dagblog - Comments for "If The Democrats Cave on the Tax Cuts"

The analogy I've used is that

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:53:38 +0000

In reply to I hadn't thought about the

The analogy I've used is that he governs as though he is the Senate Majority Leader.

The Senate Majority Leader knows he does not actually "persuade" colleagues (or rarely so) on the merits of specific issues, because senators, even more than House members, already know everything and even those who might suspect they don't sure as hell don't elect their Senate Majority Leader to influence a usually already well-developed political philosophy or set of voting tendencies. The Senate Majority Leader can sometimes offer inducements/bribes/threats. But the MO of the Senate Majority leader consists, initially, of whipping their caucus to identify where the votes lie at the outset. Even Senate majority leaders sometimes operate as though they might be able to move a few votes at the margins here and there through inducements or threats, though.

Some Presidents, on the other hand, have been known to use their unique dominance of the bully pulpit to actually try to persuade members of the public to their position and use this as leverage with Congress on specific votes. This, however, requires a sense that public persuasion by a President is actually a viable possibility.

Two of the major tools in a President's box to try to get his way with a balky Congress are:

*get his approval ratings up high, which members of Congress pay a lot of attention to. They don't think nearly as hard about bucking a President with 40 percent approval rating as a President with 55 or 60 percent public approval, especially if they perceive the President as...

*effective in enlisting the public on his side and willing to use that tool aggressively to put specific heat on a Congressional vote. Reagan sometimes did this against congressional Dems, for instance. In 2002 some Dems thinking about voting no on the Iraq war use of force resolution prior to the mid-terms were afraid that Bush, then with very high approval, was going to beat the bejeezus out of them in the court of public opinion if they did vote no on that just weeks before the elections.

With the exception of Clinton after Dems had already lost the Congress and were largely playing defense, Republicans seem to have a surer sense of when they are going to prevail in the court of public opinion through presidential use of the bully pulpit, and use that to their advantage. Dems in Congress have been much more willing to buck Republican Presidents, such as Bush I, who were not very effective at getting the public on their side through persuasion, inspiration, or hellraising, and, not unrelatedly, were seen as much more willing to compromise than Reagan and Bush II were. I think it is obvious that Republicans in Congress do not fear Obama even a little bit. He simply has not yet confronted them. Unless and until he does and shows he can win, like Clinton did on the budget showdown with Gingrich, they will continue to obstruct, block and accuse Dems of being partisan when there are 0 Repub votes.

The GOP MO in recent years is presumptively to attack, block, and tear down a Dem president to drive his numbers down as far as possible and avoid taking as many unpopular votes as possible. Some Congressional Dems will try to do this with GOP Presidents. Except that the GOP is pretty much united in that philosophy and they are governed by no internal restraints I have been able to observe that might create limits to what they are willing to do to try to destroy a Dem President.

WOW. Just WOW!

CVille Dem — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:02:16 +0000

In reply to All true. But now that it's

WOW. Just WOW!

Smile.

we are stardust — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:59:00 +0000

In reply to Interesting trivia about the

Smile.

Good to know, Dreamer. ;0)As

Obey — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:47:35 +0000

In reply to I always appreciate "When

Good to know, Dreamer.

;0)

As for me, just call me stupid, like with Otto from a Fish Called Wanda, and I'll come running and flailing my racket!

(hm, what's with me and the movie references these days...?)

Interesting trivia about the

Atheist — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:33:05 +0000

In reply to Got me kinda skeert there fer

Interesting trivia about the actress who delivers that line: she's the director's mother.

Got me kinda skeert there fer

we are stardust — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:21:58 +0000

In reply to I always appreciate "When

Got me kinda skeert there fer a minute; I know about as much about movies as I do about tennis! (Hell; I don't even know if it has two S's!) But I know the ORGASM SCENE!!!!!! ROTFLAMAO!!

So: Stardust has no tennis chops, but LOVES HARRY MET SALLY on accounta that, plus: "I'll have what she's having." The woman's face!!!! Priceless!!!!

