Scoring with an End Run
Since announcing the American Jobs Act, President Obama has taken a more combative stance toward Congress. Through the first two and a half years of his first term, the President has tried to work with Congress, attempting to cajole them and negotiate with them, push where he could, back off when necessary, in his attempt to get the best deals he could for the American people.
Republican opposition, on issue after issue, has been unyielding, absolute, and inflexible. Since the Republicans took over the House, this has been especially apparent. Republicans will not allow anything to be enacted that is supported by the White House.
President Obama’s response has been to take off the gloves. No more Mister Nice Guy. The era of trying to negotiate with a brick wall is over. Rather than try to work with people whose only objective is to defeat him next year, the President is acting on his own to help America recover from the Great Recession. His strategy is working, and Republicans are playing right into his hands.
On Tuesday, the President announced a plan to make more mortgages affordable for more homeowners whose home values have fallen below what they owe. On Wednesday, he announced changes to the federal student loan program, which will make it easier for millions of American students to go to college, and to pay off their loans afterward. The President is making an end run around an uncooperative and hostile Republican-controlled Congress.
“Republican-controlled Congress”? Don’t the Democrats control the Senate?
No. The Democrats have a majority in the Senate. That is different from “control”. Republican Senators have decided they can, and should, filibuster everything, and prevent the passage — even the consideration — of any bill they choose. Not that they need to, since the Republican majority in the House will allow nothing useful to pass there, either. Republicans control Congress with an iron fist and hobnailed boots, and they’re quite proud of it. It is silly to pretend otherwise.
The latest New York Times/CBS poll puts Congressional approval at nine percent. (You read that right. Nine percent.) This is hardly surprising; America is still suffering from the aftereffects of the worst recession since the 1930s, and Congress does exactly nothing, because Mitch McConnell has vowed to deny President Obama a second term. He hopes the public will blame the President for the inaction.
The Supercommittee
Meanwhile, the Democratic members of the deficit supercommittee have proposed a plan to reduce the deficit by a stunning three trillion dollars. Republicans on the committee rejected the plan, because (you guessed it) the plan includes tax increases for the wealthiest Americans. As far as the willingness of the Democrats to compromise, the plan also includes hundreds of billions in cuts to Medicare, something that Republicans have been pushing for. But intransigent Republicans refuse to compromise on any of their demands. They want their whole agenda, and nothing but.
These Republican games will not improve the public’s view of Congress, particularly if the committee remains deadlocked, and the scheduled massive automatic cuts kick in, to both domestic and military spending. Remember, the debt ceiling agreement that scheduled those cuts and created the supercommittee was rushed into law in a matter of days. Congress can as quickly rush through another bill nullifying those cuts. Here’s a discussion question — Is that what they will do? Or will Republicans play their hostage-taking card again, and insist on these economy-killing cuts unless their supercommittee demands are met in full?
Whichever course Congress takes on a deadlock — caving to Republican hostage demands, or accepting draconian cuts, or repealing the absurd agreement the Republicans forced in their ginned-up debt ceiling crisis — none of these paths will help improve the image of Congress.
So President Obama has decided to make Congress the issue, to run for reëlection against the destructively insane Republican-controlled legislature, and to do what he can to improve the economy by executive order — as did both Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman.
This may be working, both as a way to help America and a a counter to the insanity on the right. Even as the Congressional approval rating has fallen to a single digit, President Obama’s approval has edged up. In the last Gallup tracking poll, he has improved from his October 6 low of 53 percent disapprove / 39 percent approve, to the current 50 percent disapprove, 43 percent approve — clearly not great, but a seven-point improvement in the spread, outside the margin of error, and definitely going in the right direction.
Over the next days and weeks, possibly even months, expect to see the President continuing to use executive orders to improve the lives of everyday Americans, the economy of America, and his own chances for reëlection. You can also expect to see Republicans helping him, by continuing to oppose any action that will be good for the economy or good for the nation.
