Slaves To Congress

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:07:29 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Ezra Klein posits that the Obama Administration is proposing the plans it is proposing on the financial crisis and the economic crisis because it is constrained by Congress:

One of [Obama economic advisor] Laura Tyson's interesting remarks last night came in reply to a questioner who faulted the White House for insufficient ambition. Her response had nothing to do with policy or economics. It was ab[o]ut Congress. "They accomplish what they can accomplish within the realities of the Congress," she shot back. "And the Democratic coalition is breaking already." Critics, she said, need to stop focusing on the White House and begin focusing on Congress. Tyson is pretty plugged in. It's a safe bet that if congressional obstruction has colonized her thinking . . . then it's probably what's obsessing the administration, too.

More . . .

This to me is a startling hypothesis. Certainly it is true that politics is the art of the possible. But one would hope that before settling for "the possible," the Obama Administration would propose what they think will work and then try hard to make it politically possible. Instead, if Ezra is correct, the Obama Administration is using the reverse approach - figure out what seems politically possible and then presenting it as their plan to "fix the problem." This of course leads to more settling later, as the "moderates" will need to prove their "moderation" (see stimulus package) and we are left with a plan that no one really believes will work. This is a terrible way to govern and I do not accept that it is necessary. At the least, try for the solution you think will work before you settle for one that you don't think will work.

Speaking for me only

< Ryan Moats Meets an Insensitive Officer in Dallas | Friday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Slaves To Congress | 52 comments (52 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

There is some evidence of this (5.00 / 10) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:14:23 AM EST

from his past actions.

: That's quite an understatement, (5.00 / 7) (#55)
by Anne on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 02:32:26 PM EST

in my opinion.
I have said it before and I will keep saying it until I see otherwise: Obama is not a leader; he observes until he figures out where it's all going, and then he goes and stands at the head of the line to look like the one who made it all happen.
And what is going to make us all wish for the good ol'days of garden-variety Democratic "disarray" is that the Democratic caucus is splintering into factions that have Obama unable to figure out which "line" he's supposed to go to the head of in order to look brilliant.
Saw this coming a mile away, and now that it's here it looks - and feels - every bit as bad as I thought it would.

Just maybe if Obama had recognized he needed a (5.00 / 6) (#2)
by jawbone on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:20:46 AM EST

strong and united Democratic Party in the Congress, he might have run identifying himself more as a Democrat. And now he could act as the leader of the Democratic Party, instead of someone who seems to see winning Repub support as the be all and end all of his presidency.

: Bipartisanship died a month ago (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by ai002h on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:29:27 AM EST

Have you not been paying attention to any news recently?? You honestly think he's still courting republicans when him and his WH have been publically criticizing them for a month now??

: I don't think that would have helped him. (2.00 / 1) (#40)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:28:22 AM EST

A lot of the mealy mouthed centerists would not have rallied around him during the campaign if he had dared to be a Democrat.
I think he needs to take the lead while he still has high approval numbers with the public. He's got to get out there with his plans and sell them rather than allowing Congress intervene in the public debate. It is sort of weird because they're enlisting people from the campaign model to go door to door to sell their neighbors on the budget. They had that "new media" townhall to speak directly to the people without the media filter.
And yet they continue to parse their words and hold back on bolder policy statements because Congress is problematic? Something doesn't really ring true about that imo. I mean wouldn't you think they'd be introducing new ideas, bolder ideas through those initiatives hoping to come back to Congress with some support for their plans for change? The absence of "bold" in these talks could be read as, well, a lack of desire to pursue bold ideas. And it certainly would be convenient to blame that on Congress. Every President does that at some point along the way to avoid having to admit that the public's expectation is not in line with their vision.

Using that approach, the easiest and quickest way (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:23:01 AM EST

to get things through Congress is to have the Republicans establish the policies from the very beginning. The Dems have had no problem forwarding Republican agendas since they obtained the majority. Seems that they are determined to continue on that path with Obama also following along the path of least resistance.

Lets be fair (5.00 / 6) (#4)
by ai002h on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:28:04 AM EST

The Obama administration has been tepid and moderate in their response to the banking/financial crisis, and I've been a big critic of theirs when it comes to that. Don't get me started on the Geithner/Summers combo.

