TPMCafe
« The Homebuyers Tax Credit and Free Market Fundamentalism | Home | Fannie Mae's results - oh, and what if Bank of America reported the same way... »

Obama Needs To Start Acting Like a One Term President

user-pic

It has become increasingly clear that President Obama's term is going to be a very difficult slog. We live at a time when Congress no longer believes -- and that includes much of the President's own party -- that a landslide election victory by a Presidential candidate means that the new President has a mandate to enact the program he ran on.

I think Obama will be able to get the key elements of his program enacted, not all of it, but enough of it to make him a successful President. Of course, nobody knows.

In any case, either in 2010 (God forbid) or 2012 (more likely), the Republicans will be back. And, when they return, they will be worse than ever -- especially now with the Christianist bigots running the party.

That means that Obama should use the rest of this one term to which he is guaranteed to put in place programs that cannot be undone. That means using Executive Orders to do whatever is doable unilaterally. It means normalizing relations with Iran, addressing climate issues, labor rights, gays in the military, choice, raising taxes-- whatever issue that can be addressed either by executive order or a simple majority of Congress.

The politics of consensus is garbage and we cannot afford it, not with an opposition that rejects most American values and traditions waiting in the wings. The alternative to the Democrats is the party of Neocons, Bachmann, Palin and Glenn Beck. That means that Democrats need to lock in policies that cannot be reversed.

You know the saying: life is uncertain, eat dessert first.

Remember LBJ. He got it all done in the first two years because he feared that was all he had. He was right. He lost 47 House seats in 1966 and the Great Society was done.

But the amazing domestic legacy of those two years -- Medicare, Medicaid, Voting Rights, Clean Air, Clean Water, college loans -- is locked in forever, untouchable. That should be the model even though LBJ governed before the Party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Nelson Rockefeller became the Party of Limbaugh, Kristol and Beck. That makes Obama's mission different -- a difference LBJ's would characterize as the difference between "chicken salad and chicken sh*t."


36 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

You're freaking out.

user-pic

Oh Rosy you are so funny when, " You are Freakingout ", There is nothing wrong with getting in touch with who you really are. You have to make some room for your President Obaama.
Instead of " The Great Society ", we are now in " The Great Leap Forward ", With a side order of Government Ponzi Environmentalism. I hope you enjoy the upcoming Famine.

user-pic

Huh?

user-pic

I think you mean 2010 in para 2.

I believe the pace and actions taken by Obama assure him being a one termer. His problem is he thinks the slow pace, codling Wall St., Congress and an army of special interests and no GOP contenders guaranty reelection.

user-pic

How come the GOP got to be in charge for more than a decade and as soon as the Dems get control, they only get 4 years?

Let's spend more time reminding Americans of what happens when the GOP is in charge instead of all this hand-wringing.

user-pic

Um, you aren't writing clear. When you're on here, all you have are your words. We can't read your mind.

user-pic
But the amazing domestic legacy of those two years -- Medicare, Medicaid, Voting Rights, Clean Air, Clean Water, college loans -- is locked in forever
What's a moron!
The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution.[1] Commonly abbreviated as the CWA, the act established the goals of eliminating releases to water of high amounts of toxic substances, eliminating additional water pollution by 1985, and ensuring that surface waters would meet standards necessary for human sports and recreation by 1983. The principal body of law currently in effect is based on the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, which significantly expanded and strengthened earlier legislation.[2] Major amendments were enacted in the Clean Water Act of 1977 enacted by the 95th United States Congress[3] and the Water Quality Act of 1987 enacted by the 100th United States Congress.[4]
user-pic
It means normalizing relations with Iran,
What's a moron!
Iran’s supreme leader, spurning what he described as several personal overtures from President Obama, warned Tuesday that negotiating with the United States would be “naive and perverted” and that Iranian politicians should not be “deceived” into starting such talks. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 70, said Obama has approached him several times through oral and written messages. It was the second time that Khamenei, who wields ultimate political and religious authority in Iran, has referred to the president’s outreach.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/154051
user-pic

Ahh, the Zombies do have a short shelf life. In my Statuary Museum, both FDR and LBJ rest comfortably. And in the years ahead, Jimmy Carter's bust will be on my shelf. as well.

