history. There were enough moderate to liberal Republicans to join with progressive Democrats in passing landmark legislation. Obama simply does not have that luxury. Again, I wish DU and others quick to blame the president, understood that what this guy is facing is nothing like we've ever seen before in the history of this great republic.

[Parable Arable]

6. I agree that what he's facing is a completely different situation than what FDR and LBJ faced.....

And I accept the fact that we're unable to be able to pass every liberal policy that we want to pass, but I do feel like some of the propositions made by Obama have served to divide the party for the sake of a compromise that seems impossible to realize. Time and time again, congressional Republicans have made it clear that President Obama's failure is their priority. For the most part, they will oppose our president regardless of what he proposes. In contrast, the progressive caucus is less likely to oppose his agenda as long as he doesn't cede too much. Forgive me for not articulating this well enough but I'll just state that I get the sense that Obama is alienating those who elected him in favor of trying to please a group that will oppose him unconditionally. Our president is a smart man, he has to realize how the Republican party operates.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to a well thought out rebuttal to my incoherent all of text above. I can't quite grasp Obama's 2014 strategy, so I hope you could clear it up for me.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

9. I actually agree with you. It's not that we should excuse his bad decisions or hold him above

reproach. However, I just want people to understand the institutional confines of government, how it works. Nothing gets done. Obama could push for the most liberal policies and they won't pass. He could push for the most conservative policies and they won't pass. He could try to give the middle ground, since the Democratic voters gave way the House in 2010, and there's not enough Democrats in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. But it STILL doesn't work. So, you see, it doesn't matter what he does. These people want him destroyed. And better yet, they want US to be so angry with Obama that we sit home. Meanwhile, they're getting their people out to the polls. And too many of us are threatening to do just that: sit home. What good does that do? More Teabaggers get swept into office. Then what? We really won't get more liberal policies. People suffer unnecessarily. Why? Because WE sat home and WE didn't work hard enough to get more progressives elected at the local and state levels. I understand that people are mad at Obama. I understand that. But use that anger to get proactive. That's exactly what the Republicans do. They could be furious at their leaders, but rest assured, they are getting the most conservative, disgusting scum to run at local and state levels. I've been yelling this point for years. Years!!! (I'm a political scientist by trade.)

What we need to do is work hard to get MORE Democrats, even those from Red and Purple states. It's going to take some time because the Republicans gerrymandered so much, but the changing demographics makes it inevitable that more progressive Democrats will get recruited. But it's going to be hard work. We Democrats need to realize that.

I don't think there is an Obama 2014 strategy. I think he is simply trying to get something done. I think the Democrats need to have a 2014 strategy. I see none from where I sit. We just have to keep pushing Obama. It worked when he stupidly but social security on the table. Now we continue to push him and the Democrats to do the right thing. But again, with all the obstruction, I'm not sure what they can do. Blame Harry Reid for not reforming the filibuster because the Democrats now have nothing. No strategy. Nothing. And even if they were able to push through legislation on the Senate, it goes nowhere in the House. Until someone can explain to me how they get anything done and what Obama should do, I'm all ears. But we're faced with a recalitrant--I would even go as far as to say TREASONOUS--Republican-controlled House.

Believe me, I understand your frustration. Why Democrats--IN GENERAL--never fight back is puzzling and infuriating. That problem existed long before President Obama and it looks to be longstanding with the Democrats. We simply do not fight back. We simply do not play dirty like the political right does. I never understood it. But I have a guess. I think the answer lies somewhere with the American people and with the mainline Democratic Party voter: there is a double standard whereby Democrats are always expected to govern, seeking compromise through bipartishanship. The Republicans are expected to hold the ideological line; they are never expected to govern, since their philosophical underpinning hinges on the hatred of government. If you hate government, you're not expected to govern; you're expected to thwart government, destroying it within.