Related articles
- Obama’s Success is Republican’s Failure (fidlerten.com)
- Congress’ New Approval Rating Low: 9% (newser.com)
- US Jobs Plan: Senate Blocks Key Proposal (stevebeckow.com)
- AP sources: Supercommittee Dems outline offer (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Paul Ryan to Slam President Obama for ‘Politics of Division’ (abcnews.go.com)

This entry was posted by dcpetterson on October 27, 2011 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Uncategorized. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
#2 written by WA7th 1 year ago
Pushing the boundaries of the powers of the executive branch.
Meh. They say that to all the Presidents.
_____________________________
Not that many don’t welcome the change, but I don’t see his tactical change (if it truly is one) making much difference at this point. Perhaps it might have back when more people were listening to him, back when many were begging him to use his bully pulpit more effectvely, but I think by now many have tuned him out permanently. In addition, his stepping it up comes during a mass proliferation of political ads of all kinds. It’s like a raindrop over Niagara Falls.
He may go a long way as the least of multiple evils at this point, but that’s not the same as getting his old groove back. He won’t. He’s now the devil we know. He can’t go back to being an unknown onto whom people project their own imaginations.
-
#3 written by shortchain 1 year ago
-
He’s not overstepping his bounds. The regulations he’s revising are all within the powers of the Executive Branch under the laws in question.
By the way, GDP grew at an annualized rate of 2.5% last quarter, nearly double the 1.3% of the previous quarter. Unemployment claims fell, and so did the number of people currently on unemployment.
Recovery is still slow, but it’s real, and accelerating. One of the biggest things that has been scaring investors is the European debt crisis, and they’ve just reached an accord on that. The DJIA opened up more than 200 points this morning, over 12,000 for the first time since the end of July.
-
It’s interesting to me that many of the same people who were criticizing President Obama for not acting like Bush and ramming his agenda through Congress in a manner more appropriate for an imperial dictator, many of those same people are now upset that the President is supposedly overstepping his bounds by using Executive authority to adjust some of these regulations.
Barack Obama ran in 2008 on a promise to reinstate a respect for the law into the office of the President. He let Congress have its traditional duties and responsibilities, instead of trying to run Congress from the Oval Office. Now that Congress has shown it is not capable (or perhaps not willing) to take action, the President is doing the things that are within his capability.
Perhaps there would be a reason to complain if, for instance, he nationalized the banks — though the bank bailouts during the Reagan years certainly allow that as well.
I really think the line about “American dictatorship” is rather hyperbolic, especially when compared to Reagan or (even more so) Bush.
-
#6 written by DrFunguy 1 year ago
DC
Who, exactly, were these people “…criticizing President Obama for not acting like Bush and ramming his agenda through Congress…”?
I (and many other) think that he could have actually stated his preferences and drawn firm boundaries as to what was negotiable instead of asking Congress to write the TARP and healthcare reform from scratch or starting negotiations from a point of compromise (see budget default crisis summer 2011). This is hardly the same as ramming an agenda through [as] “an imperial dictator”.
-
Who, exactly, were these people “…criticizing President Obama for not acting like Bush and ramming his agenda through Congress…”?
I’m thinking of some flailers I read elsewhere, who have been critical of the President since his election — not concentrating on their particular agenda (as if he didn’t have enough on his plate), not fulfilling promises he never made (like withdrawing quickly from Afghanistan or singlehandedly imposing a single-payer health care system), not personally diving to the bottom of the Gulf to cap the gusher there, and so on.
As for your suggestions — It is the role of Congress to write bills. Again, the President had lots of other things on his plate, and didn’t need to be arguing with Congresspeople in his own party over interfering with Congressional power. Besides, he did state his preferences.
As for “starting negotiations from a point of compromise,” I agree that, as a negotiating strategy, making what looks like a rational actual proposal might not be the most effective course. He insisted on treating Congress (and in particular, the Republican Party) as if it was composed of adults who had an interest in the welfare of the nation, rather than as a mindless mob whose only thought was to play destructive political games.
