No Mo' Bama Rage?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jiro

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
69,102
Reaction score
144
Commentary: Give Obama an 'incomplete'
(CNN) -- When President Obama moved into the White House, press speculation immediately began about what his first 100 days would look like.

Journalists as well as scholars looked to history to speculate about which models of presidential leadership he might follow.

As we reach the end of the first 100 days this week, Obama remains much of a mystery. If we are talking grades, the best we can give him at this point is an "incomplete."

Given that the first 100 days is only an artificial marker -- it's been used since the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- it is not surprising that it is too early to reach sweeping conclusions about what this presidency will be. It is worth remembering that Jimmy Carter, whose presidency would become deeply troubled by his second year, ended his first 100 days with high approval ratings and positive media coverage.

But the first 100 days nonetheless offer important clues about what kind of presidency we will see over the coming years. The first trait Obama has demonstrated has been experimentation. Here, he does resemble FDR.

While Roosevelt believed in the importance of using the federal government to stabilize economic conditions in 1933, he also refused to be pinned down by one ideological position or by one set of policy ideas.

During his first 100 days, FDR brought different kinds of advisers into his administration -- from fiscally conservative Budget Director Lewis Douglas to social welfare advocate Frances Perkins as secretary of Labor -- and he introduced a variety of programs to help Americans. The National Recovery Act established voluntary codes for businesses in an effort to create stability in production and pricing, whereas agricultural programs focused on increasing the price of farm goods to help rural areas.

Obama has displayed the same kind of attitude toward governance. His top advisers are an eclectic group, ranging from free-market, globalization proponents like Lawrence Summers to progressive Chicago lawyer Valerie Jarrett.

When the White House proposed the economic stimulus legislation after taking office, Obama told Congress what he wanted from the bill, but then was willing to let the Democratic leadership in Congress reshape the details of the policy as the negotiations unfolded.

Most importantly, he shaved back the overall levels of spending and then agreed to cuts toward the end of conference committee deliberations.

Though he pleased many Democrats with an economic assistance program for the auto industry that saved millions of jobs in the Midwest, the president has postponed action on the Employee Free Choice Act, which includes provisions that would make unionization of workplaces easier. His financial bailout program placed most of the risk on the backs of average taxpayers with the hope of revitalizing markets.

The good news for Democrats is that this flexibility has offered Obama considerable insulation from political attacks. His poll ratings remain strong while Republicans languish with low approval levels. It has also given him room to maneuver with Congress.

The bad news is that, as FDR discovered, this kind of approach opens him up to attack from Democrats who fear that he is too willing to abandon core positions as well as Republicans who want to paint him as a Bill Clinton-like figure who can't be trusted.

The second trait we have seen from Obama has been that he believes in negotiation within his party and is not a top-down party leader. In this respect, the president has emulated the style of President Lyndon Johnson, who in 1964 and 1965 was forced to contend with a Democratic Party much more deeply divided than now, with Southern conservative Democrats, who controlled the congressional committee chairmanships, and Northern liberals, who in the 1960s wanted to tackle problems like race and urban decline.

Obama has thus far dealt with Democrats more like Johnson did with his party than George W. Bush did with Republicans after 2001. The Bush White House did not seek counsel from Republicans in Congress. It generally told Republican colleagues what to do.

Obama has been very careful not to impose his will on Democrats. Most recently, after deciding to release the "torture memos," Obama backed off initial statements that he did not want to have an interrogation commission or seek prosecution after Democrats in Congress said that they might want to pursue such a course.

Obama has asked Congress to pass national health insurance and environmental regulation, but he has purposely not specified what those policies should look like and has given repeated signals that he is open to all proposals.

The value of this type of party leadership is that the president gives Democrats an opportunity to "buy in" to the legislation and eases tensions that might develop between the executive and legislative branches even under united government. On the other hand, the danger is that Obama loses control of the process and that legislators send forth proposals that Obama does not support.

The final trait from the first 100 days is that Obama has taken a much more incremental approach than many observers expected or that many of his opponents proclaim.

Compared with FDR in his first 100 days, Obama has been restrained in his proposals. He has focused most of his attention on the economic stimulus bill, the automobile industry bailout and financial assistance measures.

To be sure, there is much more to come, as was the case with FDR. Obama has proposed a large budget, has made clear he views national health care and new environmental regulation as priorities, and has indicated interest in immigration reform. He has agreed to use the reconciliation process, which prohibits a filibuster, to try to ensure health care reform can withstand any Republican opposition.