Until the American people and the Democratic Party establishment stops holding Democrats to a different standard, I think that'll be your answer. Why does Obama go out of his way to appease Republicans? Why was President Clinton "the best Republican president ever"? Because mainstream Democrats and the larger American public expect Democrats to bend over, to be bipartisan, to govern. That standard is not applied to Republicans. Again, as long as this double standard persists, things will never change, and we can continue to expect marginally Republican-lite or moderately liberal public policies. Things will change when WE change, when the American people demand that Republicans pursue compromise.

I'm sorry, but we must admit that a lot of what is happening to us is OUR fault. Obama never suggested that he ALONE could fix all of the nation's problems. He said YES *WE* CAN!! Liberals are fickle and impatient. Conservatives never act that way. When conservatives lose battles, they double down. When they lose elections, their base falls in line and never waver. They never threaten not to vote, for example. Liberals and Democrats? We can't except pragmatism or incrementalism. We want change NOW! And when we don't get that change fast enough, we tend to take our ball and go home. We give up too easily. We have to stay on top of our leaders. And we have to work hard, just as the Teabaggers do, AT THE LOCAL LEVEL...recruiting charismatic, progressive Democrats and understanding that not everyone is purely liberal, but we find the closest candidate to our ideological persuation. We don't give up on that candidate, we make the candidate better by pushing him or her and not letting up. It's the same with the Teabaggers. They lose big elections but NEVER give up. We need a tenacity like they have.

[creon]

13. Hear hear

I could not have put it better.

[Parable Arable]

17. An excellent response....

I agree, if we are angry, than we must channel it in a positive way. What do you think of Alan Grayson's proposal to primary those 160 or so congressional Democrats who are preventing liberal legislation's from moving forward? Personally, I'm of the opinion that we must make an effort to elect as many progressives as possible in predominately blue states/districts. I'd hope that 15-20 years form now, the entire east coast will be composed of mostly progressive congress members. As for those states/districts that are considered "tossups". well I'll merely state that in the short term, I'd much rather have a moderate-conservative Democrat occupying those seats than another uneducated Tea Party member.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. I'm very lucky to reside in a very blue, progressive congressional district in a VERY BLUE

state. I work in D.C., live in Maryland.

One thing we must do as progressives is understand the lay of the land. I'm sorry but there will be blue dogs in red and competitive states/congressional districts that we have to accept (FOR NOW). Right now the strategy should be to get as many Democrats as we possibly can into the House and Senate. As things change--as the changing demographics FORCE communities to become more progressive, we then target areas where we can run more progressives who are STRONG.

I have a story:

For many years, the congressional district next to mine (I live in Chris Van Hollen's district) attempted to rid itself of a notorious, corporate-backed Blue Dog Democrat name Al Wynn. The district he represented had some conservative Democrats in it, but the progressives were often lazy. However when they felt like it, rather than grooming liberal Democrats to go after Wynn, they'd choose these milquetoast, mild-mannered, weak Democrats, and Wynn would just crush them at the polls. And then, we had some progressive groups that would support Green Party candidates rather than liberal Democrats. Again, Al Wynn had no competition; he would beat his contenders to a pulp. He had the visibility, the charm, and of course, the corporate-backed financing.

Well, along comes an outstanding, resilent progressive Democrat. She lost to Wynn a few times. She had to come back once or twice, fighting hard. Each time, she shaved his margin of victory. The winds of change came in 2006 when she FINALLY beat Al Wynn. And she didn't just barely beat him. She MURDERED him! She beat him so bad, he decided to resign his seat rather than serve out the remainder of his term.

That young, progressive amazing Democrat? Her name is Donna Edwards!!! And like Alan Grayson, she is a liberal stalwart! Incredibly bright and very popular, she is dedicated to finding more progressives to run in the state of Maryland. Well, in 2012, we got our wish. We got rid of the last remaining Blue Dogs in this state. Maryland is becoming more progressive (see our Governor's agenda) and Bluer with every election. But, it took time. Change didn't come overnight. Progressives have won some here and lost some there.