That being said, you can't say they threw some half-measured budget out there, and that they aren't campaigning hard to keep it intact. I know its fashionable to critique the administration, but the budget was actually a pretty ambitious one. And they're right, instead of wasting our time criticizing them, we should be mobilizing ourselves and pressuring congress, who is trying to water down the budget as we speak.

I did not say that actually (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:33:41 AM EST

I really have not taken a close look at the proposed budget but I do know it has received a lot of plaudits.

I have looked at the stimulus package and the banking plan and find both wanting.


I agree (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by ai002h on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:40:19 AM EST

on both the stimulus and the banking plan/strategy. The stimulus was actually OK but could've been much, mcuh better and bigger. The banking plan however has been bad imo, too much dithering, too much "lets not upset the market" thinking, basically a philisophy beholden to Wall St. We all know it stems from Geithner and Summers, the two worst administration selections Obama has made.

The budget though, which was crafted by Ortzag, is actually amazingly bold and the most progressive budget we've had in 40 years. I just want people to not forget that because the fight on the budget is happening right now as we speak, we could be making a difference and phoning in and pressuring congress. If we manage to get out of this banking crisis, the budget will be Obama's legacy. Universal Healthcare, Climate Change, Education reform..all thats stuff is from the budget.


Phone calls and emails (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by Dadler on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:59:06 AM EST

Congress does not respond to the American people, no matter the calls or emails. The calls would have to run, literally 95 percent in one direction to affect anything, and they won't run in that direction. The sad fact about this nation, and it becomes clearer by the day, is that the political system long ago stop representing or responding to the ordinary voters who DO NOT line the pols pockets with money. It simply stopped. Period. I hate to have my skepticism drift into cynicism, but right now it is drifting hard.


: Harry Reid To "Blue Dog" Critics (none / 0) (#49)
by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:31:41 PM EST

STFU
Per Reid, public criticism of Bayh is unwise and unhelpful. The citizen groups should leave them alone.

"I think it's very unwise and not helpful," Reid said Friday morning. "These groups should leave them alone. It's not helpful to me. It's not helpful to the Democratic Caucus."
...
Later, Reid said he had "no qualms" with Bayh's new Blue Dog-style coalition and told reporters that "`any public statements' Senate moderates have made have been helpful." ...Think Progress

Well, I'll give you the climate change (5.00 / 4) (#20)
by dk on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:16:25 AM EST

stuff. That sounds very good. But in reality there is little the federal government can accomplish in connection with education reform (and Obama's penchant for religious based funding and charter schools is actually a big, big example of reactionary thinking in my book), and as for healthcare, the rhetoric we are hearing about universal healthcare is really just masking a big giveaway to private insurance companies. When we have a bigger government-run healthcare componenet as part of the budget, we can talk about being bold.


Yes, (5.00 / 4) (#33)
by KeysDan on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:19:15 AM EST

we would be better off, in my view, if President Obama jettisoned
Summers and Geithner, in favor of Peter Orszag. Also, the Obama notion of governing in anticipation of the reaction of Congress gives pause when considering judicial appointments, and, especially, the next Supreme Court nominee.


The larger (5.00 / 7) (#8)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:33:57 AM EST

problem is that Obama doesn't have a core ideology so this is what you get. I wouldn't be surprised to find out what Tyson is saying is true. With the stimulus plan it seemed to me that there was a vacuum of leadership simply because congress (D & R) both put what they wanted in the bill and then Obama signed it. We've played this game before and it's called the Carter Administration.

Premature triangulation? (5.00 / 5) (#18)
by Faust on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:10:53 AM EST

n/t

: There must be something Pfizer makes (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:27:30 AM EST

for it, a dose you only take when it looks like foreplay is going to lead to needing a triangulation :)

Congress Did This To Me (2.00 / 1) (#50)
by kaleidescope on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:39:03 PM EST

Congress forced Obama to appoint Clintonians Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.

he was identified as Nancys sock puppet (none / 0) (#6)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:29:47 AM EST

ages ago by some of us.

