Was Obama using His Popularity a Viable Option

What's been disappointing about Obama to you?

 

OK, I looked for a thread to put in my opinion about what appears to be the looming Cave by President Obama on letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the richest 3% of Americans, saving the country several hundred billions of dollars for the next ten years or so. Yes, it appears that Obama is going to do some kind of "deal" with the Republicans. Essentially, from what I'm hearing, it's "We'll do what you want if you'll extend unemployment insurance for several million American families, which will not only help them, but help the economy. Oh, and pass the new START treaty" It will be touted as a "temporary" extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. We've seen how those "temporary" things work, haven't we? As in you give them an expiration date at some point in the future, and then you don't let them expire, calling doing so a "tax increase," which is absurd.

If the President does this, I'm going to be one really pissed off Democrat. He should fight this, dammit, and show the country he has some backbone. I'll be waiting to see if he does. I'm not holding my breath. And I'll add this... if he does cave on this issue, I'll be looking seriously at any viable alternative during primary season. Frankly, I don't expect to see a viable alternative. It would be much better if the man fought for his agenda. He would be doing the country a favor in the process.

 

Dems have every right to be ticked off at Obama on the tax cut extension issue. But if IIRC, the major part of the problem was congressional or senatorial Dems not wanting it addressed until after the election.

 

I sincerely hope I'm reading this wrong. If he caves in on this, I won't be the only Democrat royally pissed off, and I won't be blaming Democrats in Congress. Obama can fight this. Does he have the backbone to do it?

 

Obama the gutless, maddingly plodding, or secret semi-conservative has one chance of being reelected. Palin takes the GOP nomination and finally becomes so annoying that Obama squeaks by and defeats her as the lesser of two evils.

He is a nice guy. He should have remained a professor or perhaps a speech writer. He can't relate to the average person or can't project that he can. He seems to have an exagerated sense of self confidence that makes it hard for him to change direction. He could have been an ok president for a time of bi-partisan contentment when things were going pretty well-- a time when a mild mannered mid manager type was sufficient. This type of criticism was made of him early on by those not that unfriendly to him and it seems spot on.

Could a more progressive Obama have won? We will never know as he never tried aside fromm a few speeches that now totally seem false advertising. I know an argument can be made that this health bill was ok and starting in 2014 will help a significant number of Americans. However, it just kicked the can down the road when it comes to American actually being able to pay for the rising premiums it will require them to pay. Probably the last gasp of the doubly or triple for profit insurance "industry".

Obama lost the white vote nationwide except in the 18 to 29 age cohort. Can he kindle some enthusiasm among the young voters with the push he is bound to make cynical pol fashion in the few months before his reelection? I wouldn't know, but I think the whole cool black guy image thing has worn off and he won't be able to turn them on again without some actual audacity or reason to hope, which there is no evidence he is capable of on the presidential stage . Americans as a whole did not vote for the seemingly hip dude because they wanted a cautious small ball type of approach.

I am reminded of one recount that the liberal students at the U of Chicago law school were excited about the hip black dude who was new and taught courses with exciting names like 'civil rights', but were mostly disapointed as he played the cautious conventional law professor (and that is not the only way to play it) "on the one hand we have the argument that the 14th amendment made all equal on the otherhand we have the argument that......"

 

obama is a big fat p***y as are the rest of the democrats. that is all. this week is a perfect example of that. they talk about compromising with the republicans on the bush tax cuts when the republicans say they will procedurely block any legislation that isn't to their liking. that's like telling your cheating wife that you want to work it out, go to counseling, and meanwhile, she's telling you about the threesome she had with the neighbor and the pizza boy.

 

Groogrux, I resent the "as are the rest of the Democrats." Hell, if anything, we're fractured and don't walk in "lock-step" at all. That's what the Republicans do and if one or some don't, they seem to either get tossed to the back of the party bus, or lose their primary. I don't want that kind of Democratic Party. I like to hear dissenting voices. What's driving me crazy is the leadership of the party, from the President down to the leaders in Congress. On the state level, there are those who fight the good fight, but similar problems occur there, as well. In my opinion, it all starts at the top. If the President would come out swinging, and mean it, he could do a lot to reverse the sudden rot dragging down a party that was on top of the American poitical world only two years ago. Yes, it starts at the top. Far past time for Mr. Obama to wake up and smell the proverbial coffee. If he doesn't, he's going to see serious opposition in the primaries moving into the next election cycle, something he and the party don't need. He wouldn't lose in the primaries, but it wouldn't help him win in the general, unless it forced him to grow a backbone and take on the Republicans in Congress, really take them on. Better to do so now, instead of waiting. There in lies disaster, in my opinion.

So earn that support, Mr. President. Shed the "bipartisan" cloak you've been hiding behind and that has the Republicans snickering, even out in the open as you make yet another in an stream of endless pleas for "bipartisanship." They aren't interested in being bipartisan. If the last two years haven't taught you that by now, I'm damned near speechless. (not quite!)

 

i should've clarified that i meant the leadership.

 

No problem. I figured that you meant that, but too many here might not have.

