Why Everything Is Polarized Under Obama

[NJ Stinks]

Here's an interesting article fom the Washington Post on the causes of the deadlock in Washington under Obama. It doesn't tilt to either side of the aisle. But before I post the link, I just want to paste one paragraph. Mainly because the right here keeps saying Obama really doesn't want to change or alter the Bush tax cuts. The reason he hasn't so far is pasted below:

Those negotiations came during an unusually productive lame-duck session. McConnell and Biden worked out an agreement to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for two years. In return, the Republicans agreed to a payroll tax cut favored by the White House as a way to pump more money into the economy.

It's a fairly long article but makes for good Sunday morning reading between conventions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-did-not-change-washington-for-each-side-its-clear-whos-to-blame/2012/09/01/a15265a0-f45b-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_story.html

[Tom]

He is not a leader - he is a divider.
He has always blamed other and never once show a hint of leadership.

Simple.

[PaceAdvantage]

Someone answer me one question.

Are the only times a President gets things "done" is when their party has supermajorities in Congress?

Because when I point out (over and over again) how Obama's first two years in office had Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, and yet he couldn't seem to get anything he promised done (kill Bush tax cuts, kill Gitmo, etc), I'm always countered with this supermajority thing.

So I naively ask, did the only Presidents to accomplish anything throughout history rely solely on supermajorities?

Bush seemed to get things done (rightly or wrongly, doesn't matter in terms of this discussion). And yet, looking through Congressional composition during the Bush years, he NEVER HAD the kind of majority Obama enjoyed during his first two years.

So when do the excuses end?

[DRIVEWAY]

Someone answer me one question.

Has the only time any President in history has gotten things "done" is when their party had supermajorities in Congress?

Because when I point out (over and over again) how Obama's first two years in office had Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, and yet he couldn't seem to get anything he promised done (kill Bush tax cuts, kill Gitmo, etc), I'm always countered with this supermajority thing.

So I naively ask, did the only Presidents to accomplish anything throughout history rely solely on supermajorities?

Bush seemed to get things done (rightly or wrongly, doesn't matter in terms of this discussion). And yet, looking through Congressional composition during the Bush years, he NEVER HAD the kind of majority Obama enjoyed during his first two years.

So when do the excuses end?


When Obama had 60(supermajority) senators, it included more than one independent and contrarian viewpoint. Joe Lieberman alone could give you nightmares.

Ironically Obama ran in 2008 trumpeting that he would end division and promote inclusion in government. But armed with the supermajority, his administration barely gave lip service to republican inclusion. Obama sold out to Reid and Pelosi. They set the agenda/direction and Obama lead from behind.

Both the Clinton and Bush administrations negotiated with the opposition.
Welfare reform under Clinton and Medicare part D under Bush are clear examples of their skills. Yet both presidents regularly were criticized by their opposition.

Clinton and Bush were both reasonably well prepared to be President. Obama had almost no preparation and took a back seat to those more experienced.
The first two years Reid, Pelosi and Emmanuel ran the show. After the 2010 election, Obama lost both Pelosi and Emmanuel and Reid is incredibly divisive.

Say what you want about Bush, he had strong advisors and he listened and made decisions. Clinton was a rhode scholar with a strong inner circle and was not afraid to negotiate. Obama is inexperienced, surrounded by fools, a timid decision maker and afraid to negotiate honorably.

With a 16 Trillion dollar debt, God help us if Obama is re-elected.

[fast4522]

When half of the country detests a leader do not expect great things.

[ArlJim78]

here is Obama's reasoning for why he didn't work more with Republicans in his first term.



On CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday show, Jessica Yellin said (http://sotu.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/02/yellin-and-balz-on-campaign-2012/) she interviewed Obama for a forthcoming documentary and asked him why he did not do more outreach to Republicans in the beginning of his term to bridge the divides Obama often rails against.

Yellin said Obama told her one of the reasons he did not was because he wanted to spend more time at home with his kids and family.

“He was trying to spend some time at home with his family in the evenings and on the weekends,” Yellin said.


so essentially he was too busy with the kids to meet with Republicans.
I wonder if the interviewer asked him about the over 100 rounds of golf.
I guess that's also the reason why he wasn't able to lower the sea level, what with homework and all.
he has also been too busy for cabinet meetings, too busy to meet with his jobs council, but surprisingly not too busy to set a record number of fundraisers.

[boxcar]

here is Obama's reasoning for why he didn't work more with Republicans in his first term.


so essentially he was too busy with the kids to meet with Republicans.
I wonder if the interviewer asked him about the over 100 rounds of golf.
I guess that's also the reason why he wasn't able to lower the sea level, what with homework and all.
he has also been too busy for cabinet meetings, too busy to meet with his jobs council, but surprisingly not too busy to set a record number of fundraisers.

I'm thinking that if BO loses this election, he'll immediately file for unemployment benefits (claiming racists unfairly fired him) so that he can spend even more time with the kids.

Boxcar

[ElKabong]

Here's an interesting article fom the Washington Post on the causes of the deadlock in Washington under Obama. It doesn't tilt to either side of the aisle. But before I post the link, I just want to paste one paragraph. Mainly because the right here keeps saying Obama really doesn't want to change or alter the Bush tax cuts. The reason he hasn't so far is pasted below:

Those negotiations came during an unusually productive lame-duck session. McConnell and Biden worked out an agreement to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for two years. In return, the Republicans agreed to a payroll tax cut favored by the White House as a way to pump more money into the economy.

It's a fairly long article but makes for good Sunday morning reading between conventions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-did-not-change-washington-for-each-side-its-clear-whos-to-blame/2012/09/01/a15265a0-f45b-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_story.html

Enjoying the read, but Tom Freidman this morning put it best....'Where is the Americans' outrage at the obstruction, real or perceived?" It's as if the public in general back the idea of obstruction b/c the policies pushed forth might not be approved

Think about it...the Civil Rights bill gained backing b/c the public majority wanted it so....Tip O'Neill got onboard the Reagan train b/c he knew Aamericans backed Ronnie, not the post Carter Dem party line.....Clinton did a near 180 after the first mid terms of his service. He was smart enough to ride the tide of public opinion. He was smart enough to see his 1992 agenda was no longer what the public bought into, for whatever reasons

Now, Obama gets no great support for the pubs giving him The Heisman (stiff-arm so to speak). You have to know there's a reason for it. People aren't buying his bill of goods. If they did, the outrage would have the polls swung so far, Romney would be trying to win his home state to avoid a shutout like Mondale did