If I am dealing with rational adults, I’ll make rational proposals to them. If I’m dealing with a hostile enemy, I’ll start negotiations from an unreasonable position and hope to meet in the middle. Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to try to change the adversary relationship in Washington. He spend two years trying to do that. You’re criticizing him for having kept his campaign promise. We elected him, in part, because he treats us all as adults, and because he doesn’t play the usual sorts of political games and blood-sports of which Republicans are so fond.
Had the President adopted a harsher tone and more adversarial negotiating stance from the beginning, would the Republicans have been more coöperative? I think not. I think it would have accomplished nothing other than to piss off his own supporters who voted for him because he was not that kind of a politician.
-
#8 written by curious jane 1 year ago
I am confused about all of the criticism of President Obama. He started with a financial crisis that had been building for at least 25 years and two wars. It’s like parenting you don’t get a lot of practice for actual reality. Many claimed he was not born in the USA, and on and on.
He seems to have actually tried to be President of all the people. I agree, he tried to be reasonable far to long but, look what he was up against. Remember the fillibuster and the blue dogs.
What, exactly, do people think he did wrong? Hindsight is 20⁄20.
He can’t please all of us. My question is, who else do you want. He is the best for the times. I look at the alternatives and it is terrifying. This is a, very long, Republican economy. President Clinton was a conservative Democrat so, liberals have patience. President Obama is “the best show in town”.
-
#10 written by DrFunguy 1 year ago
While I agree that the alternatives are terrible, no one is above criticism. And while some are over the top with their criticism of the President I think it fair to say that negotiation starting from a compromise is _always_ a bad strategy; if you don’t start by asking what you really want, how does anyone know what that is? I learned that from reading Alinisky about 30 years ago. I guess that Obama missed the point.
While I am glad that some progress has been made on health care, I think that BHO made the same mistake as Clinton — accepting a complicated plan designed to maintain the insurance industry. I personally believe that it is sometimes better to make a proposal that makes clear who is on what side of the fence. Then at least if you lose, people know where you stand. Similarly with TARP he accepted a bill that was over 50% tax cuts, perhaps that was the best he could get but neither did he propose anything different. While the president doesn’t write legislation he can put sideboards around his objectives as a starting point. All of this points to the need for more political parties in the US as what we have are the ‘two wings of the one big property party’ and they have successfully gamed the system to raise the bar against additional parties; there is no real progressive alternative.
-
#11 written by curious jane 1 year ago
The health care bill is totally unappreciated. I, for one, am a beneficiary of that bill all ready. In a sane world, Democrats would have lauded it. The first change in, how many decades. As in any extemely complex bill, it will have to be tweaked. He took it first because it historically has been impossible. Again, hind sight is 20⁄20. President Obama is a very smart man and very strategic. He has a vision for the country. It doesn’t seem to me the Republicans care.
The Democratic Party has historically had a problem rallying and are split on their support. The fact that the 2012 election is even going to be close makes me sick.
If people stay home, don’t conbtribute and don’t support the interests of the 99%. This is important for Dems and Independant. Criticism I understand but let us accentuate the positives and push for hope and a better tommorow.
It’s “sappy”, I know, but I really love this Country. The negative environment is so caustic, I am afraid of violence. The opposition is so negative. It would be nice to see full support for the President. As I said before, the alternative is terrifying.
-
#13 written by DrFunguy 1 year ago
No worries Jane. Nice that you got help from HCR; I moved to Canada. Universal, single payer, what’s not to like? It is simple and costs 40% less per capita than the US ‘system’ while covering everyone, not just 65–70% of the population. That is what is so frustrating about HCR in the US, it is designed to maintain profitability for numerous health insurance companies, thereby guaranteeing higher costs than necessary (because the pool of insured is divided).
