Yes, and the "impeach Clinton" talk started in his first term, like super early in his first term, the Republicans didn't have control of congress till halfway through his first term which was 1994, the same year that they enlisted Ken Starr to start the investigation that would eventually morph into the impeachment trial. They were on his ass from day one and, since he was actually pretty good at his job, he was still able to work with congress to get things done for the greater good of the country. Let's face it, Obama's no Clinton, he's just not that good when it comes to being an effective executive.
They can use the same excuse as the president, they can only pass things, if they can't get him to sign it then nothing gets done. It's why you need an executive that will be worth a damn and will find a way to work with congress despite political differences. That's certainly not the guy we've got in the executive now. It's not his fault, he's never been an executive before, he's always been a legislator and that's what he continued to act like. If he was just a random senator, his actions would be perfectly fine because you can get away with being a hard nosed idealistic blowhard when you are a legislator.....it just doesn't work when you are an executive that has to work with an opposition party.
Tea Party movement The movement began following Barack Obama's first presidential inauguration (in January 2009) when his administration announced plans to give financial aid to bankrupt homeowners. Following calls by Rick Santelli for a "tea party" by Chicago bond-dealers,[11][12] conservative groups coalesced around the idea of protesting against Obama's agenda and a series of protests took place, including the 2009 Taxpayer March on Washington. Supporters of the movement subsequently had a major impact on the internal politics of the Republican Party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement You only know your own biases
Was that really any different than the Gingrich led "Republican Revolution" of the 1994 election cycle that got momentum due to Hillarycare? Again, one of the big slogans thrown around was "Impeach Clinton and her husband too" Is that really any different than the "tea party" other than the name?
No they can't they make the policies if they are worth signing and will help all the people not just there friends maybe just maybe there would be more done by them.You keep wanting to fault Potus for not being his executive leader you like to think he isn't he's been better than a lot of the rest that have held the office.
My political leanings? I vote Libertarian as exclusively as the ballot allows. No, I'm not. Yes, absolutely. As observed one below your post, the Republican Congress under Clinton actually raised taxes in order to balance the budget. The GOP under Obama has voted the way Obama wanted ... I thought I'd come up with even one example while I typed that, but I can't remember anything substantive that the GOP has sided with Obama on. Yes, because the Republicans under Clinton understood that it is give and take, the Republicans under Obama actually told him that they wanted a "clean sheet of paper" with regards to the ACA after 14 months of policy formulation and debate. It takes two to compromise and I honestly can't think of any substantive concessions made by Republicans on anything. Agreed, but ignoring the side of the aisle which actually refused to compromise is just dishonest. Bullsh!t. Obama went to Republicans over and over again on a variety of issues, trying to get them to compromise repeatedly. They refused and you blame Obama for their refusal. Wow. 45 I'm old enough to have voted for Dubya's daddy. I was completely politically aware during the Clinton presidency and other than the ill-thought backfire of the impeachment, the Republicans were dramatically more willing to compromise. They raised taxes in return for welfare reform, for God's sake. The GOP under Obama hasn't put higher taxes on the table for anything, ever. Yes, I know several whose visceral hate for Bush is very nearly poisonous. Again, there are a number of issues the Democrats under Bush compromised on. Not so under Obama. Yes, as the GOP has done under Obama. How many votes to repeal Obamacare? Can you think of any area where the GOP has been willing to compromise? Yes, he picked a nine hour long ACA summit where he solicited the suggestions of every Republican who cared to give one. The only thing they said in that summit, to a man, was "clean sheet of paper." I do agree with Obama for soliciting the opinions and suggestions of Republicans, as he has done time and time again. He has bent over backwards to enlist their support in doing what is right for the country, only to be rebuffed every time. In 1994 (under Clinton), the Heritage Foundation put out a healthcare plan, the elements of which became the PPACA, it is truly remarkable how similar the two are. Less than 20 years later, not a single Republican voted for it. That doesn't indicate a party interested in compromise to me, it looks a lot like a party opposing absolutely everything a president tries to do. On issue after issue, Republicans had the chance to make a whole lot of legislation much better. Instead, they chose to ask for a "clean sheet of paper."
Yes, but the difference was that they were willing to work with him on policy while doing everything they could to smear him. The current Congress has all the smear, but none of the "willing to work with" Obama. Yes, but on the other side of that coin was a Congress willing to work with the president, which is utterly unlike the current Congress. This, I agree with. Obama is no Clinton. However, ignoring the one-sidedness of the relationship between this Congress and Obama is just plain dishonest. Clinton had a tango partner, Obama has had a bunch of high school mean girls.
