"Let's all work together"

[Elvado]

I thoroughly enjoyed the President yesterday. He was statesmanlike, conciliatory, responsible and deeply informative.

I especially enjoyed when he explained to me that all of the power grabs in the first two years of his term were really just responses to emergencies and did not constitute his agenda.

He also struck just the right tone of cooperation when he offered to work with the "enemies" he had placed "in the back" just days before.

His announcement that the American people do not wish to relitigate the battles of the last two years was very refreshing and a bit confusing coming from someone who has not listened to the American public at all.

All in all, Bravo to Barry O and have a nice 2 Billion dollar trip.

[jerseyhoya34]

Elvado - I am not sure anything has changed with Obama except the circumstances. Now that the House Republicans no longer sit at the kid's table as they did due to the 2006 and 2008 elections, there is actually some interest in cooperation on that side of the aisle. What is meant by cooperation is another matter, especially in light of Boehner's speech on Tuesday.

"We hope President Obama will now respect the will of the people, change course, and commit to making the changes they are demanding. To the extent he is willing to do this, we are ready to work with him." In other words, cooperation means we get our way. That is not any different from what Obama had the mandate to do in 2008.

Minority Leader McConnell has not gone even that far to reach across the aisle. His view is disturbing but not surprising in light of his record.

[Elvado]

Do you really believe Obama had a mandate for one-party rule after 2008?

Do you really believe he had a mandate for a health care bill that no one read and the majority of Americans opposed?

If so, fine. We can honestly disagree.

However, the President had zero interest in cooperation when he held all the cards. He has, by his conduct, defined bipartisanship as capitulation.

Why should the Republicans throw him a lifeline if they legitmately believe his agenda is not in the best intersts of the nation?

I am willing to accept that he believes in his agenda, though i believe him to be wrong.

He now has to play from a weaker position. He played as a bully for two years so it is hard to believe him when he speaks of cooperation now.

A fundamental problem is that he has never had to compromise in his political life. Let's see if he can.

[Boz]

What's worse: a "thumpin'" or a "shellacking"?



I think there is potential -- stress potential -- for bipartisan cooperation in the new Congress with respect to immigration reform.


But I'm not seeing a whole lot of other areas where either side of the aisle is going to budge much. Possibly in some foreign policy areas, but not on the domestic side.

[hoyawatcher]

I don't think the co-operation will come on immigration reform. Too controversial for both sides right now and I don't see Obama letting anything through on that one. Where I do think you will see some co-operation is from the Senate on spending and taxes. There are multiple middle of the country senators who saw the pounding taken by their colleagues this year on the economy and won't leave it solely up to Obama this time and don't have Pelosi squawking at them from the other end. Whether Obama will sign or veto any of this is certainly up for debate but I see the Senate passing keeping all of the Bush tax cuts, recinding a portion of unspent stimulus money or using it in other ways (tax cut), some serious nip and tuck of Obama care (no illusion it is recinded) and a ban on the EPA enforcing any kind of carbon tax/regulation. Would also not be surprised to see some co-operation on energy policy - reasonable support to actually push the verbiage supporting nuclear power and also for drilling for NG in the gulf.

The house will go way right as Pelosi did left but the difference will be Senators now looking at re-election and what they see as a seriously weakened prez. The bloom is off the lemming lockstep approach so I expect to see more deals in the Senate outside of Obama.

[TC]

Nov 4, 2010 11:02:41 GMT -5 hoyawatcher said:

The bloom is off the lemming lockstep approach so I expect to see more deals in the Senate outside of Obama.

Uh, when was there a lemming lockstep approach in the Senate from the Democrats? They've been more like a bunch of deaf cats.

[jerseyhoya34]

Nov 4, 2010 10:25:01 GMT -5 Boz said:

What's worse: a "thumpin'" or a "shellacking"?



I think there is potential -- stress potential -- for bipartisan cooperation in the new Congress with respect to immigration reform.


But I'm not seeing a whole lot of other areas where either side of the aisle is going to budge much. Possibly in some foreign policy areas, but not on the domestic side.