-
I agree, universal single-pay is the way to go. If President Obama had insisted on that, we would have had no change at all — except the insurance company pirates would been further emboldened to screw us worse than they had been.
Doing nothing was unacceptable. Proposing the best possible plan, and having it die, would have meant we couldn’t try again for another generation.
Similar considerations apply to TARP. (By the way, TARP was enacted under Bush. Blaming President Obama for it is like crediting Bush for the Clinton economic boom.) I assume you meant the 2009 stimulus bill (ARRA). Yes, too many tax cuts and not enough actual stimulus. But again, eliminating (or even reducing) the tax cuts would have meant no stimulus bill whatever. It does no good to be ideologically pure, and to fail to make a difference.
We’re seeing that argument play out with the Republicans, between the “establishment” pragmatics (who actually want to win elections) and the dogmatic purists (to whom everyone to the left of Sharon Angle is a RINO). Republicans may stick with the purists. I think Democrats should go with pragmatism, win the center, and make what gains we can.
-
#15 written by DrFunguy 1 year ago
I have a different take on HCR. Failing to pass single payer due to Republican intransigence would have set the Dems up for gains in the mid-terms instead of losses. Or for passing a compromise after failing with something more desireable. What passed is too complex for most folks to understand and it reinforces the similarities of the two parties rather than excentuating their differences; both want to continue to enable the ‘insurance company pirates’. I don’t think that passing something mediocre is necessarily a ‘win’ either tactically or strategically.
You are right I was thinking of ARRA. Again, why not try for what you want before compromising on something poor? Losing one vote doesn’t preclude passing a different measure later. Now when the economy fails to perform as hoped people are more likely to blame Dems ’cause “they got what they wanted and where are the jobs?”
This compromising approach has been a hallmark of all Democratic Presidents after LBJ and it has made liberal a dirty word. It enabled Nader to gain enough votes in 2000 to allow W to steal the election. Doesn’t mean I won’t vote for them given the alternatives but I have to hold my nose to do so, as I have been since I turned 18 (over thirty years now).
-
#16 written by Mainer 1 year ago
Dr. Fun, no matter what the Dems did they were going to have had major losses last time around. Hell the Republicans will make gains in some areas this time too because for vast areas of the country the voting public is stuck on stupid. Liberal is a dirty word because of propaganda and unless and until we blow Fox news of the face of the earth along with Clear Channel talk radio we have no chance of changing it.
On a lighter note. Now that guns are ok and cameras are not in the Wisconsin state house any one want to lay a wager on just how long it is before hey have a major gun incident there?
-
Mainer, fixednoise er fox news is inconsequential as they are preaching to their 2.5 million prime time choir daily. Conservative talk radio is preaching to their teabagger choir also.
ie you can’t blame (29) million 2008 Obama voters not showing up to vote in 2010 on conservatives or the media. You can blame it on apathy/laziness and many disgruntled Obama voters who were disappointed in Obama’s performance so far …
Repeating, (48.8) million ~ 22% of 218 million eligible American voters, voted Republican in the 2010 midterms er American democracy in action.
As always, America survives despite itself!
carry on
-
#18 written by junk-shot 1 year ago
Scoring? I think we are a long way from being able to say that Obama has “scored”. There is still almost a month for Obama and the Dems to give away everything at the negotiating table. Here is a link to the tax deal negotiations last year between Obama and The Republicans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tit89ofCOt4
See if you can guess which one is Obama.
-
#19 written by Mainer 1 year ago
Shiloh I doubt we can ever expect any of the now closed minds to change if we don’t find a way to either limit or counter both Fox and the conservative talk radio world. You do realize that in many areas conservative talk radio is all there is. One can not expect an informed citizenrty when only one side is being heard.
Yes too many people stayed home last time around but I again lay that at the feet of media having sold the outcome as having been already decided and that the teap party had won. Were more folks lazy or were they dispirited? I don’t know but it was almost impossible to get a progressive message out through normal media channels.