Perhaps, we inadvertently forget that Professor Todd Gitlin who writes here on the front page at the TPM, is highly respected and well-versed when it comes to America's foremost exceptionalism for the Iconic behavior of a "participatory" Democracy. And if you don't this, you have lost much for any affliction and affection for history, and subsequently, I suggest that you start 'reading' him. He will set you free from any proclivity in your presumptive behavior for the appropriate lack of intellectual vigor.

Of course, the 'trick' is in knowing that LBJ demonstrated the first for pushing the political envelop, in putting taxpayer largesse behind his Philosophy for Thought and Action. Therefore, a first-rate leadership model was imposed on America and in contrast, Ronald Reagan sold America the notional that the government was your enemy.

And how did all this work out? Today, there are over 5,000 Native Americans who carry the title of Elected and Appointed Officials; There are over 10,000 Elected and Appointed Officials in the Spanish-speaking community; and there are over 10,000 Elected and Appointed Officials in the African American community.

And by any "standard" measured and utilized, LBJ's Legacy, is beyond question.

Just a Passing Thought From Here in the Sonoran Desert.

Jaango

user-pic

MJ I think it's cute you think Obama would actually want to make changes like LBJ did. I think it is laughable that he hasn't already made the changes he wants to:

-passed a larger military budget
-sent tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan
-used predator drone strikes to murder Pakistani civilians
-cemented the Bush policies of illegal wiretapping on all citizens' communications
-pushed the State Secrets use even further
-covered up for War Crimes and torture done by our country
-gave hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall St. firms he favors
-make sure derivatives are not regulated
-make sure Goldman has every advantage over its competitors
-Keep the Glass-Steagal and Gramm-Leach-Bliley status-quo intact
-form a "healthcare" bill that ensures the for-profit insurance companies will continue to gouge the citizenry
-we'll get some crappy cap n trade bill that will reward the biggest polluters
-seated a Supreme Court Justice that always sides with Republicans corporatist views
-stopped EFCA dead in its tracks
-keep DADT in place
-keep DOMA in place
-not criticize/blame the economic policies that caused the financial meltdown we are in
-not destroy Reaganomics/supply side theories
-protect DINO blue dogs
-let corporations run the government

It seems to me like he has acheived all of his true priorities.

How is that unicorn doing on the rainbow you live on where Candidate Obama cares about things he said in speeches to fool progressives?

for Obama, that's a wrap, everything else (read corporate giveaways/endless war&torture) is icing on his bipartisan cake

user-pic

Well said. The sooner we realize his policy reflects his politics, the sooner we can figure out how to move forward. All this "urging" Obama to act is ludicrous; he has acted decisively already in terms of his center-right politics. Whatever promise he had for left-progressives in the campaign was to ensure their votes, their campaign funds, their activism; like Bush's compassionate conservatism, Obama's campaign for "change" was in the end a campaign jingle.

user-pic

This is why the Wingnut's daily refrain of Obama as a "radical socialist" is effective. Obama just keeps proving he isn't.....by supporting all the corportism that the Wingnut's really want. Ask for the stars and get the moon. It works every time.

user-pic

But why does this always have to work in only one direction? Is this a fundamental law of physics? (The short answer is of course we have a one party system in the US, the corporate "Village"
party (?); it has two faces (maybe three because surely the Dems are "two-faced" themselves) but this is two (or three) sides of the same coin.

user-pic

Well, there's just one suspect to be rounded up in this case, isn't there - Mr. Laszlo?

Said suspect is savagely dispassionate about anything and everything and whoever the artist was who drew up that iconic campaign poster, likely he's lately been puking his guts out.

