Obama Finally Gets It: Budgets Are Not Bi-Partisan
By Susie Madrak Wednesday Mar 18, 2009 7:45amTalk about stating the obvious! Welcome to reality, guys:
President Obama ditched his bipartisan budget sales pitch Tuesday and went on the offense against his Republican critics. The move comes after the president felt substantial pushback from lawmakers in both parties who sharply attacked key elements in his $3.55 trillion proposal.
Sensing the lack of support, Obama has changed strategies and challenged members of Congress who have blasted his plan to come up with “constructive alternative solutions.” While the president said that he and Democrats are committed to a budget resolution that will put the nation on a path to prosperity, he decried opponents who have turned to “political tactics” and “point scoring” instead of “problem solving.”
[...] This time around, Obama appears to be employing a more partisan strategy. Obama’s top budget aide, Peter Orszag, went further in dismissing Republican critiques on Tuesday, saying that most reflected a viewpoint that “just empirically doesn’t work.”
Orszag, the Office of Management and Budget director, said some lawmakers’ suggestions during congressional hearings have been helpful, but input elsewhere hasn’t been.
“The chatter that fills the cable news networks I don’t think is intended to be constructive,” Orszag said at a lunch with reporters sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor.
[...] In response to GOP attacks, Obama and his allies are shifting into campaign mode. Obama is scheduled to push his budget plan during a rare sit-down interview Thursday on “The Tonight Show.” His presidential campaign manager, David Plouffe, sent an e-mail to his backers last weekend asking them to support the budget plan. And MoveOn.org, which galvanized liberals online to oppose President Bush’s agenda, has been asking its members to get behind Obama’s proposal.
Login or Register to post comments.
it's about time they listened to me. ;o)
Republicans do not care about the people of the United States. They only care about themselves.
It is about damn time...
Obama needed to understand that in order to do anything "bipartisan" you need two to tango... and the repugs are not interested in dancing...
This was a United States, now we don't dance together.
I guess I'm too old, when I was young boys and girls held each other close together. Now they just jump up and down like animals dancing.
I guess we have proven ourselves to be none other than animals. (WILD CREATURES.)
Master Shake says so!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTwdqhjyeHo
Seriously though...About damn time Obama realized the GOP wasn't gonna play nice.
He needed to gain moral high ground with the American public... clearly sick of partisan fighting as the Nation falls apart. Now the President can remind the Republicans who is boss while telling them to kiss his ass.
He gave the R's their chance to cooperate. He really had to do that. Either (a) they cooperate and all goes well or (b) they prove themselves to be uncooperative, where EVERYONE can see it.
The R's chose (b).
Indeedy do!!!!! He did give the Republicans their chance....in fact, he incurred the wrath of many on the Left doing it. Yup...you can help a snake across the river, but it'll (Repubs) will bite you anyway. It's the nature of the beast.
I mean let's face it: the GOP has no right to complain when only 1.3% of their members voted for the stimulus bill.
I really hope this is true and that Obama realizes this is hardball. The Republicans have no intentions of working with him, only against him. He has to forge ahead without them. If his policies don't succeed he and the party will pay a price. If they do succeed the Republican Party will finally end up fully neutered for some time.
Yes, and politics is "partisan". Obama has been excruciatingly naive in trying to convince us (and maybe himself) that he can rise above partisanship and get great things accomplished purely through the force of his personality and his viewing congress and his staff as a community of his political equals. He wasn't a very successful community organizer, and what he can actually achieve as president following this action-model remains to be seen.
...the budget, in order to pass, only needs a majority vote, as in 51 votes, as opposed to the 60 'fillibuster proof' like other Bills? Is this correct?
However, debate on bills must be closed before a vote on its passage can be held.
That's where the 60 votes comes in. What has been happening since the Democratic caucus (Bernie Saunders and Joe Lieberman, members of the majority caucus, are both "independents") took back power after the '06 elections is that Republicans have called for debate to remain open- this is known as a cloture vote. Since the Republicans have had enough votes to keep debate open, keeping a vote on passage of a bill to come to the floor, they have effectively made it that 60 votes are required to pass a bill. When Franken is seated, the Democratic caucus will still only have 59 votes, so until a Republican is replaced with a progressive....
Shorter: 60 votes to close debate, 51 votes to pass bill.
for budgetary measures they can ignore cloture and just vote it on a simple majority, which is what will be done with Obama's budget.
Read this.
(I'm glad I remembered where I read that! :D)
It is dawning on him that he was elected by a substantial majority. I give him kudos for extending the hand but elections have consequences. Bush would have loved to been able to brand dems are the party of "no" unfortunately he didn't have to
The administration seeks to find money to pay for its goals through new savings in war and healthcare spending and from $1 trillion in new taxes on the wealthy.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-axe...
tax the rich at ike-levels. and slash the DoD budget (although, confusingly, the '10 budget seeks a 4% increase for the DoD)
yet, *colbert grabby hand* more information about the 'savings in healthcare spending' please! sounds bad.
"Bipartisan" is a meaningless word. It's a feelgood throw about to disguise destructive political ideologies. It's a sop to hurt feelings and resentments.
I mean, if you had a construction crew putting up a building and another trying to tear it down, you wouldn't be calling the work 'bipartisan,' would you?
Basically, when someone uses the word, you pretty much figure they're blowing smoke up your arse. Apparently, the Democrats haven't figured that out, yet.
wake me up when he finally gets hes fighting bushes war for the corporations! obamas not being paid to get it ,hes getting paid to continue it!
and while Obama is at it, he should call out the likes of Evan Bayh and the other Liebermans-in-training calling themselves the 'Blue Dogs'. these idiots are actually threatening to side, against Obama, with the republicans! amazing. they have to be very publicly defeated on this, and they need to be taught a lesson. and then they need to STFU.
Maybe he was bi-curious; not to worry, it was only a phase.
[We've got a thread up dedicated to the hearings! :D Site Monitor]
Chicago Tribune (Mar 17): Obama using campaign tools to promote agenda
One more time:
"a coordinated assault on Republican Party leaders, depicting them as a recalcitrant minority determined to block the president's agenda at any cost"
And the R's have done such a good job of playing their part!
While in principle they might not be bi partisan, we need 60% of the votes to pass the budget, and we don't have that kind of majority. Math 101.
Login or Register to post comments.