Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Bipartisan illiteracy is fun!

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

And what is entitlement reform? (you seem to be getting there in baby steps)

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Huh? Certainly NOT a core D issue and something for which he didn't have public support. Are you starting to see a pattern?

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Dude. I gave three examples of two presidents reaching out to members of the other party on the other parties' priorities. W reached out to Dems on NCLB and part D, and Clinton reached out to Rs on welfare reform. W was able to make NCLB and part D more "conservative," and Clinton was able to make welfare reform more "liberal," while giving the opposition party much of what it wanted.

Contrast that to Obama's attempt to work with the House Rs on entitlement reform. Entitlement reform is a traditional core R issue. Rather than working with the president to accomplish something, Boehner and Cantor walked out.

So, yeah, I'm seeing a pattern and I see the current, radicalized R party rejecting it.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

I think there's some real truth to this, but it's a fundamental problem with economic policy, on the left and the right, in the US and in the ROW. It's not a function of Obama's leadership. It's a much bigger problem.

I personally think that there are economists who have a solid idea about what the problem is and what should be done, and that the reasons they aren't listened to are complicated, and have a lot to do with people not wanting to hear what they are saying.

I find this subject very interesting and important, and I think it doesn't have much at all to do with partisan politics. Or "leadership."

This is nonsense on stilts. First of all, he obviously can get things through Congress. He passed, among other things, major healthcare reform, a goal of Democratic Presidents for decades, and financial-sector reform. So your premise is just flat-out wrong.

Reagan was working in a different time, when there were still moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats -- Rick Perry was a Democrat then -- and so it was much easier to construct cross-party coalitions on specific issues. What's an example of either Reagan or Clinton going to the people to force the opposition party to do something it didn't want to do? It didn't happen.

Parties now -- and particularly the GOP -- are much more disciplined and prevent their moderates from working across the aisle. (Also, there are very few moderate Republicans left.) Look what happened to Robert Bennett and Arlen Specter.

Look at the legislation that George W. Bush passed. Did he persuade Democrats to do things they didn't want to do? No. He found issues -- NCLB, Patriot Act, etc. -- where they agreed with him.

He's not abdicating anything. He knows that he is a polarizing figure -- i.e., many Republicans are more interested in seeing him lose than in the substance of many issues -- and that sometimes it's counterproductive for him to get out in front of an issue because it only restricts everyone's bargaining room -- his and theirs both. In the debt-ceiling negotiations, it was abundantly clear that there were quite a few House Republicans who didn't care about any particular spending cuts as much as they cared about handing the President a loss. Talk about a failure of leadership -- Boehner was the one who couldn't get his own party to vote for his plan -- and yet in your topsy-turvy world, somehow this ultimately reflects badly on Obama's leadership, instead of Boehner's, or the Republican Party, or our system of governmment.

You can't fault Obama's leadership unless you can credibly explain that there was some way that a different approach would have made a difference. I fault Obama in a large way for not getting a commitment to raise the debt ceiling last fall when he got an agreement to cut taxes. I think that was a major mistake. But it doesn't have anything to do with leadership.

With the current Republican Party, who could he plausibly find to work with on the Hill? The list is: Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, Susan Collins, and that's about it. There just isn't anyone in the House. Saying that Obama should get out in front of those guys more simply ignores the fact that it will only prompt them to march in the opposite direction.

I really think it's foolish to think that any Democrat, however heroic or Reaganesque, could walk into the Oval Office in 2008 and produce outcomes much different from what has happened. The political and economic landscape is what it is.

It sounds like you agree with me that we ought not to be making spending cuts that would affect the economy now, but ought to be thinking about how to put our house in order with a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases for the long term. What's odd to me is that this is what the Democrats were trying to do, and the Republicans were pushing for immediate cuts. Yet your sympathies plainly lie on the Republican side.

I think this is a huge myth in American politics, that a President can go on the TV and say something that will move public opinion. I don't think Reagan did it, I don't think either Bush did it, I don't think Clinton did it, and I don't think Obama can do it.

Your animus for Obama is plain. He's done things that other Presidents haven't been able to do -- pass healthcare reform, kill Osama bin Laden -- but your animus blinds you to his accomplishments and makes his shortcomings glaring. With the economy in the shitter, all of his other accomplishments seem less consequential, and that is the great risk to his presidency.

