How should Barack Obama handle the upcoming congress?

[bob000555]

The current predictions from Professor Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia Center for Politics show the democrats losing control of the House by a sizable margin but holding on to the Senate either by virtue of a 51-49 majority or by virtue of a 50-50 split and the Vice President being a democrat.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

 

My observation is that conservatives are losing the momentum they had a few months ago while liberals are gaining some momentum. I would predict that the Republican bite of congress will be slightly smaller then expected. That, however, is besides the point of this thread.

 

Even with democratic majorities in both houses, Obama has been making the case that Republican obstructionism is holding back the country( and I rather agree, although that’s not really the point of this thread.) Routine nominations are being held up. The threat of a filibuster has become the rule rather then the exception with sixty votes rather then fifty needed to get anything done. With the loss of a majority in one house of congress and eight or nine members in the other, these problems can only get worse. Without drastic action from the president, gridlock has the potential the bring the engine of public policy to a stand still just as the stakes become higher then ever.

 

In my opinion the president needs to (for lack of a better term) stop playing pussyfoot with the republicans. If he believes republicans are holding up nominations for partisan reasons he should do something about it. If I was his speech writer I would propose he give this speech on the evening following the election:

 

Good evening, my fellow American’s. It has become apparent in the recent hours that the Republicans have captured a majority in the House of Representatives and a significant number of seats in The Senate.

 

I congratulate them on this accomplishment. I congratulate John Boehner on becoming the presumptive Speaker of The House. And I welcome the newly elected Members of Congress.

 

I look forward to working with you, but you must also work with me. In the 111th congress, republicans demonstrated an unwillingness to do this. The threat of a filibuster become the rule rather then the exception when a bill came before The Senate. Sixty votes were needed to get anything done. Important nominees were held up for much longer then was needed or were outright rejected for no reason.

 

One of my nominees to fill a vacancy on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Peter Diamond, was rejected as unqualified. On October tenth of this year, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his contributions to the field of macroeconomics. I have resubmitted his nomination and I hope that this time it will be unaffected by politicking in the Senate.

 

Incidences of qualified people being rejected by The Senate have become common and the government is paralyzed by vacancies in important posts. I am therefore forced to give my friends in The Senate an ultimatum.

 

The Senate has six months to either confirm the nominees before them or come up with substantial objections. If this is not done, I will wait until the next time congress goes into recess and use recess appointments to fill every single vacancy in the federal government with my hand picked appointees.

 

I welcome the republicans to work with me in this process. If we communicate and negotiate, both the my colleges and The Senate and I can get some of what we want. If there are substantial objections to a nominee I can nominate someone else. But if republicans want to reflexively reject my nominees, I will have no choice but to cut them out of the process, appointing those people I chose.

 

Thank you and goodnight

 

The threat of “fill[ing] every single vacancy in the federal government with…hand picked appointees” is actually quite powerful as at anytime there are numerous vacancies in the various district and appellate courts. Filling all of these with hand picked appointees could have a significant and lasting effect on the judiciary.

 

There are other ways for the President to get tough on the new congress. My question is what, if anything, do you think he should do?

[lemur]

Obama isn't responsible for the congress or the people. They are. They need to stop being reactive and start proposing pro-active visions of social-economy that go beyond selling tax-cuts and reductions in governance to actually charting visions that contain honest predictions of what the possible outcomes will be. If people want to dismantle health-care initiatives, they need to put their vision of what the results of that will be and take responsibility for those results. Instead, what they will do as always is to forecast only positive outcomes and use those to sell/push their policy-visions. Sometimes I question whether anyone is capable of real responsible democratic negotiations or if it will always break down into factionalism with competing interests trying to manipulate and dominate as much as possible to assert and secure their own interests without any larger vision. Obama has always had good visions and expressed them well; only all anyone else could hear in them was more money, more jobs, black president, cheap abundant fuel, etc. Without people being willing to work toward the visions Obama expressed, he was never more than a single voice. Now the people will go doing what they always do, wasting energy for their own gluttony and gain and blaming it on the president for failing to cure them of their bad habits. If Obama takes responsibility for those bad habits and spins them as not that bad he will maintain some popularity. If he stands up to them and tells them it's their fault and that things are as bad as they are, he will be hated as a cynic. Since he's a smooth politician, he will do the former but it's not fair to blame him for the stubborness of old habits that die hard when no one can even understand what real change would be, let alone believe in it.

[Pangloss]

My observation is that conservatives are losing the momentum they had a few months ago while liberals are gaining some momentum. I would predict that the Republican bite of congress will be slightly smaller then expected. That, however, is besides the point of this thread.

 

Maybe we should start a thread on this, because from what I've seen recent poll results seem to show the momentum moving even farther to the GOP side in the last few weeks, and the president's personal numbers sliding even faster. One controversial Gallup poll last week was so stunningly pro-GOP that Democrats actually started quoting Rasmussen poll numbers, normally associated with Fox News. I don't think the Democratic message is working, though IMO the Republican message is not what's driving public opinion. Here's a Gallup poll from this week saying that the GOP is maintaining its edge.

 

Gallup poll shows GOP isn't losing steam with likely voters

 

But even more interesting, run a search on "gallup poll" on Google News and just look at all the subjects. Americans favoring smaller government, reduced spending, moderate politics over extremes, record unhappiness with government in general, record unhappiness with the President and just about every other politician, independents continuing to flee from those in office, etc etc etc. I've never seen anything like it, and this is following years of listening to myself saying "I've never seen anything like it".

 

 

In my opinion the president needs to (for lack of a better term) stop playing pussyfoot with the republicans. If he believes republicans are holding up nominations for partisan reasons he should do something about it.