If liberals could just learn to be more patient. Not complacent. Patient, while working hard and continuing to fight, that's our answer.

I applaud the work that Grayson and Donna Edwards are doing. They are doing the right thing and that strengthens the Progressive Caucus. Keith Ellison has done an outstanding job with the caucus as well.

However, we liberals have to realize that not every state is a Maryland, New York or Massachusetts. We'll have to accept some less progressive Democrats in order to be competitive in Red and Purple states. But we don't give up. That's the key. We continue to recruit good, progressive Democrats. For now, we strive to get MORE Democrats, regardless of ideological stripe.

But the more immediate concern are the state legislatures and the governorships. I understand how important Congress is, but that means nothing if the Republicans continue to dominate at the state and local levels. We need a grassroots-based strategy to attract, recruit and groom progressives at the state and local level. We groom them for higher office. That is what the Republican Party excels at. And that's why they're kicking our collective ass at the local level. We must do a better job at the local and state levels.

[Parable Arable]

19. Oh what a conicdence!

I too, am from Maryland... About an half an hours driving distance from D.C. to be exact. A pleasure to talk to a fellow Marylander on this site.

You bring up a good point about how the governorship are legislatures are a more immediate matter. That being said, there are a few Republicans in congress who I hope our party devotes specific time to getting rid of. McConnell, Cruz, Bachman, Ryan, Gohmert, and Rubio are all at the very top of that list.

[Cosmocat]

8. Spot on

People just don't get it.

There is NOTHING he could do, NOTHING that would make things any different.

He isn't perfect, but he is one man dealing with 535 other people.

About 100, maybe 150 for real democrats who will work for progressive legislation ...

280 republicans, absolutely NONE of which will break ranks with their party which has lost its damn mind ...

About 100 to 150 "democrats" who are what were once the moderates in either party, who won't do ANYTHING that might in any way shape or form in their scared little minds of losing their next election ...

[Hawaii Hiker]

20. FDR and LBJ also had bigger Democratic senate majorities than Obama does

In addition to the more liberal Republicans back in the day..

[JDPriestly]

29. Obama's first and biggest mistake was agreeing to Bush's bailout plan for the banks.

That was a trap. Everything has been pretty much downhill for Obama since then.

He lost his Democratic-majority House. He has not been able to bring his Justice Department to sue the bankers.

That has fixed him in the eyes not only of Wall Street and Congress, but also in the eyes of the country as "better than Romney," but not as good as FDR.

Here is how a similar situation -- a very similar situation -- was handled in 1932 and then by FDR.

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/06/pecora-201006

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

35. Agreed. That's what I wrote upthread. It is historically and factually incorrect for people to make

that comparison. It is even incorrect to compare Obama with Clinton. There were Republican moderates in the Senate, like Bob Dole (and back then, John McCain was considered a moderate), who worked with Clinton.

[JDPriestly]

26. But, let's assume that what you are claiming is true -- that there are not enough moderate

Republicans in Congress with whom to reach compromise.

Then why is Obama making such a show of trying?

Why did he offer the chained CPI?

Why doesn't he offer bold measures that the American people want and will support, especially in Southern and other states that vote conservative?

That would be a better tack.

Why isn't Obama out on the campaign trail right now, explaining to voters what is wrong with the GOP?

Obama should focus much more on 2014. He should push to get more time for really strong, appealing people like Grayson and Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on TV and in voter forums. He should be acting right now as though he is running for president once again -- because he is. If he doesn't get a better Congress in 2014, the whole country is sunk for a long, long, long time.

Obama needs to fight a lot harder than he has. Offering compromise does not work with this crew in Congress.

And most important, Obama needs to get rid of all the corporate low-lifes he has on his cabinet. He needs to support the truly progressive members of Congress and refuse to help the Blue Dogs that vote against him. He needs to get some party discipline on his side at this time. It is just deplorable that any Democrat voted against the rather week gun bill. If for no reason other than party loyalty, they should have voted for it.