I hardly think the guy is perfect. (Hank keeps repeating this because it's easier than responding to what I actually post.) I think it's far more interesting and useful to talk about what he actually has done or not done -- Libya, Federal Reserve appointments, debt-ceiling negotiations -- than to simply chalk things up to some inchoate failing of "leadership."

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

If you want friends, be friendly.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Yes. I think he has a consistent m.o. of trying not to antagonize his political opponents, of playing to the middle, and of taking what's on the table and moving to the next fight. All of this is aimed to get what he can, given the opposition.

I think it's obvious that on each of those issues he has gotten what he could out of the situation, given the Senate and House. But part of his strategy seems to be to insist that he's always getting exactly what he wants, rather than acknowledging that he would have liked more. This can be maddening.

Also, on the big economic issues, I think -- per Delong -- that Obama has been listening to the wrong people (Bernanke and Geithner) with the wrong advice.

Two very different questions, I think. On the first, I really think a President's ability to persuade people to change their mind is quite limited. But if the question is, can he persuade his base that he's done them well, I think we will see him pivot from getting what he could out of Congress to running for another term, and when he makes that switch he will run against Republicans much more, a la Truman. I think he has felt that saying those things would undercut his ability to get what he could.

On the "part of the problem" question, there are strong reasons for various stakeholders to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. E.g., some inflation would help a lot of people, reducing the debt overhang, but people with financial holdings don't like it.

Organize, a la Wisconsin. The more Democrats there are in Congress, the more leverage Obama has.

I think Obama made a mistake when he abandoned his campaign apparatus.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Clinton famously got no Republican votes for his first budget. They blocked healthcare reform by moving the goalposts whenever he tried to agree with them. The reason he got welfare reform done was that it was a GOP priority. I don't recall him persuading Republicans to work with him at all.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

"he got welfare reform done?" are you serious? he might have tweaked it a bit but it was not something he pushed for, it was rammed right down his throat.

when he stood up to the Rs was when they couldn't agree on a budget and Government started shutting down. He went on TV, blamed the Rs and they caved.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Agreed, and I don't understand it. I guess they think it would be showing weakness (or lack of leadership) to say, "this isn't exactly what I wanted, but it's what we could get." If so, I think they are wrong.

The truly strange question is why Bernanke, a student of Japan's situation, is in the group of the wrong.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Yes, I remember the dramatic vote when they overroad his veto. :rolleyes:

Here's wikipedia's summary of the history:

ETA: What's with the apparent conservative fetish for the throat-ramming metaphor? It's not like it's ever particularly apt in our system of checks and balances.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

What were W's legislative accomplishments, and where did he persuade Democrats to vote for things they didn't want to vote for? (eta: W spent a lot of time focusing on (and expanding) parts of his Presidency where he didn't have to work with Democrats, because it wasn't something he liked or did well.)

The answer is, precious few, and he didn't.

Notably, W couldn't leverage his re-election into getting rid of Social Security.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

And because a fair number of Democrats like a good war now and then, especially when the country has been attacked.

In other words, he didn't persuade Democrats to do things -- he found an issue where they had common interests. Same thing with immigration, though it got blocked.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

If you insist, but that only strengthens the point I was making.

OK. In this context, so what?

I suspect that Obama would win a similar fight now, but wasn't willing to do the damage that would have come if the government couldn't pay its bills. Maybe we'll find out yet.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Indeed. History will not be kind.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

I am surely aware of this problem:(

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Hey, what did economists eventually come up with to address the economic situation?

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

I think that's accurate, but I'm not sure it's the right approach. The Rs he is dealing with are not saying "thanks for not antagonizing us, we'll work with you now." They could not be any more hostile to him. I think it'd be worth antagonizing them in order to get more public perception on his side, since the Rs are plainly encouraged every time Obama loses a point in approval ratings.

I don't accept that approval ratings, public opinion, etc., are either meaningless or are beyond the president's ability to affect. I'm not sure which of those you believe but it's one of them. Dems worked with Reagan, in part because they knew he was very popular, and he was popular because he continued to sell his vision of America.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Dude, he's already been played by Paul Giamatti. How much worse can it get?