We've gone and done it to ourselves, folks. But not to complain and just wait till four years from now. If you think things are bad now, just wait...

user-pic

Actually I think the "usual" suspects will do: we do not bother to mention the Republicans with their racist, jingoist, corporatist, bigoted tendencies. That goes without saying, So I guess we get to throw in Obama and most of the Democratic party. Actually I have been pleasantly albeit mildly surprised by the backbone shown by some of the Democratic leadership in Congress vis-a-vis the Republicans and the accommodationists in the White House.

user-pic

I would have thought it obvious to anyone with just a modicum of intelligence to see that Netanyahu, so ably backed by AIPAC, has been successful in emasculating this president.

Netanyahu is now King! And kings always have it over presidents.

Only problem is accepting the concept of a Likud run Union. I guess we'll get used it. Like we got used to recession and AIDS - just something we gotta live with cos there's sure nobody visible out there who's goin to change it, not anytime soon, anyway.

That's just life, politics and the art of propaganda properly positioned in the mind of the public. Or as they say, living with crap and hasbara.

user-pic

When you were dodging the draft back in the '60s weren't you out on the streets, with all the other cool '60s types, calling LBJ a babykiller? Wasn't he the uncouth Texan who had illegitimately taken power and shit on Camelot?

user-pic

Well, Medicare is wonderful, but engaging in a war that he got us into by deceit that killed millions of people in a cause that LBJ believed was doomed to failure is not exactly something that should have gone on without being protested against.

user-pic

"We live at a time when Congress no longer believes -- and that includes much of the President's own party -- that a landslide election victory by a Presidential candidate means that the new President has a mandate to enact the program he ran on."

Unless a moron like Bush steals an election and the ethically challenged Republican Congress goes along with any crap he slings at us.

user-pic

I'm afraid with Obama we're learning the difference between a motivational speaker and a true leader.

user-pic

Also, before Obama and the Democrats can enact their programs they have to decide what those programs are. So I ask a series of questions:

  • Are Obama and the Democrats behind a public option or not?
  • Do Obama and the Democrats believe we should increase or decrease our presence in Afghanistan?
  • Will Obama and Democrats stand behind a woman's right to choose and a gay's right to marry or not?
  • Do Obama and the Democrats believe Israel should stop settlements or not?
  • Are Obama and the Democrats ready to close Gitmo or not?
  • Are Obama and the Democrats going to end Bush-era extra-legal detentions and searches or not?
  • Enacting programs is a great idea, but first one has to have programs to enact.

    user-pic

    In many ways, Obama's policy of doing as little as possible, opting for a minimalist program on gay rights, health care, stimulus, following to a very large extent Bush foreign policy and security thinking, almost seem designed to give the discredited Republicans a new lease on life. After all, in a large number of ways they still control the public discourse and the accepted political wisdom. To change things, the existing way has to be challenged not massaged. Obama does not act like he wants real change, well, because he doesn't want real change.

    user-pic

    FDR was famously quoted and I paraphrase here, "I agree with you, now, make me do it." AND, a Australian researcher recently found that gumpy people make good decision-makers. That being the case, we need to make Obama "do it!"

    Now, how say you?

    Jaango

    user-pic

    You are aware that the same applies to any President at any time. If we can "make them do it" usually they do it. It also applies to monarchs, so maybe 1776 was unnecessary.

    user-pic

    I say hooray for "gumpy" people :)

    user-pic

    I don't mind making decisions one little itsy bit. And if anyone goes and calls me "gumpy", well I'd love to just knock 'em on their ass!

    user-pic

    Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do when he ran - governing as a cautious, incremental, marginally-left-of-center consensus-builder. To many of us, it was obvious during the campaign that consensus-building with the same rabid hounds that pursued our last Democratic President was not in the cards. But to some (including MJ Rosenberg), Obama would herald a new era of activist, progressive dominance. Apparently, MJ either didn't listen or thought Obama was just lying. I tended to take Obama at his word. More than most politicians, Obama appears to be a man of integrity. Of course, integrity is of necessity counterbalanced by the need to be elected in a country that in large measure does not share the progressive values of many of us here.