I have to add that I would not have this rather rigid view were it not for the extreme rigidity in the Republican Party. They do not vote against the leadership of their party. Democrats need to be equally strong and hold their ranks.

[Parable Arable]

31. I agree with a lot of what you're saying but.....

President Obama won't fire those pro-business cabinet members. Although I don't fully buy into the "HE'S ON THE REPUBLICAN'S SIDE" meme, the man is not a progressive when it comes to economics, and he agrees with the economic philosophies of the men and women in his cabinet, until he's somehow convinced otherwise.

In the extremely unlikely event that he does have an about face, the removal of those cabinet would be a long process, I doubt he could replace them all without some sort of backlash from the Right wing.

My two cents basically are that Obama's negotiation tactics have two major flaws. The first is that for them to work, he'd have to be dealing with an actual political party. As Tomasky pointed out, the GOP is NOT governing like a party at this point.

The second flaw (though it could just as easily be interpreted as a strength), is that his tactics strike me as very adaptive to a situation. The man is extremely pragmatic and I get the sense that he thinks along the lines of "My party is full of moderates and the other is full of lunatics. By putting SS on the table, I alienate the progressives, but they are a minority. So by sacrificing SS, we either make a deal to get out of this sequester, or the GOP looks worse." Again, I don't agree with this line of thought, Obama is not this omniscient 12 dimensional progressive chess player. That being said, I think it's a bit extreme to claim that he dislikes middle America, or to say that he loathes progressives. The question I'd really like to ask, is how he'd go about negotiating if the Democratic party were made up of mostly progressives? Would he adapt them to fit the situation?

[JDPriestly]

32. how he'd go about negotiating if the Democratic party were made up of mostly progressives?

That's a problem, because the California Democratic Party is mostly made up of progressives. And I'm in California. We get the short end of things in many respects.

Our system works so that the loudest and meanest can bully the quietest and kindest. And Obama does not do a thing to counteract that. Some of our other presidents did. Clinton made huge mistakes, especially on economic policy, but at least he did not bully the left as much as Obama does.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. You make a lot of sense.

[DCBob]

7. He did beat them in November. This is different... its not a contest anymore.

He has to govern and take into consideration the entire nation.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. And again, when you're able to explain to me how he gets ANYTHING through Congress,

let's have that talk. He can't govern because governing requires cooperation from Congress. If the Republican House is basically saying that they won't do ANYTHING, what can he do? And he can't be like LBJ and get in Boehner's face. These Republicans come from safe districts. They are behaving exactly how their constituents want them to behave. So, threatening them does no good. They will not move. On anything!!

[DCBob]

12. I agree, this group of GOP congressmen are probably the most obstructionist in history.

I think the best approach is to try to get through to their constituents.

[JDPriestly]

33. He can't get liberal or progressive policies through Congress, but he could speak out in favor of th

much more loudly and more energetically support the candidates and movements that are really liberal and progressive.

[JoePhilly]

10. The GOP wants the government to do nothing. That is their strategic goal.

Unless they are in power. Then, government is a tool used to enrich themselves and their friends.

They are never interested in governing.

[dmosh42]

14. If the Dems were serious, they would have passed the filibuster reform in the Senate!

[Parable Arable]

15. I can forgive a lot of congressional slip ups from our party but......

I'm 100% with you on this count. I was incredibly disappointed that they didn't make a harder push for it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

16. I agree 100%!! Absolutely!!

[Cha]

21. Some Dems were.. others weren't. Is there a head count anywhere?

[Cosmocat]

22. The one thing I would note - the House

in real time, the GOP has a 20 or so seat edge in the House.

This is after a presidential election that saw a lot more Ds turn out than Rs in about a dozen key states that have been so gerrymandered it is ridiculous.

I live in PA. We had over 100,000 more votes for democratic congressman than republican congressman, and when the dust settled we have 6 democratic congressman and 12 republican congressmen.

Think about that a moment.

It was a good year for D vs R turnout, and they still managed to hold/get 2/3 of our 18 congressional seats.

