Thread: Obama admits failure to change Washington

Originally Posted by Travis007

You made no point at all..and your post is moot..

Sure I made a point.

Obama isn't the "Dictator-in-Chief". Saying such is ridiculous hyperbole. If he was "Dictator-in-Chief" the health care law would look exactly like the one he wants, which is absolutely not the case.

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

To be fair, it was a Republican idea floated at a time when their reasonable expectation of seeing a time where there'd be a legitimate shot at pushing and passing a Republican ideal plan was non-existant and where Democrats controlled the government and as such the Republicans were seeking to put forward a compromies bill that may perhaps have been able to win over Democrats and get a bill passed. It was also a bill and an idea quickly abandoned after it's inception and, in bill form, was one of numerous Republican bills that were put forward. It was also from nearly two decades ago, a time where the reality of politics was far different than it is today.

Sure, but whatever the conditions, it was an originally Republican idea and from your account, a proposal based on the very compromise that was being sought in this situation. Therefore, Obama took an originally Republican idea - one with a history of being used as a point of compromise by Republicans and proposed his bill with it which directly counters the point that I addressed.

Part of it is that the political parties have moved over the past 20 years due to the realities of the political climate. Note, political parties...not ideology. There's no indication what so ever that IDEOLOGICALLY there's much difference between now and then. There is a difference however in how the politics of that ideology are pushed. The reason for this I believe is pretty simple. Prior to 1994, or perhaps more accurately 2000, the general wisdom was such....Democrats were almost always going to have control of the Congress and Republicans would almost never have control of it, with the President flipping around. What this meant was, for 40 to 50 plus years, the Republican reality was that the only way to ever see almost anything they wanted passed was to massively compromise on it. They had to start, from square one most of the time, from a compromised position not an ideological one. On the flip side, for 40 to 50 years, the Democratic reality was one where they could argue from an ideological point at the onset and if it was one of those rare times they didn't have control well then they could just bide their time till they got it back.

In the past 20 years the power in the Senate has shifted more than it has in the 50 before it, and it's changed the policy thinking of both parties. Democrats have begun to move from hard and solid left to solid and moderate left in its policy proposals....Republicans hav begun to move from moderate and solid right to solid and hard right on their policies. Democrats no longer have the unquestionable assurence that they're going to be in control and just can go about their ideas on a purely ideological basis...and Republicans now realize that they have a legitimate shot now to gain control so no longer have to start at a compromise position to hope to actually succeed at anything.

I agree.

Your 90's policy is less an indication of what is an acceptable "Conservative" idea and more an example of policy acceptable based on that potential political climate. However, that climate and reality is significantly different then it is now.

I agree and yet the fact still remains that it was a Republican idea. The political climate is relevant when it comes to determining why Republicans don't accept that proposed compromise today. However, it is not relevant for determining whether or not it was a Republican idea put forth by Obama as a potential compromise. Now one could argue that Obama proposing formerly Republican ideas that current Republicans aren't going to accept is not a legitimate attempt for compromise. However, that argument would be based on the premise that the Republicans would take any compromise with significant benefits for the Democrats, which I think is a false premise, particularly given the idea you've laid out about the shifts that have occurred within the parties over the last 20 years.

Bipartisanship is possible in the current day, just not as much as it previously was and especially not as much as it was in the 90's. Why? The best atmosphere for bipartisanship and compromise is a time where a party has enjoyed lengthy control and then has that threatened, as you have one side anxious to try and get ANYTHING done and another side willing to ride the current popular wave a bit until things go back to normal and they take control.

I agree with most of that. However, I don't believe that bipartisanship is possible, at least on significant issues. Well, I believe it's possible in the sense that I believe anything is possible, but I don't think the possibility exceeds 1%.

So it some ways I buy the notion that the Republicans have moved more right and the Democrats more towards center...not ideologically speaking, but practically. And it's something that I think is reasonable and understandable given the significant changes in the way politics and the government have existed for the past 20 years compared to the 50 before it.

The issue with the health care law however was that you had disagreements between your Hard Left, Solid Left, and Moderate Left Democrats in the congress and needed to move more towards the Moderate side to even get anything passed...not to win Republican votes.

We disagree here. Perhaps when it become clear that the Republicans weren't interested in the compromises Obama had to offer, his administration focused solely on getting moderate Democrats, but I do believe that he initially attempted bipartisan support because he was naive and in some ways, in love with the idea of becoming the President who would change Washington and unite the country. He didn't do that, unsurprisingly.

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Sure. I imagine if a Democratic blue dog co-signed a bill with a Republican that was primarily or at least half filled with ideas in line with the political realities of the current Republican Party and didn't include any significant tax hikes, it'd get support. However, I don't think such a bill would be realistic and in general I don't think there was likely a bill that they could've proposed that would've actually managed to win enough Democrats AND Republicans to get it passed.