    MJ and his ilk have been wrong about Obama all along. And that's not necessasrily such a bad thing. So far, I'd say he's secured some pretty impressive accomplishments and is on the verge of passing healthcare legislation that, in whatever form, will be a vast improvement and sea change from the current system.

    As Obama proved during the election, patience is a virtue.

    user-pic

    "The politics of consensus is garbage and we cannot afford it."

    MJ, we all know how much you disdain Neocons. We all do. But you do realize that when you make statements like the one above, you're starting to sound like a Neocon, right? Like you, the Neocons also did not believe in politics of consensus.

    Though history will certainly make special note that this current spirit of political divisiveness was commenced under George W. Bush and the Neocons, it will also be remembered that the Democrats did nothing more than continue this dangerous and, quite frankly, Un-American precedent.

    You are quite correct in stating that the Republicans will be back and "worse than ever." I dispute your assessment that this will entail the Rise of the Neocons. That sounds more like a video game (first person shooter?) than political reality. I'm not implying that in a future Republican administration there won't be a Neocon presence, but how much political capital do you believe that rogue group has left? How many real Conservatives ended up losing their seats in Congress because they decided to tag along on the Neocon power trip (even if they were not true Neocons themselves)? I bet Norm Coleman, among others, wishes he hadn't ridden the president's coattails so closely. Had he shown some objectivity, he'd never have lost to that ass-clown Al Franken.

    But getting back on point, it's a damn sad day when bi-partisanship has become too passe to even consider. The GOP has been stubborn and even partially obstructionist lately, but it's completely unacceptable to cut them out of the health care debate altogether. Asking a Republican to get on board with a public option is like asking a Democrat to get on board with privatized social security. Not gonna happen.

    But the most disturbing aspect of your post is the notion

    user-pic

    Gettysburg what absolute tripe. I remember some years ago when you made more sense than this. I guess eight years of your quest to find a semblance of reason from the Bush-Cheney Republicans has rotted your reason.

    Norm Coleman has been an opportunist from the day he was born and probably quite a bit earlier than that. Had he shown "objectivity"? Can you possibly obscure your thought any more. Please try. I do not think it is possible.

    For the record while I can no longer stomach Obama, Franken seems better than most. Why don't you spell out what policies he has endorsed that you find so objectionable. Would that be such an effort? You might leave ass-clown comments to ass-clowns But then again, maybe you have. I hope not .

    user-pic

    VLaszlo

    I suppose Coleman's election into the U.S. Senate following the death of Paul Wellstone IS political opportunism, per se, but I recall Coleman being a decent mayor of St. Paul. Even still, I don't dispute your claims that he was a chameleon. There were warning signs that his allegiance could be bought; particularly after he abruptly decided to change parties one day for no reason.

    But my point is that even a chameleon like Norm Coleman, who makes a career out of ensuring he's on the right side of any conundrum, found himself hung out to dry after Bush left office. And there are no shortage of other chameleon's who suffered a similar fate. The Democrats, by pursuing this path of purely partisan politics, are actually mitigating their own advantage. When health care and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan all come to a head, the blame will fall solely on their party; and rightly so.