But FDR pushed for more up front. In his first 100 days, Congress passed 15 major bills, which included the Banking Act, National Industrial Recovery Act, Civilian Conservation Corps, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agricultural Adjustment Act and more.

We'll have to see what happens in the second and third 100 days, which are perhaps more instructive in evaluating a presidency as the shine from the election fades and political tensions over the details of an administration's agenda harden.

It is then that we'll gain a better sense of whether Obama will be able to sustain the momentum of the first 100 days as did FDR, culminating in the 1936 election landslide, or whether he will lose the political strength from these early days, as was the case with Carter.
 
Bipartisanship didn't last long in Obama's first 100 days
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- There's little debate that Democrats who run Congress mark President Obama's 100-day milestone with some significant victories.

First and foremost, they passed the president's $787 billion measure intended to stimulate the economy with warp speed, meeting his February deadline.

Congressional Democrats also made good on promises to push through several priorities that President Bush had refused to sign into law.

They finally approved last year's bill to fund the government, with significant increases in spending for things such as education, health care and transportation.

And Democrats passed long stalled legislation for children's health insurance -- the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as S-CHIP -- as well as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act mandating equal pay for women in the workplace.

But the slew of legislative achievements during Obama's first 100 days have come at the cost of bipartisanship.

The president's stimulus package passed with three Republican votes.

Obama's budget blueprint passed the House of Representatives and the Senate without a single GOP vote. And the $410 billion bill to fund the government turned into a partisan clash.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, opened the Senate in January declaring that "when we allow ourselves to retreat into the tired, well-worn trenches of partisanship, we diminish our ability to accomplish real change." VideoWatch Reid in January predict Congress will work together »

Now, that feels like ancient history.

So does Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's more hopeful tone in January.

"If we see sensible, bipartisan proposals, Republicans will choose bipartisan solutions over partisan failures every time," said McConnell of Kentucky. VideoWatch McConnell in January say that Republicans will cooperate, not compromise »

In the blame game over the breakdown of bipartisanship, Republicans said Democrats shut them out and never really considered GOP ideas. Democrats accused Republicans of making a political calculation to be the party of "no."

But the real reason for the partisan divide may be genuine philosophical differences, especially when it comes the No. 1 issue during the president's first 100 days -- the economy.

Republicans working to recover from their drubbing during the last two elections said they are trying to return to their small government roots. That means opposing Obama's economic prescriptions.

"We've been throwing trillions of dollars around like it was Monopoly money," McConnell said in the heat of the spending bill debate. VideoWatch Reid and McConnell argue over the spending bill »

"A way of looking at it is we have spent more in the first 23 or 24 days of this administration, in other words, charged more, than it cost post-9/11 for the war Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and the response to Katrina already."

Yet most Democrats fundamentally believe government spending is the only way to jump-start the economy.

"We're going to have to spend some money to get out of this hole. The government's the only body that has any money," Reid said.

The reality is that bipartisanship on big, controversial issues is usually born out of necessity -- the ruling party historically reaches across the aisle only when it needs votes to prevail.

The Democrats' wide majority has meant that, for the most part, they haven't had to compromise.

It's not clear whether things will be any different over the next 100 days.

Democrats last week, at the behest of Obama's team, decided to use a rule that ultimately will prevent Republicans from waging a filibuster against the overhaul of health care. At the end of the day, if they can hold their own members in line, Democrats won't have to make concessions to Republicans to pass health care legislation.

Perhaps House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was the most honest in her early assessment of the new Democratic-dominated Washington dynamic.

"We had an election which was about our differing views of the direction our country was going in," Pelosi said at a press conference a week after Obama's inauguration. "The American people agreed with us."

Whether the American people continue to agree with Democrats won't be tested until the 2010 elections. Given their significant majorities, it's likely that Democrats will build up a significant legislative resume for voters to judge -- with or without the bipartisanship that eluded Congress' first 100 days.
 
I've had a concern about Obama not being directive and firm - by having to keep everybody happy and tip-toeing around.

c'mon Obama! You can do it! MAKE ME PROUD :mad2:
 
Given that the first 100 days is only an artificial marker -- it's been used since the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- it is not surprising that it is too early to reach sweeping conclusions about what this presidency will be.

From the OP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top