Michael Shear of the New York Times writes wistfully of bygone days when there was bipartisanship on the Hill compared to the political gridlock of today. He notes the funeral of Senator Daniel Inouye where President Obama said he learned from Mr. Inouye “how our democracy is supposed to work.”
Mr. Obama learned some strange lessons about democracy. Recall his retort to a Republican Senator just three days after he took the oath of office in 2009 when challenged on the make-up of the stimulus bill. “I won,” the president said — as if those two words explained the mysteries of the universe. Actually, it was more like “Shut up, he explained.” At that time — as now — the president wasn’t interested in compromise in the traditional sense of the term. He wanted victory. He wanted obedience. The debate was over because of his election victory and the GOP should bend knee, humble themselves, and thank him for his generosity.
Shear and the Times are performing a similar task today:
Though it has been 45 days since voters emphatically reaffirmed their faith in Mr. Obama, the time since then has shown the president’s power to be severely constrained by a Republican opposition that is bitter about its losses, unmoved by Mr. Obama’s victory and unwilling to compromise on social policy, economics or foreign affairs.
“Emphatically?” A switch of a little more than 500,000 votes in 5 key states would have seen Mr. Romney president. And just how moved should the GOP be by Mr. Obama’s victory? The fact that they aren’t dancing in the streets is apparently cause for criticism by Mr. Shear who accuses — without proof — the GOP of being “unwilling to compromise.” Mr. Boehner agreed to a tax increase, agreed to take the debt limit vote off the table, agreed to most of Mr. Obama’s stipulations on entitlements. Shear and Obama aren’t interested in “compromise; only submission to the president’s will.
House Republicans argue that voters handed their members a mandate as well, granting the party control of the House for another two years and with it the right to stick to their own views, even when they clash strongly with the president’s.
And many Republicans remember well when the tables were turned. After Mr. Bush’s re-election in 2004, Democrats eagerly thwarted his push for privatization of Social Security, hobbling Mr. Bush’s domestic agenda in the first year of his second term.
New polls suggest that Mr. Obama’s popularity has surged to its highest point since he announced the killing of Osama bin Laden. In the latest CBS News survey, the president’s job approval rating was at 57 percent.
But taken together, events suggest that even that improvement in the polls has done little to deliver the president the kind of clear authority to enact his policies that voters seemed to say they wanted during the election.
Is Shear serious? The GOP should abandon it’s principles because Obama is more popular? And voters didn’t “seem to say” anything of the sort – that Obama should have “clear authority to enact his policies.” He’s got all the authority he needs; he was elected. The Constitution is silent on granting the president any more power than that to enact his agenda. It doesn’t give him dictatorial power to ride roughshod over the Congress. The legislative branch is supposed to be co-equal with the executive.
It’s not the GOP’s fault that the president is incapable of enacting his policies. In fact, it is just as legitimate to point out that the president has yet to “compromise” with Republicans on much of anything; Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, the stim bill — all were passed by virtue of the huge Democratic majority in Congress. They were all horrid pieces of legislation, poorly written, poorly thought out, and chock full of unintended consequences for which we will be paying dearly for years to come.
And Republicans were supposed to sign on to such extraordinarily damaging legislation?
I am sure there are some Republicans who refuse to grant Obama any legitimacy at all. The GOP is a large party and some legislators can’t find it within themselves to acknowledge that compromise with the president is necessary. But Republicans have their own legitimate ideas about how to avoid the fiscal cliff — ideas the president has sneeringly rejected.
How about Mr. Shear urging the president to show some statesmanship rather than telling the GOP to fold and give Obama everything he wants? It’s true that Obama won the election. But what he does with that victory is at least as important as how the Republicans respond.
So far, the president hasn’t covered himself in glory.
– since you were shown by the late senator: how is democracy supposed to work?
About the only thing the young punk BHO was learning about that time was how to roll a tight joint.
Why shouldn’t the opposition party try to shut down the illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, undemocratic, and dangerously illegitimate Democrat party?
““Emphatically?” A switch of a little more than 500,000 votes in 5 key states would have seen Mr. Romney president.”
Well it was larger than either of Bush’s margins. The degree of polarization and the nature of winner take all means that for the forseeable future all elections will be swapped by flipping just the right 500k voters.
“Mr. Boehner agreed to a tax increase, agreed to take the debt limit vote off the table, agreed to most of Mr. Obama’s stipulations on entitlements. Shear and Obama aren’t interested in “compromise; only submission to the president’s will.”
As yesterday’s events hammered home, Boehner is not the GOP. He can promise whatever he wants but he can deliver nothing due to GOP intransigence.
You guys need to give up this fantasy in which the president refuses to compromise. He’s done nothing but try to compromise with the GOP. Did he close Guantanamo? Did he push EFCA? When it came to healthcare did he push single payer (as the left wanted) or did he dust off a GOP plan from the 90s and pass that? Didn’t he continue Bush era policies regarding Iraq and Afghanistan? Didn’t he push, time and again, for the Bush tax cuts to be maintained? Didn’t he continue the Bush policy of stimulus in response to the recession including TARP?
Time and again he has done what your side has screamed that you wanted, needed, and every time you’ve snapped at him like rabid dogs. So you should really lay off *his* ability to compromise.
” He’s done nothing but try to compromise with the GOP.”
Gees – I hope this is poorly written satire – otherwise your comment just comes across as asinine and uninformed. You might try leaving the MSM off for a month or so – and get your news somewhere other than the Daily Kos.
Don’t be too hard on Michelle… it’s hard to get good french fries in Hawaii and she’s obviously suffering from fry withdrawal.
The left savaged Bush and continues to savage him to this day. The Times should expect nothing less than the favor to be returned. “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Right back at ya.