Obama? As Nancy's sock puppet? I missed that stage (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by jawbone on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:55:14 AM EST

You're serious? I thought only Repubs tried to make that charge.


When Pelosi, Kerry and Daschle bankrolled (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by tigercourse on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:02:17 AM EST

Obama early on many of us assumed they would have alot of influence.


I thought the bankrolling came from hedge funders (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by jawbone on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:20:19 AM EST

and Wall Streeters. The large amount of seed money, prior to Obama becoming better known.

Agree that Daschle was always an Obama backer; Kerry as well.

If Pelosi was, she kept it pretty quiet--and she got repaid in poor coin indeed. Recall Team Obama tried to blame Pelosi for messing up the stimulus plan, for doing this things which the WH had asked be done.

So, yes, he was backed by Daschle and Kerry, but the big money came from the Big Money people.


Kerry, Daschle and Pelosi are the ones (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by tigercourse on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:24:00 AM EST

who brought in the big money people. And he doesn't need any of them anymore. So I can understand why he wouldn't have a problem screwing any of them over.


: sometimes that may work for us (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:51:17 AM EST

but the next time we may find that is it us under the bus.

A mediator was elected not an advocate per se (none / 0) (#10)
by befuddledvoter on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:51:22 AM EST

That is the difference. I am not saying that is necessarily bad either. I do not fault Obama for not having "core" principles when it comes to the economy either. Do we really want someone with "core" principles? GW really had "core" principles. To me, that imports a kind of intransigence in the face of overwhelming evidence that your plan is not working. I do want someone who is flexible, who will change strategy when needed, who can adapt, and can accept responsibility. I never expected a magician in the White House. I always expected that Congress, as always and as originally planned by the Framers, would play a pivotal role in our government.

A center right mediator? (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by jawbone on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:56:36 AM EST

We are so fleeced.


It is possible to have core economic (5.00 / 6) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:59:40 AM EST

principles that don't lay waste to the economy and the middle class. It is possible to have core economic principles that lead to a strong economy and general well being from the foundation up. I don't see how one President's principles that were arrived at by applications of rhetoric and a silver spoon understanding of reality wedded to conscienceless greed leads to anyone wanting a President with no core economic principles.


I see your point (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by befuddledvoter on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:16:35 AM EST

about "core" princilples but I think the term can and is misused by many. I think in these economic times, Obama has made clear that things will be tried; some things will succeed, some will not. Then the strategy and plan will adapt to that. I do not see that as a negative at all. To me, that is what is needed. Believe me, I was not an Obamaphile at all to start with. I supported Hillary all the way but I do think thus far Obama has been ambitious in the face of the worst economic upheaval in my lifetime. He has inherited a giant mess, the extent of which most people had no inkling. Could be if the economic crisis had hit a few months earlier, he would not have been elected at all. I simply don't know.

What I do believe is that this crisis calls for a leader who has infinite energy; is flexible and practical; willing to try new things; willing to admit when they don't work out; willing to say he made a mistake.

We have that and I am glad.


But do we have a president (5.00 / 10) (#23)
by dk on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:20:49 AM EST

that actually cares enough about policy detail to figure out what might work and what doesn't? That has always been my biggest fear of an Obama administration, frankly. It's not that he isn't intelligent and driven, it's rather that he just doesn't really seem to care about understanding policy all that much. At least that's my reading of him.


I am beginning to challenge my past (5.00 / 9) (#27)
by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:36:38 AM EST

assumptions that I made about his true intelligence. The most intelligent among us seem to be DRIVEN to understand policy because it is the policy of every system we operate within that shapes that system and is within our control when so many other factors operating within various systems can elude our control. He just doesn't come off as all that brilliant to me anymore.


: Well, I think that to achieve (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by dk on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:48:03 AM EST

what he has achieved in his life does take some intelligence. Of course, that's a far cry from being brilliant, which is a word I tend to reserve for nobel prize winning physicists and the like.
But I also think that intelligence can be applied in many different ways, and I have not seen any evidence that Obama applies his intelligence to understanding the intricacies of policy. I get the sense that he has other interests and concerns. It sounds, though, like you think that applying intelligence to understanding policy is critical in making one a good political leader, and in that I would agree with you.

