freeman3 wrote:Sass has it right , I think. RJ, when you say tack back to the center what specific policies would he need to do? And DF what popular bills are you referring to ?The only thing. I could think of was corporate income tax rates. Here's the thing: if Republicans want to get things they like then they have to give the president things that he wants. If they are unwilling to compromise because of principle, that's fine, but who's going to get blamed if there is gridlock over the next two years? Obama is a lame-duck president and Republicans control the House and Senate so the answer is pretty clear--Republicans. It's not whether Obama goes back to the center, it's whether Rrpublucans are willing to make deals. And,yes, that means doing things they would rather not do. I think Sass is right,however, and Democrats are well-set up for 2016.
Negotiate, compromise, make deals--hopefully,that describes Republicans hence forth--but I doubt it.

Jenkins said that in the "do-nothing Senate," there are 352 House bills "sitting on Harry Reid’s desk awaiting action," including 55 introduced by Democrats.

In some cases, committee chairs -- not Reid -- may be blocking or moving slowly on these bills. In other cases, senators are working on their own alternative bills on the same topic. Meanwhile, the claim oversells the degree of bipartisanship in the House; a majority of the Democratic-sponsored bills she cites are relatively minor pieces of legislation.

Ultimately, Jenkins places all the blame on the Democrats and the Senate, but experts agree that it takes two to tango. Both parties and chambers have played a role in creating the current legislative dysfunction. On balance, we rate the claim Half True.

They have committed to fighting a minimum wage increase even though over 80% of Americans are in favor of an increase.

“And we’re not going to be debating all these gosh darn proposals. That’s all we do in the Senate is vote on things like raising the minimum wage [inaudible]—cost the country 500,000 new jobs; extending unemployment—that’s a great message for retirees; uh, the student loan package the other day, that’s just going to make things worse, uh. These people believe in all the wrong things.”

In late April, Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, successfully filibustered a bill to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, a widely popular measure that would increase wages for at least 16.5 million Americans. Earlier in the year, McConnell also led a filibuster of a three-month extension of unemployment insurance to some 1.7 million Americans. At one point in the negotiations, he offered a deal to extend unemployment only if Democrats agreed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, even though the ACA does not add to the federal deficit.

freeman3 wrote:Yeah,George, that statement was pretty cynical. It seems to me, however, that we have some systemic issues in our society that make that statement mostly true. First of all, the elites in our society are taking too much wealth and we seem to have no mechanism for stopping it. Obama did not even try to get single-payer because of opposition of health insurance companies and big Pharm. After the financial crisis we gave a lot of money to the people that caused the crisis and were unable to get either get rid of banks that were too big to fail or institute necessary minimum capital requirements so we will probably have a repeat at some point in the future. Citizens United has exacerbated the problem of money in politics (or "soft" legal corruption of Congress)

The reason ( I think ) Obama is not popular even though the economic stats are mostly good is that most people are not happy with how things are going in their own life. And that is a lot to do with our government not restraining the top few percent from taking too much of the wealth and paying too little taxes. That's what wealthy elites do in every country until there is a middle-class that demands a more equitable distribution. Now, we already went through that period where a rising middle-class was able to effect a more equable wealth distribution but we are in a post- class period where there is no group countering the interests of the wealthy . We are all supposed to get rich so there is no need for that ...

The dissatisfaction is diffuse and the general anti-government culture in the South (reflected in uncompromising Tea Party members) makes it near impossible to have the government rein in corporations and the wealthy. Unions have not survived a post blue-collar world. The Democratic Party even with almost a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and control of the House was not able to get anything accomplished that was opposed by powerful business interests. The Dow has gone up how much under Obama?

So forgive me if I am a bit cynical that individual congressman can make it to Washington without becoming beholden to economic interests that oppose changing the status quo. And even though Democrats are centrists in action if not thought for fear of the money spigots going dry, they are still far to the left of the Republicans. So bi-partisan deals are hard to come by because the views of each party's members so rarely intersect with those of the other side. That being the case , unless you are concerned about a congressman bringing projects to your state, the merits of each congressman are debatable; they simply serve to add to a vote to the party whose views are closest to your own views. Convince me of the merits of the individual congressman , George.

Ray Jay wrote:The only politician whose calculation is different than that is Obama. He's not worrying about re-election; he's worried about legacy. At issue is whether he wants his legacy to be someone who made progress on immigration, tax reform, fixing ACA, etc. or does he want his legacy to be someone who held fast to his liberal principles. I suspect it is the latter, but we shall see.

Doctor Fate wrote:It was telling, I think, to hear the difference in tone and substance between McConnell and the President on Wednesday. McConnell was talking about putting the Senate back into operation, letting Senators from both parties participate, etc. --undoing all the damage Reid did. Meanwhile, the President was still "offering" to work with Republicans

freeman3 wrote:It will be interesting to see what those bills are. Obama could not get around Republican opposition (and the filibuster) to do much. If Obama opposes those bills , not sure how Republicans get past his veto (unless Obama and/or Democrats feel too much use of the veto will hurt the Democrats politically)

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:It was telling, I think, to hear the difference in tone and substance between McConnell and the President on Wednesday. McConnell was talking about putting the Senate back into operation, letting Senators from both parties participate, etc. --undoing all the damage Reid did. Meanwhile, the President was still "offering" to work with Republicans

I listened to both the press conferences on the radio, and I think the tone of both McConnell and Obama was pretty conciliatory. At least neither was confrontational. Both staked out predictable ground: McConnell wants to investigate the IRS, Obama is will not support the repeal of Obamacare, but he also said that no bill is perfect that he would consider changes that would improve the law.

If you take everything they said at face-value, then I'm hopeful that they're going to be able to get some things done.

November 5, 2014 Shellacked and thumped by an angry electorate, President Obama declared to every American who voted in Tuesday's elections—and to those who've checked out of the political process—"I hear you."

And then he ignored them.

From all appearances Wednesday, the president won't change—not his policies, not his style, not his staff, not nothing. Defiant and begrudging, the president said he would meet with GOP leaders, seek their suggestions for common ground, and maybe grab a drink with Senate Majority Leader-to-Be Mitch McConnell.


Beyond that, meh. "It's probably premature" to consider personnel changes, Obama said when pressed by a reporter for the type of reflection and resetting undertaken by President Clinton after his 1994 midterm trouncing.

Moments earlier, McConnell urged Obama not to take executive action to legalize undocumented immigrants, saying such a momentous policy change by fiat would "be like waving a red flag in front of a bull." The newly reelected Kentucky senator also called it a "poison pill."

Obama shrugged. While willing to consider any immigration legislation passed by the GOP-controlled Congress, "What I'm not going to do," Obama said, "is wait."