 

I brought this up in another thread but this goes back to what Obama was elected for.

Back during the primaries I asked ardent Obama supporters what "Change" meant and I got a variety of answers the two most common ones were, "he is going to get a liberal agenda passed" and "he is going to change the tone in Washington." I pointed out at that time that in many ways those were mutually exclusive since it is unlikely that Republicans or even conservative Dems were just going to be so cowed by Obama's aura that they would just go along and cooperate with Obama and Dems. In response I heard that Obama was a transformative candidate and as evidence they pointed out how many Red states he won during the primaries, forgetting of course that these were Democratic primaries in red states.

I hate to say "I told you so" (actually I love to say "I told you so") but that is pretty much what happened. Obama tried to change the tone in Washington but the Repubs and Dems like Blanche Lincoln weren't buying it. He then figured out that if you are going to get a legislative agenda passed you have to do it the GW Bush, LBJ and etc. way by enforcing party discipline, cutting back room deals and sticking it to the opposition. Basically going back to the old tone of Washington. It took him about 8 months to figure that out but eventually he did and got health care passed.

It seems to me though that many of those who supported Obama now are feeling buyer's remorse well again as I and others said during the campaign that we really didn't know that much about Obama, he could be Lincoln or he could be Carter. As it turns out he is closer to Carter than he is Lincoln and its not surprising to me that he came in naive and has had a steep learning curve. As it turns out experience does matter and for all of Obama's brilliance he was a candidate with only 4 years experience at the national level when he was elected.

All of that said I don't regret my vote for Obama in the general and continue to support him. He has made some bad mistakes but has done something that no Democrat since LBJ did, pass health care reform, and many of his problems are not his fault. I think he is learning and I think he will be reelected, an opposition Congress is often a good thing politically. That said I have little sympathy for those Obama supporters buyer's remorse especially those believing that he would enact a progressive revolution. Frankly I think many people bought into the hype of "Hope and Change" without considering how nebulous that message really was or considering historically the challenges that an inexperienced President would face.

 

Hilarious thread is hilarious

I am not saying anything you guys are saying is wrong
but . . .it is good to see some FIRE in the democratic base
Tire of TAKING IT!

when he had both sides of the congress
he should have RAMMED SOME ISHT down the throat
now . . . .

Rocket River

 

Did you see where 85 year old Jimmy Carter paid a visit to Obama and tried to tell him to buck up and stop with the weak bi-partisan fantasy?

 

That pretty much sums things up. Could you forward it to the President?

 

Why don't you explain in better detail what we're supposed to "get?" Some of us don't "get it." Apparently, I'm disagreeing with pretty much everyone on parts of the issues surrounding Obama, the midterms, and the expectations so many of us had (and didn't have) when he came into office, based on his campaign for that office. Yes, he got a health care bill passed, thank goodness, and it has a lot of good in it. It also lacks a lot of what many Democrats and progressive independents hoped for, but overall, it's a plus. However, that wasn't the sole reason large numbers of us voted for him. It wasn't the sole reason I voted for him, nor the main reason.

If forced to name a "main reason," which I really don't want to say (there being so many reasons to elect a Democratic President over the far right candidates of the current GOP), but will if such a statement is needed, that reason is one I have said here time and time again, whether Obama or another Democratic candidate was elected President. The appointment of lifetime Federal judges. Judges on the district courts across the country. Judges on the 13 US Court of Appeals. Of course, the vastly more important judges on the Supreme Court. That, more than anything except the security of the United States and the financial health of this country, the two things that insure the safety and viability of the nation for its people, is the single most important duty of a US president, in my opinion.

Why? National security is self evident. We must protect the country from its enemies, and that includes supporting our allies, because that has a direct effect on that security, putting aside what I see as a moral duty to do so. The financial health of this country, because that insures the well being of our citizens and citizens of other states around the globe, vital in today's deeply interconnected world. And the appointment of the federal judges, appointed for life, who insure our reason for being, the cause of the creation of the republic... the rights of our citizens and the interpretation of the laws that govern those rights.

Obama has done a better job on national security than the man he replaced, a man who did more to damage national security that any President in decades. While I disagree with some of his decisions, overall, I approve. The financial health of the country? The President has done what he could reasonably do, considering the incredible disaster left to him by George W. Bush, much of that disaster caused by Bush's decision to invade and occupy a nation that was not a clear and present danger to the United States, a decision that has had a huge negative impact on both the security of this country and its financial health. Has he made mistakes? Sure, but the problems were and are so huge that that was inevitable.

What he hasn't done is get those lifetime federal judges nominated and confirmed in any numbers one could reasonably expect over the last two years. Sure, he replaced two Supreme Court judges. While I might have preferred different choices than the ones he made, I can only cringe when I think of those his opponent in 2008 would have made. But that is only the two Supreme Court openings. This is from a recent column in the Los Angeles Times, written by two lawyers, a Democrat and a Republican, who serve on the 9th Circuit Advisory Board. They have a particular reason for concern with this issue. I'll add that excerpt after the longer excerpt below.