I always appreciate "When

AmericanDreamer — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:54:07 +0000

In reply to I agree with all that. And

I always appreciate "When Harry Met Sally" references, as that is one of my very favorite movies. And not just for the precious and perhaps immortal "I'll have what she's having" deli scene, which I think really has to make it into the time capsule. Referencing that movie may be the best way to get me into a thread these days (although leading a comment with the words "Obama's first fireside chat scheduled..." might also work. :<)). Like if you want to make sure Bruce is alive and well, bashing Israel is probably the best bet to find out quickly, or if you want to make sure artappraiser is ok, just write that the liberal blogosphere represents the pinnacle of human accomplishment and genius, or that self-identified or art-identified or GOP-identified "liberals" are actually sometimes right, even though David Dinkins was a(n) (inept) liberal. :<)

Now should be about the time for We Are Stardust to chime in and say he found nothing funny whatsoever about that movie. :<) Come on, star...

I agree with all that. And

Obey — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:02:13 +0000

In reply to I don't see what everyone's

I agree with all that. And thanks for those links, which I'd seen but lost. I think partly the others here are objecting to how I say it more than what I say. Or rather, if you concede that he campaigned as a centrist, then pushing the line that he is failing to fulfill his (progressive) mandate falls kinda flat. Things like the public option which he promised and then chucked out. Which is a fair enough view as well. He did promise that and other things that he has failed to implement. And one can duly hold his feet to the fire for that.

My criticism is more on the emotional level. I don't get how people on the left can still be losing their illusions at this point about Obama's governing philosophy and value set. You have to be a violently delusional hope-and-change addict to believe that Obama has any desire or intention to push the country in a more progressive direction. And the fact that so many on the left still in this pre-breakup stage of understanding or perhaps anger and confusion - as those polls you keep flapping in front of us show - is something that is self-destructive for the left.

It feels like that Carrie Fisher character in When Harry Meets Sally, who keeps being disappointed when she finds some evidence that her (married) lover won't leave his wife to commit to her, and her friends sit around telling Carrie 'He's never going to leave her' for the hundredth time, and Carrie nods, 'I know, I know'. And then the same scene is replayed a few weeks later. Same thing with the ever-so-loyal left - he doesn't love you! Get over it.

Thanks for the response

Obey — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:45:35 +0000

In reply to For what it's worth, I think

Thanks for the response Trope. One note - I'm a bit puzzled by Obama's admiration for Reagan. I get that it isn't the CONTENT of his policies that he admires, nor the specific trajectory he put the country on. It was Reagan's ability to radically alter the trajectory. But if that is his model for a successful presidency, then 'nudge it slightly to the left of Reagan' hardly counts as emulating what he admires in Reagan. Nor is the very passive attitude towards shaping the national narrative, which is diametrically opposed to Reagan's view. If, when I hear the word 'Welfare' even now, I think of an black woman in a fancy Cadillac, that response is something that didn't fall out of the sky. It was a disciplined national brainwashing exercise that he put into effect. Of course a brainwashing exercise that didn't involve all the eye-drops and electrodes as the sci-fi movies tell us to worry about, but nonetheless as effective.

That said, moving the narrative, and effecting transformation - whatever it is one wants to transform it into - involves much much more than using the bully-pulpit. But it requires a kind of visionary temperament and intellect that Obama doesn't have or crave. And I don't mean that as a necessarily negative judgment on Obama. That would depend on what expectations one has or had of him.

It means you leave it all up

we are stardust — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:45:33 +0000

In reply to What does it mean to be a

It means you leave it all up to The Ben Ber-nank, who then begs you for stimulus for jobs and blames the Chinese; then you get jiggy about a new NAFTA-ish free trade agreement with Korea. You signal you're willing to deal on tax cuts for the welathy, then invite your political opponents to meet for dinner; when they postpone dinner for two weeks, when they show up you signal your increased willingness to cut a deal. You probably make the deal, and hope they'll honor it, and you. But no. (And you know the rest of that one...)

Then you fight the House on Middle Class tax cuts, and give cover to any Senators, especially Dems, who then don't vote to extend cuts for under-a-millionaires. You don't threaten a veto over tax cuts for the wealthy, instead you stand tall for A Deal: tie the millionaire extensions to some enemployment bennies, and maybe even a vote on the START II treaty. Meanwhile, you whinge, "After all, I had to make a deal. Republicans are people, too."

Sorry; I just listend to The Ben Bernank on 60 Minutes. The interviewer said that some people think tax cuts for the wealthy might add to the deficit. Brilliant! But Poor Ben is freaking out. Thinks it might take four or five years at 2% growth to reach 5% unemployment. Wonder who he's listening to?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/12/bernake-is-nervous.html

(Dude shoulda asked for a glass of water...)