Spot on, Wilbur. The Democrats are just a bunch of cry baby bullies. When they have power they abuse it and when the other side pushes back they run to their mommy (the media) crying “it’s not fair”.
But we must stop dealing with the liberals as if they reason like rational people.
They truly, truly believe that they and they alone are the rightful owners of power.
All political power rightfully belongs to them therefore any one who disagrees with them or stands in their way must be stopped at all costs. They are not required to play fair because anyone who opposes them is not playing fair.
Dems performance as “thoughtful, conscientious, responsible” officeholders reminds me more of finger in the dirt playcalling. GBUSA
If the people wish Mr. Obama to rule untrammeled, they may give his brand of Democrat the House of Representatives. They have not.
Barack Obama is not a King, and the House is not a Parliament under the Tudors, expected to show deference to the Crown. Mr. Obama is in the wrong. He cannot dictate legislative events based upon a legislative majority he dd not actually win. He should stop attempting such.
The Congress of the United States will either have real power outside the approval of the Chief Executive overseeing a vast and somewhat uncheckable central authority, or it will be nothing but a mere rubber stamp. This may in fact happen one day, the way the Senate of the Roman Republic gradually lost any control over affairs, but I would prefer if such happens for it be lost to a man with real talents, rather than the puffery of the curent occupant of the Imperial Presidency.
I would add that it is clear that Mr. Obama considers us of the right as having no moral compass or legitimacy. But it is also clear that we control the branch of the national government closest to the people–and whose majority was made without the connivance of academia and media, but despite them. Therefore, given control of cultural institutions by Progressives, if the people put in a Republican House, it must mean they truly do not wish the policies of Mr. Obama, despite his eletion, for there is a certain quantum level of opposition that candidates of the right must overcome that is greater than ones from the left must surmount–thanks to our friends of integrity in the so-called journalism business. Deite this constant hailstorm of contempt and disparagement coming from national cultural institutions, a storm the President routinely counts on as he deploys his demagoguery, the people have put into place both in this election and the election last those anti-thetical to the actual plicies of Mr. Obama, who, as I have said, is not a King, owed deference on his desires.
Without media help, Barack Obama is not President of the United States. He is a man of, at best, medium talent. He is in no ways a great man of our times. He should question the legitimacy of others, and their right to exercise their power, with care.
“I would add that it is clear that Mr. Obama considers us of the right as having no moral compass or legitimacy. But it is also clear that we control the branch of the national government closest to the people–and whose majority was made without the connivance of academia and media, but despite them. ”
It would be more accurate to say the GOP held on to a majority in the one house most prone to gerrymandering. Notice that even in states where Obama won the popular vote handily the gerrymandered district maps designed by republicans (thanks to their 2010 wins) allowed the right to keep a stranglehold on a majority of seats.
When you lose the state (and nationwide) votes but win the local races it’s not an indication that you are “closer to the people” but that you succeeded in gaming the system. Congrats, I guess.
And of course as we all know – the Democrats NEVER gerrymander – do they?
What a putz.
You are free to worship your little god-king, Tlaloc — and we are free to point at you and laugh.
Obama as god-king? Close, but no cigar.
The 2012 election was the first one under the 2010 census. Leaving out 2012 for a second, If gerrymandering is also the explanation for 2010, then what of 2006 and 2008, under the same apportionment scheme as 2010? Were they gerrymander victories also? Just for the Democrats, this time?
And what of the makeup of the state legislatures, expanded in the election last? Bad faith too, I suppose. Though it has been something of a trend.
I’m sure you will give an appropriate talking point for all points. Yours sincerely, Emanuel Goldstein (for you will have it no other way).
As an aside, the one thing I thank God for is that Prgressives just never resort to demagoguery designed to make you think their opponents won by evil and malfeasance. Things would be so much harder to reconcile and avoid national schism if they did.
Well put!
All the other arguments aside, even if there was only one Republican in Washington, that one would have a mandate to vote according to the principles he was elected on. The only one elected by the entire nation is the president. So, it doesn’t matter if he won by .5 million or 311,591,917 (current population of the US). That doesn’t change the fact that a majority of people in a particular state decided to put a Republican in a seat and that Republican has an obligation to “stick to his guns” rather than bow to the “winners”. That Republican was the winner of his election and must properly represent the will of the people who elected him and only those people. To do anything else would be denying those people their voice in Washington.
Concur, which is why I have to remind myself that if the dissenters on Plan B were truly representing the general sentiment of their district, that the fault for failure then lies with those of us in favor of the plan for not sufficiently convincing others of the necessity, not with others for refusing to get on board. They have the right, and their representatives the obligation, to reflect those contrary views.
It is never the people’s obligation (or their representative’s obligation) to “get right” with authority when it comes to legislative matters, whomsover the authority may be. Else why have a legislature at all?
No. The people get to vote their minds, and I did somewhat forget that yesterday. Others, of course, would prefer that right not exist at all, or at least based upon the President’s actions, they seem to think so.
Bow & scrape at your feet, Big O? This ain’t Indonesia, pal. See, here in America, we respect those who respect us. You wouldn’t understand…it’s an American thing.
Sorry, left/libtards, this is America and we don’t worship our leadership here. Quite the opposite, actually. Please go to North Korea if you’re not satisfied with that.
Didn’t the NYT already tell us that America isn’t worthy of the great and powerful “O”?
Those of us in the red states may have a little tougher time, but the blue states will really suffer if we go over the cliff. Go ahead, make my day.
Obama’s margin of victory aside, he wasn’t the only “winner.” There were plenty of other duly elected representatives – winners in their own right – who are bound by their own commitments and responsibilities. The integrity of our system of government leans heavily on checks and balances, and our President would do well to humble himself to the concept. But, if it’s outright obedience that he desires, he still has Joe and Bo.