Vacant federal judgeships threaten our judicial system. It's time for the president and the Senate to act.

Op-Ed
December 03, 2010|By Eric M. George and William H. Neukom

A vacancy crisis threatens our federal judiciary. With 108 open trial and appellate court positions across the country — nearly twice the number that existed when President Obama took office — our federal courts are suffering from a near-record 12% vacancy rate.

The consequences are grave. Widespread vacancies delay proceedings and expand court dockets; inadequate judicial resources imperil criminal prosecutions and cause civil proceedings to lag; and overburdened judges are hard-pressed to give each case the attention it deserves. In short, the promise of justice remains undelivered to the constituents our federal courts are intended to serve.

Tackling this crisis should be easy and nonpartisan. The president nominates; the Senate votes whether to confirm. But that simple two-step isn't happening.

Since Obama took office, a mere 41 federal judges have been nominated and confirmed to the country's federal district and appellate courts. Why so few? It is not because of too careful an exercise of diligence by the president, or of the advise and consent process by the Senate. Rather, the president has been too slow to make nominations and the Senate too slow to schedule confirmation votes.

As a result, the average time lower federal court vacancies have been pending is a whopping 516 days. By contrast, from 1977 to 2003, it took on average fewer than 90 days to fill vacant judgeships.

Combine this statistic with the increased number of federal judicial positions and the extent of the epidemic becomes alarming. Between 1981 and 2008, Congress acknowledged the inadequacy of judicial resources and twice increased the number of federal judgeships. During this same period, the vacancy rate, which in the past was on average about 5%, more than doubled.

Things are likely to get worse. The Justice Department, assuming a modest increase in judgeships to stay apace of caseload growth and factoring in the age of current federal judges, estimates that annual vacancies will increase from about 43 to 60 positions in the coming decade. Absent some dramatic change, we are on a trajectory whereby half the seats on the federal district and appellate courts could become vacant.

............................

(the issue driving the two lawyers to write this column)

California has been hit particularly hard. The federal region encompassing California and eight surrounding states — known as the 9th Circuit — is hobbled by no fewer than 18 current vacancies out of 142 authorized district and appellate judgeships, a vacancy rate that matches the national average. (One position has remained vacant nearly six years.)

The president has so far failed to nominate candidates for eight of the open seats, including four designated as judicial emergencies, while the Senate has failed to act on 10 nominations the president has made. Only seven judges have been both nominated and confirmed to the 9th Circuit courts since Obama took office. In the Eastern District of California, existing vacancies have contributed to each judge carrying nearly twice the average caseload. Similarly, at the appellate level, each 9th Circuit opening meets the definition of a judicial emergency because the current caseload per judge is already so high.

...........................

Their ideas for doing something about this crisis? From the column:

This is unacceptable. The Constitution ingeniously created a judiciary constituted by, but independent from, the executive and legislative branches. That mechanism has broken down, largely because the health of a coequal branch of government is viewed as less important than political gamesmanship. Yet Americans have two centuries of history that show that presidents and Senates led by different political parties can effectively carry out the constitutionally prescribed nomination and confirmation processes.

Two concrete measures would begin reversing the vacancy crisis.

First, a number of district and appellate court nominees in the 9th Circuit, and even more nationwide, have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and forwarded to the full Senate for confirmation. During this lame-duck session, the Senate should hold a confirmation vote for these nominees. Each plainly deserves a timely up-or-down decision.

Second, the president should pledge to make nominations within 120 days of judicial positions becoming vacant. Correspondingly, the Senate should pledge action — confirmation or rejection — within 120 days thereafter. Two-thirds of a year (240 days) affords two branches of our government ample time for deliberative action to ensure that the third can fulfill its constitutional role.

The executive and legislative branches need to put political differences aside and remember that though political parties wax and wane in power, the people need a functioning, fully staffed judiciary. Litigants don't care who nominated or confirmed the judge to whom their dispute is assigned; they want judges qualified by intellect, diligence and sound temperament.

Eric M. George, a Republican, and William H. Neukom, a Democrat, are lawyers who serve on the 9th Circuit Advisory Board.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/03/opinion/la-oe-georgeneukum-judges-20101203

The President has been very slow in nominating people to fill vacant Federal seats in the judiciary. The Democratically controlled Senate has been very slow in confirming those nominations he has made. This is a national problem, not simply a problem in California, and it is exasperating beyond belief. Some will point to unprecedented delay and opposition to the President's appointments by Republicans in the Senate, but rarely has there been this level of delay and opposition, and the President has not used his "bully pulpit" to make this a national issue. Perhaps he felt other things were more important. Perhaps he was preoccupied. Perhaps he wanted to "be nice" to the Democratic Senate leadership, and their Republican counterparts. Perhaps, astonishing, if it were true, he feels that it's a problem not important enough to "raise hell" about. The fact remains that his appointments have been delayed and blocked and, inexcusable, in my opinion, he's been "too busy" to make appointments. The number of vacant seats, seats for which the President has not even named a replacement for, is rediculous.

But I'm sure this is just "b****ing."