Unfortunately, I think you'll see compromise on tax cuts with either capitulation from the left or an agreement to phase out the tax on the wealthier taxpayers and keep the rest of the Bush tax cuts. Contrary to dogma, our federal income tax rates have not increased over the past 2 years.

I think when you count up the number of filibusters (a record) over the past 4 years, it is hard to identify where Republicans were ready and willing to compromise. You can't compromise if you aren't even willing to consider and debate a piece of legislation or judicial nomination.

[TBird41]

Nov 4, 2010 12:37:07 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

I think when you count up the number of filibusters (a record) over the past 4 years, it is hard to identify where Republicans were ready and willing to compromise. You can't compromise if you aren't even willing to consider and debate a piece of legislation or judicial nomination.

Out of curiosity, do you have any idea when was the last time a bill was put to a majority vote and did not pass the Senate?

[jerseyhoya34]

Nov 4, 2010 13:43:24 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Nov 4, 2010 12:37:07 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

I think when you count up the number of filibusters (a record) over the past 4 years, it is hard to identify where Republicans were ready and willing to compromise. You can't compromise if you aren't even willing to consider and debate a piece of legislation or judicial nomination.

Out of curiosity, do you have any idea when was the last time a bill was put to a majority vote and did not pass the Senate?

I don't doubt that. My comment related to the unprecedented block of legislation getting to the point of an up or down vote. Many of the things that have passed on important issues have not seen much of any cooperation.

[kchoya]

Nov 4, 2010 14:20:38 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Nov 4, 2010 13:43:24 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Out of curiosity, do you have any idea when was the last time a bill was put to a majority vote and did not pass the Senate?

I don't doubt that. My comment related to the unprecedented block of legislation getting to the point of an up or down vote. Many of the things that have passed on important issues have not seen much of any cooperation.

That completely ignores the lack of [Raferty] onions [/Raferty] on the part of the majority to push the bills and bring them to the floor and force the minority's hand.

[jerseyhoya34]

KC - I agree with you, but then it becomes a damned if you do. The biggest complaint when the Dems have done that is that more time was needed to debate. HCR comes to mind there.

The other quibble is that the Dems have not, with the exception of a couple of months, been able to lockstep things to the floor. Kennedy died, Byrd was ill, there was a recount and scorched earth litigation in MN, Joe Lieberman does not count, Ben Nelson is a centrist, etc.

[The Stig]

Nov 4, 2010 13:43:24 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Nov 4, 2010 12:37:07 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

I think when you count up the number of filibusters (a record) over the past 4 years, it is hard to identify where Republicans were ready and willing to compromise. You can't compromise if you aren't even willing to consider and debate a piece of legislation or judicial nomination.

Out of curiosity, do you have any idea when was the last time a bill was put to a majority vote and did not pass the Senate?

That's because the Senate hardly ever holds a majority vote on a bill. They've held only 2 such votes since May.

[TBird41]

Nov 4, 2010 14:30:57 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Nov 4, 2010 13:43:24 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Out of curiosity, do you have any idea when was the last time a bill was put to a majority vote and did not pass the Senate?

That's because the Senate hardly ever holds a majority vote on a bill. They've held only 2 such votes since May.

I meant in the past decade or so. At this point, a bill passes the Senate after it gets through the filibuster stage. Any real debate of the bill occurs BEFORE the vote on cloture, not after.

[SirSaxa]

Does anyone expect the two parties to put aside partisan priorities, beliefs and ideology to actually work together for the good of the country?

[Elvado]

Nov 4, 2010 22:45:06 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Does anyone expect the two parties to put aside partisan priorities, beliefs and ideology to actually work together for the good of the country?

Sadly, no. This sorry state of affairs derives from the fact that our representatives are no longer citizen-legislators who return to the farm or store or solo law practice when not in session.

Rather, on both sides of the aisle, our Congress is filled with thosw who aspire to be part of a permanet ruling class, cvoncerned only (with rare exception) with their own re-election/entrenchment.