    user-pic


    Gettysburg, I do not think opportunism = running for office or getting elected. So I don't understand your use of the term when you say his getting elected is political opportunism. Here is a usable definition from an online dictionary: " the policy or practice, as in politics, business, or one's personal affairs, of adapting actions, decisions, etc., to expediency or effectiveness regardless of the sacrifice of ethical principles."
    It is the adapting and fashioning of his political positions, thoughts, ideas and policies to further his career sailing on current prevailing political winds. You may be aware (but do not seem to be) of his myriad political metamorphises each one furthering his political rise. When you say if he had shown some "objectivity" possibly the word you were searching so hard for is "integrity"; not such a difficult word that but accurate in Norm's case. Not over was he damaged in his election by his strident dishonest use of Franken's skit materials on SNL, and by the changed political winds, and by multiple scandals involving his using his "office" as a means of enriching himself and his family, but the public in Minnesota perhaps saw through his latest attempt to separate himself from the Bush policies to which he had welded himself when it was profitable politically.
    I did not like your comment concerning Franken. I asked you to detail what would prompt such a foul outburst. I had hoped you would be serious instead of simply mouthing off. You did not even address your own remarks. I do not think that does you credit.
    You mentionned Coleman being a good mayor of Saint Paul. Believe me when I say I am intimately familiar with his tenure as mayor. He favored consistently business interests; his main "accomplishment" was increasing taxes locally and in the state to pay for a new hockey arena to replace the North Stars who left for Dallas. He tried entice the Twins to move to a new publicly supported stadium as well but that was defeated in a referendum. These tax-supported sports arenas favored by downtown business interests (and opposed the neighborhoods) may appeal to you as it does others with a strong "free-market" penchants, but the blatant hypocrisy of that position (on Coleman's part, maybe on yours) is part of the political dishonesty of the Norm. Free-market capitalism = corporate socialism when it suits our fine disciples of Ayn Rand anytime they and their business buddies split the loot.
    I do not know what you mean by health care coming to a head. I would prefer a full government program, sin gle-payer, medicare for all. If a strong, generally available public option is not included the reform will only benefit the insurers and the Dems and Obama will deserve the blame. I do not see anything to be gained in this direction from yoour precious Republicans; but if you really see some policy which is meaningful and would have support from both sides do not be shy about putting it out there. I am sure we are all ears.
    If Obama expands the war in Afghanistan significantly as he seems to be doing then he is a shit and deserves condemnation and I intend to be on that case. If you feel the same, join in.

    user-pic

    So MJ, are you moving from denial to bargaining without passing through anger.

    That isn't good. There is no hope without anger.

    user-pic

    I, for one, have already moved to Stage IV: Acceptance.

    user-pic

    This talk of the thugs taking the congress back in 2010 is wishful thinking on the part of the MSM and the thugs and the whining dems.

    Obama will retain his office. I'd like to know who (other than AnnaA,Bushie, Laslo and the other 27% crazies would vote for the republicans.

    If they think Obama is bad, what the hell do they expect from the party of hate and no.

    I don't believe it for a second.

    user-pic

    First things first, M.J. - we've simply got to take up a collection.

    Let all sensible Americans assemble a pot of gold and send Alan Keyes and John Voight off on such a glorious honeymoon that these two lunatics decide to throw in the towel and never come back.

    No John, don't ever come home again. Proceed directly to the front lines in Afghanistan and sacrifice yourself on one or another altar of absurdity. Your husband could easily top that and go on to immolate himself in Saigon while Malcom Browne trips the light fantastic - another 35 mm. appointment with destiny.

    General McChrystal can then see to it that you both get a posthumous Silver Star!

    user-pic

    Granted, a single term is likly. But I do not think the GOP has a chance either. The problem is going to be to come up with enough non-corporatist candidates to throw all the bums out and start with a fresh third party challenge for all the corporatists.

    Leave a comment

    Advertisement
    Please disable your adblocker!
    Ads are how we pay the bills!

    Subscribe

    The Coffee House
    TPMCafe's regulars

    House Brew
    From Your Cafe Editor

    Special Guests
    Big names and big brains

    Special Features
    Pressing topics and trends

    Table for One
    An expert's week-long talk.

    All Reader Posts
    TPM readers discuss.

    Book Club Calendar

    November 16-20

    http://orbooks.com/files/going-rouge-small.jpg

    Coming Soon



    November 30-December 4



    January 12-16



    « Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

    Recent Reader Posts

    All Reader Posts »





    Masthead

    Editor-in-Chief
    Josh Marshall



    Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
    Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

    Advertise Liberally
    Share
    Close Social Web Email

    "To" Email Address

    Your Name

    Your Email Address