Skip to main content

View Diary: Republican obstruction, White House timidity, and a broken government (223 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So let's see... We're frequently reminded (4+ / 0-)

    that Congress not the President enacts legislation (although the President does deserve the lion's share of credit for the passage of anything we like)...

    We're informed that the commander-in-chief of our nation's military lacks the authority to close a naval base...

    We're reminded that there is no bully pulpit...

    Now, apparently, Mr. Obama can't even use the weight of his office and his own considerable powers of persuasion to sway a handful of Democratic votes...

    What exactly does this President guy do, anyway?

    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

    by PhilJD on Fri May 03, 2013 at 10:29:30 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  you should have learned this a long time ago (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tony Situ
      Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests the executive power of the United States in the president and charges him with the execution of federal law, alongside the responsibility of appointing federal executive, diplomatic, regulatory, and judicial officers, and concluding treaties with foreign powers, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The president is further empowered to grant federal pardons and reprieves, and to convene and adjourn either or both houses of Congress under extraordinary circumstances.[8] Since the founding of the United States, the power of the president and the federal government have grown substantially[9] and each modern president, despite possessing no formal legislative powers beyond signing or vetoing congressionally passed bills, is largely responsible for dictating the legislative agenda of his party and the foreign and domestic policy of the United States.
      Since there is no formal legislative powers, it's up to congress.  Presidents have had different levels of success depending on the congress.

      whining about government without even understanding the inner workings is not productive.

      -You want to change the system, run for office.

      by Deep Texan on Fri May 03, 2013 at 10:33:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i understand the R's were beaten and deeply (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bdop4, Aunt Martha, 3goldens, JVolvo, PhilJD

        unpopular in 2008, and then they proceeded to run roughshed over Obama for the rest of his term, endlessly shoveling shit in his face as he continually watered-down progressive policy to "bring them to the table".

        there's no need to be condescending. we all understand the President doesn't make laws. but if you look at GWB and you look at Obama, it's pretty obvious that there's a vast difference in how the parties use the power of the office, and i'm talking outside of national security, because really, they're both pretty much the same in that respect.

        Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

        by Boogalord on Fri May 03, 2013 at 10:43:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  they used the power they had (0+ / 0-)

          we did similar during Bush iirc.  

          just no where as bad.

          there's no need to be condescending.
          there is no need to be hyperbolic and spread bullshit that isn't true.  especially if you claim to know how our government works.  

          we didn't have 60 votes in the senate long enough to get something done.  you know that.  we all know that.

          -You want to change the system, run for office.

          by Deep Texan on Fri May 03, 2013 at 10:51:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  if the Dems hadn't helped kneecap (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            3goldens, JVolvo, PhilJD

            filibuster reform we wouldn't have needed 60 votes to get something done.

            you know that. we all know that.

            Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

            by Boogalord on Fri May 03, 2013 at 11:20:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the filibuster reform bills (0+ / 0-)

              wouldn't have prevented filibusters. in fact forcing republicans to filibuster live could have had the opposite effect than what we anticipated.

              none of the proposals would have ended republican obstructionism.

              and that's that.  you can blame Dems or you can blame the real culprits.  

              your choice.

              -You want to change the system, run for office.

              by Deep Texan on Fri May 03, 2013 at 11:26:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  how do you figure? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                3goldens, JVolvo

                forcing the R's to filibuster live, with the cameras on them for all the bills they do it to, would do so much more to paint the GOP as obstructionists and the Dems as "the adult in the room" as so many "pragmatists" insist is the true path to victory.

                filibuster reform would not have done away with the filibuster, but would make the filibuster process more visible to the general public. so, instead of the story being being Manchin-Toomy bill was killed by turncoat ConservaDems worth nothing to any self-respecting "liberal" party, it could have been plain to see that it was filibustered by some dumbass Republican congressman talking stupid on the floor for hours.

                i have not the faintest fucking clue how you think "it could have the opposite effect that we wanted" but it is pretty illustrative of how your knee-jerk reaction to any kind of fight on the part of Dems is "it might not work so we shouldn't do it!"

                are you afraid that live Republican filibusters would be devastating displays of effective Republican speechmaking? or.... something?

                Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

                by Boogalord on Fri May 03, 2013 at 11:49:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  could have went that way (0+ / 0-)

                  or could have went the way of Rand's filibuster.

                  however, that doesn't mean we would have won the votes.

                  get my point? winning the votes for the legislation you want is all it's about.

                  -You want to change the system, run for office.

                  by Deep Texan on Fri May 03, 2013 at 12:06:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Rand Paul filibustered Obama's drone policy (0+ / 0-)

                    way to leave out all of the context. i'm going to assume you're deathly afraid of the cutting Republican filibuster oration we would have had to endure on the Manchin-Toomey bill. surely it would have all blown up in our faces.

                    you really aren't in favor of the Dems taking any political risks, ever, are you? why are you so obsessed with the idea of complete conservative dominance over liberal ideas? because Fox News says mean things so that makes it "reality"? it's sad.

                    Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

                    by Boogalord on Sat May 04, 2013 at 11:47:10 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  I've heard (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens

      the dinners are nice and there's always Camp David.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site