David Brooks, the NY Times version of a conservative (he agrees with most of what Obama does), I think has it right here, in his assessment of Obama as "superagressive". I personally think it's about legacy, and these are things Obama *has* to get done to be a POTUS of historical consequence (aside from his looking black). Short piece, and worth a read, but here's the gist:
"Usually presidents use midterm defeats as a chance to rethink and refocus. That’s what Obama did four years ago. Voters like to feel the president is listening to them.
But Obama’s done no public rethinking. In his post-election news conference, the president tried to reframe the defeat by saying the turnout was low, as if it was the Republicans’ fault that the Democrats could only mobilize their core base. Throughout that conference, the president seemed to detach himself from his own party, as if the Democrats who lost their jobs because of him were a bunch of far-off victims of some ethereal malaise.
__
Usually presidents at the end of their terms get less partisan, not more. But with his implied veto threat of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, President Obama seems intent on showing that Democrats, too, can put partisanship above science. Keystone XL has been studied to the point of exhaustion, and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it’s a modest-but-good idea. The latest State Department study found that it would not significantly worsen the environment. The oil’s going to come out anyway, and it’s greener to transport it by pipeline than by train. The economic impact isn’t huge, but at least there’d be a $5.3 billion infrastructure project.
__
Usually presidents with a new Congressional majority try to figure out if there is anything that the two branches can do together. The governing Republicans have a strong incentive to pass legislation. The obvious thing is to start out with the easiest things, if only to show that Washington can function on some elemental level.
__
But the White House has not privately engaged with Congress on the legislative areas where there could be agreement. Instead, the president has been superaggressive on the one topic sure to blow everything up: the executive order to rewrite the nation’s immigration laws.
__
The president was in no rush to issue this order through 2014, when it might have been politically risky. He questioned whether he had the constitutional authority to do this through most of his first term, when he said that an executive order of this sort would probably be illegal.
But now the president is in a rush and is convinced he has authority. I sympathize with what Obama is trying to do substantively, but the process of how it’s being done is ruinous."
What’s Obama’s incentive to work with the GOP and please don’t say for the good of the country… Congresses approval rating will still suck in 2 years. The democrats must hold on to their core voting block and to do that they have to poke the GOP in the eye at every chance, especially on social issues. By the time Hillary runs the economy will be as good or better than Bush left it, the housing market will have improved ( though not enough to make me happy) and gay marriage will be the norm along with the legalization of pot. What issues are the GOP going to run on that will take votes away from Hillary? That she’s weak on foreign policy? My God, look at how GW screwed that up. To make things more interesting I hope she gets a gay male VP running mate like Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney.
Pelosi has her problems with her own peeps, but she really does not matter at this point, Obama does. I take in lots of opinion on the issues, and the lefty pundits overwhelmingly expressed Keystone as an issue that Obama would probably sign due to bipartisan support. (house has passed, up to 59 votes in senate currently). The problem with that thinking is that bipartisan support matters to Obama, it does not, except to the extent that he is happy to sign what he wants if it is put before him. Obama is still on an ideological binge, and the only ones who are happy with him are at this moment are in the progressive wing of dems.
I’d imagine some, maybe most, of those same lefty pundits are happy with the tack Obama is taking, but they are also, no doubt, surprised.
I’m sure you would have counseled Clinton similarly, yet the split DC was a very productive one for him, despite the “republican revolution”, and one house actually impeaching him. Still they worked on what they could, and it turned out to be quite a lot.
I’m sure you would have counseled Clinton similarly, yet the split DC was a very productive one for him, despite the “republican revolution”, and one house actually impeaching him. Still they worked on what they could, and it turned out to be quite a lot.
Had Monica had Marilyn Monroe’s looks Bill would have served a 3rd term.