So the Democrats tried to shore up their side to get enough votes and the Republicans went hog wild putting up things they knew full well would never pass. I don't really blame either for those actions. There was never an honest desire to be bipartisan, nor do I rightly fault that fact in theory, there was simply an attempt to push politcal spin to provide cover against their own base for having to bend to get those in their own party to join together for enough votes.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with TPD. Obama started with a Republican proposal because he expected it would draw at least *some* Republican support. He agreed from the outset not to push for prescription drug bargaining for Medicare/Medicaid because he knew that Republicans would oppose that (and also to limit opposition from big pharma, of course). In addition, he agreed to drop the very popular public option ... because he needed the support of moderate Democrats, yes, but I'm sure he also hoped to pick up at least one or two Republican votes in the Senate.

Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive

Sure, but whatever the conditions, it was an originally Republican idea and from your account, a proposal based on the very compromise that was being sought in this situation. Therefore, Obama took an originally Republican idea - one with a history of being used as a point of compromise by Republicans and proposed his bill with it which directly counters the point that I addressed.

Which would make sense, if he was tring to work with early 90's Republicans.

The Republican Party, policy ideas, and views have changed...as have Democrats...since the 90's. There's little difference between pulling something from there and pulling something from 1970 and suggesting that "You're using a Republican idea". Hell, by this mindset, the Republicans are offering a "bipartisan compromise" to Democrats with regards to extending the Bush Tax Cuts because Tax Cuts were a Democratically pushed idea under Kennedy.

An UNACCPETABLE compromise position from nearly 15+ years ago (the bill that largely is referenced that included this in it was, quickly after it's inception, actually disavowed by many republicans) being floated to an largely different group of Republicans in an entirely different political climate isn't exactly a smoking gun.

Not to mention...nothing you've stated that such inclussions were anymore for the benefit of getting REPUBLICANs at it was for getting Democrats to vote in favor of it.

I agree and yet the fact still remains that it was a Republican idea.

Was

The "fact" remains that it wasn't until he added those past "republican ideas" in that he was able to get enough DEMOCRATIC support to get his bill passed. So you provide no more evidence of him trying to woo over Republicans than there is to the notion that he was simply trying to woo over those in his own party that wouldn't go along with him.

However, it is not relevant for determining whether or not it was a Republican idea put forth by Obama as a potential compromise.

It is important to determine whether or not the "potential compromise" put forth was one done with any actual intention or desire to win over Republican support or not. Floating an idea that's 15 years old and came about when a Republican Majority was something slightly less rare than a Dodo Bird and expecting that a crop of Republicans who have witnessed and possibly experienced multiple instances of majority control and whose POLICY ideas and views on the matter had plenty of indiciation of shifting since that time is hardly a "compromise" that a reasonable intelligent person should've expected to be accepted by the Republicans.

Know who it was reasonable to expect it to win over....

The moderate Democrats who weren't going along with the Administrations original drafts.

Know who it actually did win over?

Moderate Democrats who weren't going along with the Administrations original drafts.

Now one could argue that Obama proposing formerly Republican ideas that current Republicans aren't going to accept is not a legitimate attempt for compromise. However, that argument would be based on the premise that the Republicans would take any compromise with significant benefits for the Democrats, which I think is a false premise, particularly given the idea you've laid out about the shifts that have occurred within the parties over the last 20 years.

Well, no...it's based on the premise that Obama knew full well that including a policy idea previously pushed forward by Republicans almost 2 decades previously in an entirely different political climate that even THEN ended up not getting significant support and in the end had republicans fleeing from it was unlikely to actually gain any real Republican support, but WOULD win him the Democratic support he needed, thus being able to get something passed while claiming he was working for "bipartisanship".


I agree with most of that. However, I don't believe that bipartisanship is possible, at least on significant issues. Well, I believe it's possible in the sense that I believe anything is possible, but I don't think the possibility exceeds 1%.

Perhaps when it become clear that the Republicans weren't interested in the compromises Obama had to offer, his administration focused solely on getting moderate Democrats, but I do believe that he initially attempted bipartisan support because he was naive and in some ways, in love with the idea of becoming the President who would change Washington and unite the country. He didn't do that, unsurprisingly.

We agree in part on the premise but not the execution. I think he naively thought he was going to be able to truly "change" washington and "united" the country through "bipartisanship" as well. However, I think he naively saw "bipartiasnship" as a notion that "I won" and so I'll throw a few token scraps that I find palatable onto the table and because "I Won" and because I'm going to "Change" politics the Republicans will simply accept it. When they wouldn't accept table scraps he tried to simply go about it his own way...and then realized that he didn't even have support for that within his own party. Which lead to needing to win over the moderate democrats and using the table scraps thrown out to Republicans and the concessions made to get the moderate Democrats as a means of cover for attempting to push for "bipartisanship".

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Sure I made a point.

Obama isn't the "Dictator-in-Chief". Saying such is ridiculous hyperbole. If he was "Dictator-in-Chief" the health care law would look exactly like the one he wants, which is absolutely not the case.

sorry many dont agree and the other posters point was correct..