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

I believe it is a form of enhanced legislation.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

what does this part:

• having vetoed two earlier welfare proposals from the Republican-majority Congress, it was considered a political risk to veto a third bill during a campaign season with welfare reform as a central theme

mean to you?

i was a voter back then, I know what was going on.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

In other words, you disagree with Club's characterization of Clinton as a leader able to go to the public to force Republicans to do his bidding. Thank you.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Well, I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean they passed it over his veto. Especially not since he was negotiating with the R leaders of both houses over it.

But you still don't get it do you? We aren't talking about who gets "credit" for welfare reform. We are talking about what can happen when the opposition party decides to work with a willing president to achieve their own goals. That's what Boehner and Cantor refused to do.

Also, I know math is hard and all, but I was a vote back then too.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

This was Clinton saving his presidency by weasling out of the issue. Look to the shut down of the government and how clinton handled that. no one is saying clinton was a good president, he was horrible, and the reason for a lot of problems we still face today. but he did stand up to Newt on the budget and got the public on his side.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

you're not an educated voter today. you surely weren't back then.

Let's try this a different way
 

If the participants on this board were the members of Congress, we would have no trouble reaching a compromise that essentially fixed our long term budget issues. We'd reduce farm subsidies, reduce entitlement benefits (e.g., increase the retirement age, means test), increase taxes (e.g., on high incomes, increase the amount of income subject to FICA, close tax loopholes), and trim defense spending. The exact details would take some negotiating, but we really aren't that far apart.

Now think about why that can't be done with the government we have. Is it Obama? I certainly don't think so. In terms of policy preferences, temperament and outlook, he looks an awful lot like the center-left participants here. Is it the congressional Dems? Well, maybe. Certainly some of them are well left our participants. But Reid and even Pelosi have a real pragmatic streak too. They would take some convincing, but personally I think they can be brought around to an overall compromise.

But you know who is way different? The congressional Rs. No taxes. Essentially no military cuts. And unwilling to discuss entitlement reform unless they get to do it without any compromises of their own.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Happy Friday to you too.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

I agree with you that Clinton won the political battle with Newt over the government shut-down. I don't think that illustrates Clinton going to the public to force Republicans to support his legislative agenda. IIRC, Clinton didn't get anything out of the showdown other than getting the government reopened without the terms Newt was holding out for. Defeating a Republican effort is not the same as passing Democratic legislation. So I really don't think the whole episode has anything to do with what Club was talking about.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

we have different memories. i recall after clinton stood up on the shutdown Newt's power went away pretty much.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

If Newt's power went away, presumably you're implying Clinton gained power. Did he do anything with this putative power? You've already explained that welfare reform was a Republican priority, forced upon him, so that's not really an example of Clinton power. He got himself impeached, which doesn't sound like a very powerful thing to have done, and didn't involved him bending Republicans to his will.*

In other words, he made Newt look stupid, but he didn't actually then accomplish anything that involved getting Republicans to do what they didn't want to do (a/k/a the test of leadership, to Club).

In still other words, I'm not sure our recollections are that different, but you don't seem to realize that you are undercutting Club, or just prefer not to draw out the implications of your views when it would mean disagreeing with him instead of someone to your left.

* this is a softball

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

I didn't say the Rs left Congress, but Clinton was having his ass handed to him, do you remember "I am relevant!"? He came back as a player after the shutdowns were resolved.

As to welfare, I believe that was the next election and he was making sure he didn't go back down. As to impeachment, that was after the numbskull destroyed his relevance because he advised a fat girl not to swallow. I didn't say he didn't fuck himself up again, I said he pulled himself out and stood up to a bull dozing R congress.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Government shutdowns started in November, 1995, and last until January, 1996. Welfare reform was passed the next summer. So half a year after Newt lost power and Clinton came back as a player, Republicans were -- by your account -- forcing Clinton to sign their legislation.

Which just illustrates that your perceptions of Clinton as a player (and Club's of Obama's leadership) are completely untethered to his legislative accomplishments, or lack thereof, in the Club/Obama "leadership" sense.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

When did Clinton say "I am relevant?" What did that mean to you?

