That's not really true, they still had a majority in the House, one person missing doesn't change that. Also, in your analogy, it's important to remember that this is now the 3rd congress or team that he's had to work with. He failed to work with the 111th congress that his party had full control of and he's failed to work with the 112th and 113th congress even worse because his party doesn't have full control. Very little has been accomplished because this president has been unwilling to compromise with those that don't agree with him....even those in his own party. Since he's been in office there has been a real "my way or the highway" attitude and it should come as a shock that the congress has picked the highway more often than not. That kind of stance is great for rhetoric and exciting your base, but it's awful for the country and it shows why we probably should have gone with a president that had at least some executive experience. Obama makes a very good Democrat Senator, but he's been a fairly lousy president. We've had quite a couple bad presidents in a row now, it's time for us to end the madness in this upcoming presidential election and get someone in there better.
WTH people. There are 3 branches of government and they are designed to be a check on each other. Of course there are dependency, but each has the capability to solely do what they are there to do. Congress fail to do it parts and is viewed as horrible, rightfully so. Deflect blame all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they are responsible for their own abysmal rating due to their own performance and style of governing. Too bad they know by now that there is no real accountability to their horrendous performance through voting the majority of them back in... so why would they change. Term limits should seriously be considered for such a horribly performing government body. (the real problem is they don't work for the American people... they work for interests and for their party)
Worst poster on the board, that's clear -- bigpuffery. He doesn't even correctly remember quotes ("Uniter not divider" was one of GWB's rallying cries http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/29/se.01.html) and regularly posts his parroting of Fox "News" content without an ounce of critical thought.
This is where you show your partisanship. Obama bent over backwards to try and reach across the aisle and work with the opposition, only to get rebuffed at every turn. Repeating a lie over and over again doesn't make it true, it just makes you a liar along with all the rest of the idiots who tell it.
As an aside, they only had a filibuster proof majority for six weeks, between Al Franken taking his seat and Ted Kennedy dying. That isn't exactly a ton of time to get things passed, but he still got the ACA through, to this nation's benefit.
Each Congress will get worse until we take the legalized bribery tof buying elections that allows special interests to block Congressional action.
This presumes congress' ability to pass bills -something it currently lacks, entirely due to one party.
I'm pretty sure it was Serbian genocide they treated as a distraction, we were a little too embarrassed with the aspirin factory bombing to go full bore after Islamic terrorists yet. Plus I think back then it just seemed like something Israelis had to deal with.
"Worst congress ever" is the rallying cry of a failed presidency. Can't let dear leader take any blame after all. Not a failed Presidency you cry? Well, check the polls over the last 18 months. It's not pretty. In the meantime, I could just as easily talk about what bills have been presented to Harry Reid (or prior to 2011 to Nancy Pelosi as well) by Republicans that he/she wouldn't even put to a vote. But that doesn't matter either. It's the nature of the beast. In a way, its proving your point...but remember Congress is made up of both parties. They both share blame for "do nothing". And if you want to remember a REALLY hostile Congress...look no further than Nixon in 1973-74. Now THAT was a Congress focused on only one thing. But it doesn't matter. People won't remember what congress did. That's why the President gets the big desk, nice house and bully pulpit. That's why they talk about Presidential legacies not Congressional legacies. Getting Congress together on anything in any time is equivalent to herding cats. That's why the best Presidents in history were those that were able to bring about consensus. Obama is not and never will be a President that does this. Do the Republicans share the blame on not getting things done? Sure of course they do. It's not surprising. That's because they have a constituency to answer to. And the voters that put THEM individually into office definitely didn't want them to just give in to Obama and Democrats. So, they vote to obstruct Obama on many issues...just like Congress has done since the founding of the republic. I'm sure this will change no minds. But I find the finger pointing at politicians being politicians hysterical. And even more so, the most heavily partisan posters here complaining about the "do nothings" would be hysterical if it weren't so ironic. People who won't give an inch complaining about the other guy who won't give an inch. SMH.
What I despise is people describing my positions as if I would not "give an inch" when it is ONE party that is absolutely refusing to compromise under any circumstances. I am completely willing to make reasonable compromises, I am perfectly happy for my Congressmen to do so as well. There is only one party at the present moment completely refusing to do so, but you seem to want to blame the president for that, even after he has repeatedly been smacked down after offering to compromise. Disingenuous, thy name is TheresTheDagger.
You really haven't been paying attention have you? FAUX maybe. The thread is about Congress and you want to deflect it to the President? It's an executive not legislative position. Just look at the history of The Jobs Bill, he really could not have done more to get the GOP to help people. The GOP clearly started before his inauguration that they would in no way work with this President on any issue. It wasn't a negotiation technique, it was a statement of their pyrrhic strategy to stymie any hope and change, America be damned, in an effort to regain power by demonizing the President. It's a sad statement about politics in our nation suitable for some Machiavellian dark ages novel, not the beacon of democracy and hope for the planet. And, the power the people have lost to the corporate manipulator's of perception is never coming back. Proud?
I think this is a good pointm and reminds me that I really expect very little where it comes to ethical behavior and love of country when it comes to any politician. But even so, I still think this is the worst Congress I've ever seen. It's probably not them. It's probably the changing dynamics of the political landscape that degrades the efficacy of the governing body. But it still sucks, whatever the reason is.
you could talk about all of these things, but the rest of us would refer to empirical evidence indicating how you are wrong. Placed in the context of all the congress' to come before it, the scale of dysfunction starting in 2009 is unprecedented. This is mostly due to one thing, as Ornstein and Mann have demonstrated.
I think you can see from above that it is the liberals that will argue that they are right and that anyone not agreeing with them is an obstructionist. I think we should all just give up on this whole system and let Obama take up the Crown.
Yes, most opinion polls show this to be true. While most people despise Congress they don't despise their representative and most will be reelected overwhelmingly. I agree and good post. One more thing I would add is that Gerrymandering has greatly exacerbated the ideological gridlock in Congress. Creating ideologically dominated districts mean that in many cases that representatives not only have little incentive to compromise to win election they also have to fear that if they do compromise they will get beaten in a primary by an opponent even more ideological than they are.
Can you point out instances where Republicans have offered to compromise with Obama and what those offers were?
There you go again with your bias BS how can he get anything united with the way the GOP keeps blocking everything he tries to do.