The fact is, the House is very likely safely in the Rs hands for the next decade.

SO ...

You reform the filibuster, and the senate flips to the Rs ...

I have the same strong disregard for what is going on in the senate as anyone, but the fact is, even if it was reformed the senate was able to punch some meaningful things through, it would die at the House's door step. Meanwhile, if the senate flipped with a small R margin, all of a sudden they are going to be able put whatever crazy ass shit they come with on the President's - D or R desk.

Yes, they will probably do it if they get it themselves.

I am just saying, it changes NOTHING in the here and now.

[dmosh42]

23. As an example, if the Rs in the House HAD to vote on the 'background checks' bill, it might be...

a different result. There are more than 20 Repub votes in northern states where a no vote will have consequences!

[Cosmocat]

24. hardly

the House passes dozens of insane bills a month.

The Rs in the House are flat jackasses and they don't care, and again, because of gerrymandering have little to no concern for their jobs.

In fact, in the year 2013, their biggest concern is a primary challenge from the right!

Background checks don't move the needle one bit.

All the electoral energy is behind the guns rights folks, and very little with the people asking for even the most simple, common sense reform.

Please don't conclude I am fine with the way the filibuster is being used.

I am just saying, and it is painful.

But, there is likely a real pragmatic reason for it - again, keeping in mind that it would not likely keep Mitch McConnell from changing it at 12:01 the first day he was in charge with a 51 to 49 majority.

But, again, filibuster reform would do NOTHING to change what got passed in there here and now, it WOULD die in the House, and we will need turnout the likes of which we have not seen in a long time to flip the House back to D in the near future.

[Avalux]

25. There ain't no dealing with irrational, hysterical people.

That's what the GOP is - they lie, they ignore facts, they don't give a shit about anything except money and power. For the prize of being in control, they'd sacrifice each and every one of us. The end justifies the means.

And the media helps them promote their craziness at every turn.

Who on this earth would be able to 'beat' that? Not Obama, not any of us.

[treestar]

27. The voters put the House into the hands of an opposition party

to the one they gave the Presidency to.

That happens in our system. We don't have a parliamentary system. Our system is designed to make it hard to get things changed.

Which is why blaming the President is shooting self in foot for liberals and progressives. They ought to accept the reality - work for a Democratic House in 2014 and have the President's back in the meantime. When they blame the President, they undermine their own agenda.

[Pinup]

28. Could it be that...

there are still a majority of Americans who want/have conservative views ? For example, yes, I have seen the 90% poll about Americans wanting universal background checks, however, what is the context of the question and ultimate unintended (or intended) consequences ? If we want gun control, maybe we should just be honest about it and flat out call for the repeal of the 2nd amendment ? Maybe that's part of the reason things are getting blocked by the right in the government...just a thought ?

[JDPriestly]

30. Definitely not in California. The vast majority in California is Democratic.

We are liberal and progressive.

And we are 11.91% of the entire US population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

Another way to say it is that more than one out of every ten Americans lives in California.

Compare that to the next most populated state, Texas with only 8.04% of the US population.

There are enclaves of conservatism in California, but they are small.

We elected a Democratic governor and enough Democratic state senators and assembly representatives to enable Democrats to pass just about any legislation they want -- and, our tax revenues rose, our employment figures improved and we are benefiting from our democratic, Democratic government.

Conservatism is a failed policy. California is proving it. Prior to Jerry Brown, we had Republican governors Wilson, Deukmejian and Schwarzenegger. In between, a Democrat served for a very short time and was displaced by Schwarzenegger. That proved to be a huge, huge mistake for California. Rather than raise taxes, Schwarzenegger borrowed from his rich friends. The state was impossibly indebted. Our currrent tax surplus is dedicated in great part to improving our schools, but the rest will have to go to pay off Schwarzenegger's debts.

Conservatism is a fool's philosophy. It has never been shown to work well. Conservatives always land our country in some miserable economic straits. Never fails.