When it comes to Clinton and Congress, they didn't work with him so much as he worked with them. He moderated his goals and they found middle ground. Obama wouldn't even consider it. Anyway, I don't expect everyone to understand that and it doesn't matter. I mean, Obama just barely got anything done when Democrats controlled both houses of congress because of how unwilling he was to compromise. Hell he had to bribe his own people with tons of pork just to get Obamacare through when he didn't need even one Republican vote to get it through. Hell it was about to fail until they added that pork in. He barely worked with a Democrat controlled congress and failed entirely to work with a Republican controlled congress. He's just not a good executive....even if we make excuses for him.
Wow. Agreeing to raise taxes was him working with them? Again, I'd ask you to point out an example of the Republicans moderating their goals and working with Obama to achieve them. I've cited a couple of examples of Obama's willingness, but can come up with exactly zero instances of the Republicans agreeing to or offering to compromise. Yes, for that whole six weeks. No, because of the fact that he had six weeks in which to pass his agenda, which he did. I specifically pointed out attempts made by Obama to have the Republicans contribute to that legislation. They didn't show any willingness to compromise at all, they asked for a "clean sheet of paper," repeatedly. Not just pork, he also issued an executive order prohibiting federal funds from being used on abortion. Abortion restrictions are not exactly the goals of liberals, I would say this would be a clear example of Obama being willing to compromise while Congress refuses. Feel free to cite a counterexample. Bullsh!t. We worked entirely with a Democrat controlled Congress because the Republicans refused to work with him in any way. Stop trying to deny reality. Certainly not the best executive, not the worst either. I'm not making any excuses for Obama at all, I'm just reflecting on the facts in evidence.
LOL yeah, Obama was grudgingly willing to compromise with a Democrat run congress.....i mean that should tell you all you need to know right there. As to Clinton and the "Congress raised taxes" bit that you keep coming back to, it was in exchange for welfare reform. You know, compromise. Anyway, I've always known that Obama people are blind in their support and that's fine, but this really isn't going anywhere.
Obama should really let Sasse write his speeches <iframe frameborder='0' width='512' height='330' scrollable='no' src='http://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c4566011'></iframe>
Perhaps you should let us in on how you know that an executive order to get around a provision which wouldn't pass a Democrat controlled Congress is "grudgingly willing" to compromise with Democrats. He went around Democrats in a pure giveaway to conservative interests. He did something he didn't want to do to secure the passage of the PPACA. You know, compromise. Yes, and as observed, several times, Obama has compromised or offered to compromise repeatedly. You're right, it isn't going anywhere because you can't seem to come up with a single example of Republican compromise, just repeated claims of Obama-based refusals without any support whatsoever. It isn't going anywhere because you're being dishonest.
Really? Bob Barr is awful. He pretended to be a Libertarian after a career as someone that Libertarians would hate. In fact, he pledged to end the Bob Barr act or Defense of Marriage Act that was signed by Bill Clinton (you know, when he was working with the Republicans) if he was elected president. Most Libertarians didn't support him actually, myself included. Odd that you did, are you sure you didn't just Google who the Libertarian party ran those years in order to not have to admit voting for Obama? I mean, it's cool if you did.
You're the one being dishonest in this thread, not me. Why did you change the subject again? That's right, to avoid having to come up with a single example of Republicans compromising with Obama. Some people claim to be libertarian, I actually vote that way.
The current Tea Party started when Obama took office. Under a different name - no bobby, even today Republican don't think that way. Trump level of willful ignorance here. The Republican party worked with Clinton for BOTH spending cuts and tax raise. The tea party is completely different from that Republican party as they have stated they would not have entertain any amount of tax raises and have done exactly that. Another Trump level of willful ignorance here. Bringing up Trump makes perfect sense. He represent the worse of the Republican and THE CURRENT Republican party. Everyone, and I mean EVERY FREAKING one keep on saying it's a temporary thing, including me. And I still think that way, but the longer his support is sustained, the more I think the Republican party has truly gone insane. You really want to compare today Republican party to the Republican party under Clinton? One more Trump level of thinking.
People who were actually Libertarian wouldn't vote for someone simply because they were running as the Libertarian party candidate. That's a Republican and Democrat type thing to do. Anyway, back on topic, you can blame whomever you like, but the simple fact is that there was a complete failure to govern while Obama was president due to a lack of cooperation between the executive and legislative branches. It's the job of the executive to make sure that happens and he failed. Other more qualified presidents in the past have managed to get by working with opposition run congresses, this one failed. Make all the excuses in the world for why he failed, but you can't deny it happened. Hopefully whoever comes next is less of an ideologue and more of an effective executive, no matter which party they come from, so that things can get moving. The reason this conversation usually goes nowhere is because ideologues like Obama are incredibly polarizing. If you like their ideology, you think they did great, if you don't like their ideology you won't. That was really where this conversation started actually. Talking about how this president was polarizing and divisive more so than anything else.