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

In the context of the conversation we were having, I can't figure out why you are talking about Clinton, the shutdown, welfare reform, or his saying "I am relevant." In this context, I'm not sure it means anything.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

He's leading away from the topic at hand.

I'm honestly curious about what Club has to say about how Obama failed to make the House Rs do what they claim to want to do.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Obama was faced with the ceiling issue. The R's wouldn't budge.
Clinton was faced with a budget issue. The R's wouldn't budge.
Clinton let government shut down, and made the case the R's were at fault and playing games. He came out of it with, I believe, his highest popularity numbers. This was soon after he had to remind the country he was relevant, (see that implies he was down, do you get that? the president shouldn't have to remind the public that he has relevance, does that make sense to you?). That the R's played welfare reform against him doesn't mean he didn't achieve a comeback by standing up to the R's and convincing the public he was right.

Obama could have made the point that the debt ceiling was not a time for game playing or trying to fix things that should be addressed in the budget process. He didn't, even though it seems to me the basic vileness of trying to use the debt ceiling as a way to achieve budget goals should have made that an easier sell to the public. He blinked.

How do you think the R's will behave next budget? They're there, probably in bigger numbers, so unless Obama is ready to consider his presidency tapped, he has to find a way to make them behave.

Clinton did. That doesn't mean Obama is a worse president than Clinton. He's not, but it does mean that Clinton led the public better against the R's.

at work do you ever have to achieve a consensus? It seems like you cannot give up a single inch on anything. It really is odd.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

I don't deny that Clinton won that fight. I just deny that it let him accomplish anything. Club's concept that a President who shows "leadership" can force the other side to do what it doesn't want to do is, I think, pretty weak, and not supported by the Clinton story.

He did say those things. Those ideas are not new to anyone who was following things.

Perhaps you are trying to say that if Obama only had some better skills, he could have communicated those ideas more successfully, so that more people believed them, and then pressured the GOP to stop.

Here's the thing: It's very clear that the public didn't support the GOP position. Hell, Republicans polled didn't support the GOP position. The question you should be engaging with is not why Obama wasn't able to use some sort of charismatic magic to change, but how we've come to a point where the House of Representatives is controlled by an ideological cadre so deaf to public opinion, so convinced of its own righteousness, and so eager to fight with the President.

If he had held out and August 2 had come without a deal, isn't it obvious to you that the consequences for the country would have been much worse? And probably for Obama too, given the hit the economy could have taken. Given that, it seems pretty shortsighted of you to frame what he did this way.

Yes, I agree. We will see more such fights.

As I have said before, I think Obama made a huge mistake in not securing an agreement from Boehner and McConnell last fall to take the debt-ceiling issue off the table. I am certainly not saying he is blameless. I just don't think you can chalk up what happened to some lack of notional "leadership" on his part.

Have you just missed the parts of the conversation where I agree with you? Yes, I thought so.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Ty, Club wasn't saying that Obama should be able to get to page two of his agenda and move the TP nuts to support whatever would be the next socialist domino.

of course he has to scale back given the R congress. So did clinton. only a truly great leader, say Reagan or W., can move a hostile congress to do his bidding completely.

But clinton did draw a line and got some power back that made the r's respect him, not personally, but his power.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Neither Reagan nor Clinton nor W were able to persuade the other party to pass legislation they didn't like. Parties have not always been so polarized, and it was much easier to create bipartisan coalitions to pass legislation by finding issues that cut across parties in different ways. This is now much harder, because the parties (a) are more ideologically homogenous, and (b) exercise more control over members. Neither Reagan nor W bent hostile Congresses to their will. E.g., W passed NCLB with significant Democratic support because it was a bill significant numbers of Democrats really wanted to pass.

And if Clinton got his "power" back, what did he do with it in the half-year before the Republicans had him over a barrel again?

You keep suggesting that Presidents who are popular can drive legislative change, and I keep saying otherwise. I know a lot of people think the way you do. It doesn't mean they're right. W won re-election and then his effort to change Social Security went nowhere -- so much for the political capital everyone thought he'd won.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

because of Welfare reform? that was a battle, not the war. Clinton was back and engaged. the R's found a point he couldn't challenge, but that was hardly moving him back to "I am relevant."