Why no fight?

[tomkoop]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by ellisonz (a host of the Democracy for America group).

I see the democratic party falling in line once again when it comes to being wimps on the playing field of United States politics. The repigs bark and the demowimps run away with their tails between their legs. Fighting for the common good of our citizens must not be in the hearts of our duly elected officials because they always cave to the special interests of money under the table politics. The powerbrokers of citizens against freedom for all shove money into the faces of our so called representatives and they lose all interest in fighting for the citizens.

Money is speech. Money talks. "If you aint got money, you aint shit". How is your life going w/o money?

Harry Reid and his band of chickenshit greedsters need to live on the streets broke for one year!! Obama too!!

Then maybe, just maybe they would grow a pair and put away their wallets.

[BlueCaliDem]

1. I agree with you on Reid and the Congressional Democrats

but I don't agree with you on President Obama who had to face a similarly chickensh*t congress of Dems who have not been very interested in changing the status quo and helping him, and together with "their friends across the aisle", have stonewalled President Obama every which way.

The President is only as strong as his Congress. Let's try not to forget that.

[aspirin28]

2. Reply to BlueCali

Cali,
We had it for two years, cloture-guaranteed and practically filibuster-proofed for 17 months... and he concentrates on Health Insurance instead of the corporatist tax code?!? And even then, NO PUBLIC OPTION?!?!? I wish Dennis K would have put up a primary challenge. He didn't have a chance but we'd at least be able to grab His ear away from assholerod and the other cynics.

[shcrane71]

4. Welcome to DU!

[JoePhilly]

5. You are wrong. They had a filabuster proof majority for about 14 weeks.

Well, let's at least get our history straight. Until Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, the Democratic caucus in the Senate stood at 59. After that it was technically up to 60, but Ted Kennedy hadn't cast a vote in months and was housebound due to illness. He died a few weeks later and was replaced by Paul Kirk on September 24, finally bringing the Democratic majority up to 60 in practice as well as theory. After that the Senate was in session for 11 weeks before taking its winter recess, followed by three weeks until Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat in the Massachusetts special election.

So that means Democrats had an effective filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks. Did they squander it? I guess you can make that case, but there's a very limited amount you can do in the Senate in 14 weeks. Given the reality of what it takes to move legislation through committee and onto the floor (keeping in mind that the filibuster isn't the minority party's only way to slow things down), I think you might make the case, at most, that a single additional piece of legislation could have been forced through during that period. But probably not much more than that. Democrats basically had a filibuster-proof majority for about three months. That's just not very long.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/about-filibuster-proof-majority

Sad to see some one on DU who does not know this.

[SoutherDem]

7. Thank you for pointing that out.

I started to do so but chose to go in a different direction, please read my reply to the OP. This is a fact that is often overlooked.

[freshwest]

9. A lot of people don't and will bash the ones who point it out. Thanks for the link.

[JDPriestly]

12. The problem is that Obama does not know how to use his authority

to authorize actual expenditures for programs in specific areas to gain political leverage over recalcitrant legislators.

Obama can order drone strikes, set up a hit-list of believed terrorists, but he can't exert any financial or political leverage over members of Congress who barely got elected and are unwilling to work for the good of the American people?

No. That's just bad politics, bad use of the bully pulpit and powers of the president.

[JoePhilly]

13. You may want to take a civics class.

Obama is CIC, he can decide on where and when to use drones, but he can not simply change the financial system.

And when he uses the "bully pulpit" his critics scream "pretty words!!!".

[emulatorloo]

8. Romney made the same claim as you did just the other day

It isn't true.

See:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206060023

Will The Media Fact-Check Romney's Latest Whopper Accusing Obama Of Knowingly Slowing Down The Recovery?
June 06, 2012 7:40 pm ET by Jeremy Holden

Byron York, the chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner, is amplifying Mitt Romney's discredited allegation that President Obama knowingly slowed down the economic recovery because he favored health care reform.

This Romney falsehood is based on a distortion of comments reported in the book The Escape Artists: How Obama's Team Fumbled the Recovery, by The New Republic's Noam Scheiber. The actual comments make clear that the White House has always rejected the dubious claim that it could not focus on economic recovery and health care reform at the same time.  

More at link.

On edit: I forgot! Welcome to DU!

You are going to like it here.

[Vincardog]

10. Welcome to DU aspirin.

[shcrane71]

3. Welcome tomkoop!

[SoutherDem]

6. I am not disagreeing with you nor agreeing

Quick thought experiment.

Let us say they "grow a pair" that would make an elephant proud. They pushed every issue the liberals/progressives want. Yes, we would have everything we want. You name it we have it. The congressional print shop couldn't have printed bills fast enough to get them to the president to sign. We now live in a beautiful America. We have put the Republicans in their place. Great right?

Now, let us move to November 2010. Remember the ink wouldn't have been dry on some of those new laws, we wouldn't have had time to see the results, but everyone would know how Obama and crew pushed their "liberal agenda".

How would the 2010 mid-terms been different? Would America have been appreciative that their voice has finally been heard and keep the Democratic majority in office? Or, would they feel the Republicans were right and once Democrats had total power pushed every thing they wanted and Republicans would have been give a filibuster proof majority and one large enough to over ride Obama's veto?

Look forward to November 2012. Once again will America be appreciative and keep Obama? Or, would America be pissed off and give Romney a landslide?

As I said I am not taking sides I am just playing a thought experiment.

[JoePhilly]

11. Saw your response to my other post ...

I struggle with this thought experiment for a different reason. And that reason is the 6-8 blue dogs in the Senate.

Let's take the ACA. There is no way Lieberman (Independent Senator from Aetna) was going to vote YES for a public option. Even if the other 7 blue dogs did (which they would not).

The sad reality is that even when we had 60, we didn't have a reliable 60. We had a reliable 53 or so.

Also ... the GOP strategy is pretty clear. Their view of government works like this.

1) When we are in charge, we use the mechanisms of government to enrich our friends.
2) When we are out of power, we do everything we can to bring the government to a stand still.

Now ... if the Dems had been able to ram through everything they wanted, Obama would win easily, because the lives of average people would improve.

Its interesting to hear the GOP scream that because they won the House in 2010, "elections have consequences" ... and yet when the Dems won the WH, the House, and the Senate ... the GOP did everything they could to BLOCK the consequences of the 2008 election.

Weird how that works.

[SoutherDem]

14. I remember the good ole days of Tip O'Neal

He and Reagan had their issues but they did work together. I didn't always liked the compromises, but they did compromise.

I also, remember Clinton allowing the government to shut down. Which was a risk but worked.

Now we have gridlock. Is it time for another shut down?

[JoePhilly]

15. Good question.

I think the current gridlock is almost a shut down now.

The GOP won't approve judges. Obama struggles to appoint replacements for Bush cronies because they can't get through the process. Obama and the dems pass legislation, the GOP house blocks funds for it.

The debit deal last summer came close to a shut down ... and the GOP blinked in the end. I can see that happening again.

The GOP will attack Obama endlessly, but they really have nothing to offer beyond that. Its not like they can propose some great idea that most Americans will think will help the economy. Their only tool is the "tax cut" ... and the majority of Americans understand that tax cuts for the rich have not worked in the past.

[ellisonz]

16. "How is your life going w/o money?"

Fuck that shit. Into the wild!