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Which would make sense, if he was tring to work with early 90's Republicans.

The Republican Party, policy ideas, and views have changed...as have Democrats...since the 90's.

Except that Gingrich was pushing a similar idea as recently as a few years ago, and of course Romney implemented a very similar plan around 2003 -- which received applause from the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Originally Posted by AdamT

Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with TPD. Obama started with a Republican proposal because he expected it would draw at least *some* Republican support.

I have greater faith in Obama's intellect and political savy then to think he was ignorant or dumb enough to believe that a 15 year old republican plan, that didn't even manage to get sustained support in it's day, during a time where Republicans were always having to start from a significantly compromised position was actually going to garner himself any kind of actual support...especially in the political age as we knew it coming out of 8 years of the Bush Administration. The only way I could buy him believing that is if he was blinded to much by ego that because "I won" the Republicans are just going to get in line and take I throw out to them and be happy about it.

I don't doubt there was HOPE that he'd manage to pick up some Republicans with his actoins. I'm not saying he was going "HAHA! I hope we don't get a single republican vote"! However, I don't believe that was the primary intent. Picking up a republican vote or two would do him no good if he couldn't shore up the moderate Democrats. The primary purpose wasn't bipartisanship...the primary purpose was suring up the votes from his own party. If that managed to garner a few Republican votes in the process, GREAT! However, that wasn't the point and that's not bipartisanship in my mind.

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

It can be equally arguable that he didn't try "bipartisanship", but that he had to take steps to win over the more conservative individuals in his own party and rather than portray it as a failure of his party to get the votes to get through what they wanted they decided to paint it as "bipartisanship". There's no greater argument that the actions that were undertaken to "water down" the health care bill away from what the Democrat Base wanted was done to "reach out to Republicans" then there is to suggest it was to reach out to conservative democrats. On the contrary, considering there was a time period that with Democrats and Democrat leaning Independents, the party had a Super Majority in congress and didn't even NEED to reach out to Republicans for health care.

I agree that both arguments - that he tried bipartisanship and that he did not - can be defended. However, I do not believe that the latter is accurate given my own perspective on Obama. In order to say that Obama did not attempt partisanship, then one would have to assume that he is a liar. While this assumption is exactly difficult to imagine given that we're talking about a politician, I don't believe it to be true in this case.

For us to believe that the bending Obama did on Obamacare was for the benefit of the Republicans...we need to believe they were SO intent on trying to get Republicans to vote with them that they passed on a chance to pass through exactly what they wanted with a super majoirty but not so intent as to actually budge far enough to actually win over any Republicans. That, frankly, doesn't make sense.

First, I do not believe that Obama's compromising was for the benefit of Republicans. I think it was for his own benefit and perhaps, if he really is/was as honorable as he portrays himself to be, for the benefit of the country.

Your second point is a solid argument. If you're not going to give Republicans what they want and you have a majority in Congress, then why not just push your original proposal through? Your answer is "because they needed the moderate Democrats who weren't buying the original plan." I agree with that. I remember that there was a group of "blue dog" Democrats who wanted a more fiscally conservative plan. However, compromising within a party can coexists with compromising outside of it. I think Obama wanted to compromise, he offered a few and Republicans rejected it. I don't think he was willing to go as far as they wanted him to go, so he focused on Democrats and got the bill passed.

The far more likely conclussion to come up with is that Obama and the Democratic Party couldn't muster their own forces enough to pass through, even with a super majority, the type of health care reform they really wanted so had to "compromise" to get votes from their own party and pitched the "bipartisan" argument as a means of damage control.

Obama and his administration were advocating bipartisanship on the campaign trail. It's not something that suddenly came up after negotiations on healthcare began. Therefore, I don't see much of an argument for using bipartisanship as damage control since it wasn't an afterthought, but an idea pressed by them long before the actual election.

Originally Posted by AdamT

Except that Gingrich was pushing a similar idea as recently as a few years ago, and of course Romney implemented a very similar plan around 2003 -- which received applause from the conservative Heritage Foundation.

And was roundly criticized by many other Republicans since that point, including it being used as a means of criticizing him during the 2008 primary before Obamacare even existed. Sorry to tell you this, but the Heritage Foundation is no more the official unquestioned spokesperson for Republicans than the Center for American Progress is for Democrats.

Are we now going off the notion that if a handful of politicians on a particular side approve of an idea, then it must be an idea approved by that side as a whole?

Wonderful...let's move forward with the Democratic Party PATROIT Act and War on Terror. Thanks Joe Lieberman for your support of it while a Democrat, you've now made both Democratic Ideas.

Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive

He actually did a lot of compromising that pissed much of his constituency off, particularly on healthcare.

Point to one. You won't be able to because the only ones he compromised with are the insurance companies and he did that in closed door meetings, early on in the process.