I'd rather have a pragmatist WITH core primciples- (5.00 / 6) (#25)
by jawbone on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:25:31 AM EST

our era's FDR.

I'm not sure we have what you want:

...a leader who has infinite energy; is flexible and practical; willing to try new things; willing to admit when they don't work out; willing to say he made a mistake.

Looking at how he's dealing with Wall Street and the Big Bankster Boiz, I don't see him recognizing mistakes and willing to accept constructive criticism and suggestions. He seems bonded to Geithner and the Wall Street view.

If he doesn't get this right and doens't show the non-uberwealthy that he really is working for them, he won't have a second term. And we will be in even worse shape than we can imagine.


In fairness (none / 0) (#37)
by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:24:54 AM EST

It could be argued that standing by core principles are what made a 1-termer of the last Democratic President to have them. I mean if Clinton had made the kind of "core principles" stands many are asking Obama to make instead of learning from the 1994 mid-terms then he probably would have been a 1 term president as well.


But what Clinton learned for the huge (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by tigercourse on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:27:24 AM EST

Democratic losses in 94 was that the public was against many Democratic policies. Why would Obama learn the same thing from a huge Democratic victory 2 cycles in a row?


The public wasn't against them though (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:34:15 AM EST

it was just like it is now- the framing stunk- the public supported universal healthcare until the corporate media framed it as a socialism- just like their doing to Obama's centrist policies- if he actually did the right thing and nationalized banks they'd probably call him an outright communist (despite people such as Lindsey Graham and BOA presidents calling for thinly veiled "government intervention"), the Administrations tried and to some extent succeeded in cutting out the legs of said media (the purpose of the Rush thing- basically they've tied the GOP to a man with sub-25% approval, and unlike post-November Bush they can't disown Limbaugh) but its a fight that will take a long time to win if thats even possible.


: The problem (5.00 / 3) (#52)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 02:10:31 PM EST

is that Obama is a media creation. When you are so massively dependent on the largesse of the media you have huge problems. If you don't have core values then going directly to the public does no good because you can't convince the public to buy something even you don't believe in.

It is pretty weird. (5.00 / 7) (#45)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:40:30 AM EST

They won the 2006 cycle on ending the war and didn't end it. They won the last on the economy and now seek to preserve the status quo that created the collapse. Evan Bayh is out there insisting that the early 1990's are exactly the same as the conditions we face now so he has to be our Daddy and protect us from ourselves. Could he be more irrelevant in terms of the wins we achieved in the last two cycles btw?

Its like these people can't believe they've won and haven't a clue why they did. Did they really think that the election results indicated only mild discontent with the state of the country? Do they really think they can get away with incremental shifts when they promised sweeping change? I mean people are watching - they're watching closely - for the first time in my adult life people are paying attention and they expect some "real change".

Whomever on the Hill thinks they can get away with simply mandating that we all buy private junk insurance and call that fixing the healthcare system is smoking crack.


I'd rather have (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:32:08 AM EST

a one-termer who accomplishes something progressive, than a two-termer who does not.


So (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:35:17 AM EST

did you prefer Carter to Clinton- an objective analysis would say Carter was easily the more progressive of the two but almost any Democrat would prefer Clinton for obvious reasons.


: huh? (none / 0) (#47)
by dk on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:42:33 AM EST

I believe that the only way to have (none / 0) (#46)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:41:50 AM EST

two terms is in accomplishing something progressive at this point.


While I agree (5.00 / 5) (#17)
by cal1942 on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:09:57 AM EST

that he seems like a mediator and we were forewarned of this during the primaries ('changing the way things are done in Washington' was, IMO, a major clue), I certainly don't agree that a lack of core principles is a good thing.

Although mediation may be required in some instances, it's best to try to go for broke and then bargain down.

LBJ put out legislation based on his belief in activist government and then pounded it through Congress.