 

Actually I think his anti-GOP message is hurting him. He was elected on the strength of bipartisan swing voters. But since he's come to office nearly every decision he's made runs contrary to their preferences, whether it's health care, war, the economy, immigration, energy policy, tax policy, or anything else, including attacking the GOP. That's why they've left him. Appealing to his base won't bring them back.

 

He is going to do that anyway for the next couple of weeks, because he's already lost moderates and he might as well "get the vote out" (get liberals to the polls) because that's the only tool in the shed at the moment. But after the election he's going to have to move back to the middle, or he's done. Continuing to demonize Republicans won't get new legislation passed.

 

 

The threat of “fill[ing] every single vacancy in the federal government with…hand picked appointees” is actually quite powerful as at anytime there are numerous vacancies in the various district and appellate courts. Filling all of these with hand picked appointees could have a significant and lasting effect on the judiciary.

 

He's going to do that anyway. And it's going to have the opposite effect -- it's exactly the sort of thing that will put Sarah Palin in the Oval Office in 2012. You have to remember that the right is not an unengaged hot tub time machine of uninformed country bumpkins anymore. They watch Fox News, and Fox News loves to talk about Obama recess appointments.

 

 

They need to stop being reactive and start proposing pro-active visions of social-economy that go beyond selling tax-cuts and reductions in governance to actually charting visions that contain honest predictions of what the possible outcomes will be.

 

Now we're talkin'. Several good points in that post, IMO.

[Mr Skeptic]

Personally, I think the Democrats should have just gone ahead and let the Republicans filibuster, rather than cringing at the very mention of it. I'm really annoyed about how our clown/congresscritter hybrids have changed the rules of the filibuster to make it more convenient for themselves at the expense of the American public. Anyhow, let the Republicans filibuster and people would realize just how obstructionist they were being. Too late for that now, of course. Anyhow, the Dems failed to live up to the promises/expectations, which of course just angered the Republicans for having made them, and disappointed the Democrats. So now their support is weak and their opposition strong. Personally, I think we might be better off kicking out all our congresscritters and replacing them with random people off the street, but that's just my opinion.

 

Maybe some well-timed revelations or rallies could turn the tide though. I wonder what the effect of the Rally to Restore Sanity/March to Keep Fear Alive will be; they are timed for just before the election and could end up dominating the news.

[jackson33]

Maybe we should start a thread on this, because from what I've seen recent poll results seem to show the momentum moving even farther to the GOP side in the last few weeks, and the president's personal numbers sliding even faster.[/Quote]

 

Pangloss why another thread, it's part of this opening statement, this thread. However I agree with you and if anything the momentum NATIONALLY does favor the Tea Party Republicans type candidates. Watch the undecided counts, which are generally "independents" and most believe will go Republican (this year), then those Democrats that are polling less than 46-48%, today, even if leading.

 

How should Barack Obama handle the upcoming congress?[/Quote]

 

Bob, I think lemur, has it correct: The President heads the US Executive BRANCH of the US Constitutional Government. It's his duty and that of the Administration, to administer the operations of Government, according to law and the Constitution and Congress has the duty to legislate the will of their constituents. Congress cannot administer and the Executive cannot make up permanent law (executive powers limited). The executive has NO income and obliged to Congress for any and all funding. Even the technical measurement for National change in policy, the "AMENDMENT" does NOT include an Executive approval. Staying technical, the US Head of State, is no more or less than the Head of State of any Country (other than what's delegated in the Constitution)*, including the UK. Do you know who is currently that person in the UK???

 

However and now getting some coverage, the Administration has slowly and effectively been adding power to their Departments in an effort to bypass Congress. The EPA for instances can legally CONTOL CO2 emissions, all but making "Cap and Trade" EPA's responsibility. The Health Care Bill and Financial Reform Bill, both include additional "AGENGIES" under Executive authority. which can be designed to control any aspect of American activity this or ANY future administration wishes to CONTROL. I might add, we have still not seen the Congressional Budget for Fiscal Year 2011, which has been in progress since October 1st, 2010. That Budget would have to take spending above the current 14.1T$ Debt Limit and would never be passed, prior to raising the limit.

 

If anything, the question should be "How could a Republican House" handle a divided Senate, to settle the maybe 10 major problems financial problems, currently holding down the US economy and future obligations which may not be possible.

 

From the strategist side of me, I DO AGREE, that if Obama is interested in maintaining power beyond 2012 and in helping to regain Democratic Control of Congress in 2012, his best policy would be to hammer away at the obstructionist issue. Not that it's a legitimate issue, but for the ignorance of a good share of the electorate, who actually believe it is HE or any administrations leader that controls their benefits. The Republicans, without a VETO proof Senate 60-40 (won't happen) have no alternative but to try and shut down funding for programs they are saying can be repealed. An "obstructionist" or "do nothing" Congress, historically has influenced many Presidential Elections.

 

*Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments[/Quote]

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2

 

Personally, I think the Democrats should have just gone ahead and let the Republicans filibuster, rather than cringing at the very mention of it.[/Quote]

 

Skeptic; The Senate no longer is required to actually filibuster (speak on the floor), simply saying they will keeps further action from happening...Both parties use this rule, especially on Executive Appointments or nothing else would ever get done.

[lemur]

Suddenly I'm wondering if all the fiscal stimulus and bailout drama was ever intended to do more than garner popular support for fiscal conservatism. The question is whether reducing fiscal interests from democracy will actually result in popular civil discourse that is less driven by money-making interests. In all likelihood, the public will just start going haywire to search for new sources of money, as they always seem to. But, you never know, economics may actually start to occur in parallel with civil discourse instead of as its driving force.