Junk shot let us hope they don’t but looking at the Dem side does not give one a great deal of hope. I have though from the beginning that this will not go well but one side has never intended for it to go well so what else is there to expect? There will not be revenue changes unless it screws what is left of the middle class to the wall. And I think you can pretty much assure that the cuts put in place will elicit great glee from the right as the dismantle what is left of the socia systems of the country.
-
#20 written by WA7th 1 year ago
shortchain #3: I don’t recall anybody saying that to either Ford or Carter, and not so much to Clinton.
The only reasons Ford will be remembered at all are for falling down the stairs of Air Force One and for pardoning the most prolific executive overreacher in U.S. history. Maybe it’s not fair, but that’s how it is.
Nearly every time a President issues an executive order, someone accuses him of overreach, especially if the results could have been accomplished legislatively. The democrats have all used the Presidency to expand environmental regulations, and have all been criticized for it. Maybe that’s not fair, but it’s bound to happen.
Every candidate who will ever run against an incumbent President will likely accuse that incumbent of trying to expand the executive branch’s power and will promise not to do the same thing. Once in office, it’s a safe bet that every new President will backtrack on that pledge by issuing an executive order to accomplish something Congress would not do, and anyone who doesn’t like the order of the day will scream “Overreach!”. It’s just the nature of Presidential politics.
-
#21 written by Jean 1 year ago
Speaking of executive orders, as a follow-up to the executive orders issued this week and last, I heard this morning that President Obama intends to issue one new executive order each week for the rest of the year.
And despite what they would like us to believe, all is not going well for the Republicans:
“House Republicans have a grade for conservative interest groups that apply a litmus test to their every action: F. The outside groups have become more aggressive and punitive in recent years, and the criteria they use to rate Republicans’ purity are constantly shifting, sometimes within hours or days on the same topic. That’s inspired a fiery backlash from folks who suddenly find themselves branded apostates by organizations they once saw as allies.
Heritage Action for America — the fresh-faced activist attaché of the esteemed Heritage Foundation — is now issuing bad grades when members of Congress fail to co-sponsor a favored bill or don’t sign onto a letter advocating for policies backed by the organization (emphasis mine). Those are new standards for lawmakers who are accustomed to being only graded on their actual votes.
[snip] But the new grading culture, designed to put pressure on lawmakers to observe orthodoxy, has created a sense of paralysis for many members of Congress. The threat of political retribution, carried explicitly and implicitly in grass-roots “action alerts” and scorecards, is injected into every imaginable act.
[snip] Even some of the most stalwart supporters of Heritage’s mission said privately that they may have done their cause more harm than good in recent months because they are turning allies into enemies. ”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66952.html
-
-
#23 written by Armchair Warlord 1 year ago
-
-
#25 written by Armchair Warlord 1 year ago
dc,
I suppose. I’ve been thinking that conditions are increasingly ripe for schism in the Republican Party, but it honestly seems like most Republican politicians lack the independence from the party’s political machine to execute something like that and not get instantly destroyed.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
About dcpetterson (186 posts)
D. C. Petterson is a novelist and a software consultant in Minnesota who has been writing science fiction since the age of six. He is the author of A Melancholy Humour, Rune Song and Still Life. He lives with his wife, two dogs, two cats, and a lizard, and insists that grandchildren are the reward for having survived teenagers. When not writing stories or software, he plays guitar and piano, engages in political debate, and reads a lot of history and physics texts—for fun. Follow on Twitter @dcpetterson







Welcome to another period of living in an American dictatorship (the “lite” version, so far).
Pushing the boundaries of the powers of the executive branch, eroding the democratic underpinnings of our society, and paving the way for more expansion of executive power in the future.
I’m not saying that Obama can avoid this — obstructionism by the GOP in Congress really leaves him little choice — but that doesn’t mean this isn’t a very bad idea, in the long run.