This is Obama's own dam* fault (none / 0) (#30)
by scribe on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:57:08 AM EST

As I wrote here a week into the transition (November 14, 2008):

Everyone, it seems, is calling for forgiveness for Lie-berman. The problem is twofold.
First, it's not forgiveness. It's ratification that's going on here. ....
Second, forgiveness requires not only that the wrongdoer show genuine remorse and make some effort to change their ways going forward, but also that the wrongdoer go to the people he's wronged, and ask for their forgiveness. When the wronged person goes to the wrongdoer and offers "forgiveness", it's not being magnanimous. It's the injured person showing their fealty to the wrongdoer. As some have pointed out, Lie-berman is not seeking to make right what he has done, and has not undertaken to apologize for or even recognize the wrongfulness of his behavior. Rather, he is seeking to maintain and enhance his power. .... he can send out a flurry of subpoenas any time he wants to keep this Administration in line.
And he will. ....
Obama is Lieberman's b*tch, and he's showing it. And the Hope of Change We Can Believe In (and, for that matter, Obama's presidency) ended about Thursday of last week[*], when Lieberman walked out of that meeting with Harry Reid with his head still attached to his shoulders. (emphasis added)

I told you so.

This intransigence on the part of the Congressional "moderates" (who are really Republicans, let's not kid ourselves) is just Phase I in their asserting control over Obama. Right now, they're making him kiss their behinds. It isn't far enough into the Administration for the scandals they will unearth to rightly be called Obama's. But they will do that, too, in order to get their way.

And Obama has no one but himself to blame for it. It's not like the left blogosphere didn't warn him, but The Golden One knew better than the 2,000 years of political history and practice we in the left blogs were drawing on.

He made his bed but, unfortunately, we will have to sleep in it, too.
-
* "Thursday of Last Week" was, in the context of the comment, November 7, i.e., 2 days post-election.

I don't think the left blogs did warn him. (5.00 / 7) (#31)
by tigercourse on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:06:54 AM EST

If I have the quote correct, I think it went something like this "Whatever you want Barack".


Go back and read the posts (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by scribe on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:16:54 AM EST

and comments on this site from the period when Lie-berman was weaseling his way back into the committee chairmanship after campaigning for McSame.

And note that his staying in that chairmanship came about because Obama wanted it.

We warned him here. If posts and comments over at FDL were as searchable as they are here, I could find similar stuff there, too.


: Yeah, I should have been more specific (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by tigercourse on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:20:16 AM EST

and said "most left blogs".

The reason the American public is (none / 0) (#35)
by SOS on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:21:55 AM EST

is getting the shaft is because we have not formed a serious lobby. We are not an organized force. If we were, we would CREAM these people. But we're not.

"The Democratic coalition is breaking" (none / 0) (#36)
by coast on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:23:34 AM EST

This is not the failure of the administration but of the House and Senate leadership.

Just as it's not fair to blame Obama for (5.00 / 4) (#38)
by tigercourse on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:25:43 AM EST

everything, it's not fair to blame him for nothing.


This is actually confirming what most thought (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:29:36 AM EST

The Democratic Coalition can't stand a Democratic President- seriously, they sniped at Clinton, and undermined Carter, with LBJ they actually split and flipped to Republicans eventually our Congress hasn't marched in GOPesque lockstep (with one temporary exception- the post-JFK assassination) since Truman at least- possibly FDR.


: What's troubling to me is that (5.00 / 4) (#48)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:45:08 AM EST

the Obama Administration seems to just accept that it is just the way it is. Had he been elected by a thinner margin and if he didn't have such high approval numbers, I might understand. He has a lot of potential power that he seems unwilling to use. More dry powder I guess.

: A lot of (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 02:14:35 PM EST

this is because most of the "leaders" of the party can't seem to find a spine. Who want's to be associated with a bunch of people who let the opposition run over them? The only leader the party has ever had that I can remember that had a spine was Bill Clinton. I'm beginning to think that the party doesn't even believe in what it says it does. It's just as bad as the GOP.

The trouble is (none / 0) (#56)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 04:07:00 PM EST

Congress is already looking ahead to the 2010 elections. They know they will be facing voters who will be paying alot more in taxes/user fees at all levels gov't. They made their stand, and now they have to play to the voters and show up and vote at EVERY election. Did I say thank God? Yep, I just did.