When the Senate requires 60 votes and the GOP obstructs any and all things democratic, it makes having a majority irrelevant. Meanwhile, the people pay the price for such dimwitted political maneuvers--the country fails and it isn't because of democrats.

As for polls, it would be impossible for Abraham Lincoln to break through the media noise we have today. It doesn't matter what the President does or says, there are two dozen critics and another dozen preaching fear to get in the way.

I agree, but, don't you think it is hard to say that he has not tried when he had to deal with the other side and, and, about one third of his own party that should be labeled "DINOS"?

I don't think it is fair to lay all of the blame on the President, afterall, he has made a lot of progress with the economy. It is not going backwards and there are jobs being created, just not fast enough for a lot of people. I am still 100% behind him and his administration and will be as long as the "party of no" continues to say NO. Besides, I don't agree with their ideas about how to govern. They don't care about the regular people at all!

The democrats HAD 60 votes plus the two senators from Maine...The majority looks foolish in blaming the minority for their woes, and only the most partisan of partisans is able to keep the faith. It is one of the primary reasons why the president has lost the independent voter since his election.

It doesn't help that the party can't produce a budget.

There is really very little a President can do to revitalize a damaged economy except perhaps to pump money into that economy until it rights itself. But this is especailly difficult when there is no money available to pump into the economy. So one either does nothing or borrows out of fear that if nothing is done the economic crises can become worse. Our economy is not only impacted by many variables outside the Presdient's control in this country but also by those economic conditions in other countries, which a President certainly has no power or authority over.

I read an article recently that described the continuous late night meetings that three very bright men who have served republican and democrtic administrations held to try and come up with answers as how to correct the economic mess we find ourselves in. They had disagreements, argued and compromised and eventually threw out their best advice. But even they admitted that they did not have all the answers. If Henry Paulson, Ben Bernake and Tim Geithner cannot between the three of them come up with all the right answers and solutions as to how to improve the economy then how can one expect a President to do so.

If a President has 60 votes from his/her own party (that included one real republican and a couple pseudo democrats) and a handful fail to cooperate versus 100% of the members of the minority party failing to cooperate, I think it is very easy to lay much of the blame on to the monority party.

CA,

Many would opine that the three wise men you cite and one more named Greenspan, are the ARCHITECTS of the current debacle.

It burns me that the very guy who had the great quote "If you can't budget, you can't govern" about the Bush administration, rep Spratt...is now the guy in charge of producing a budget...and he can't...I don't have the answers but I find I have more and more questions...

Of the few truly so - called economic wizards in this country someone, somewhere will find fault with their actions, thinking and recommendations no matter which names a person produces. Yet none would still be able to provide the answers needed to turn this economy around on a dime that so many in this country want and expect.

I'm guessing that most First Readers know nothing about RCP (RealClearPolitics)...

I'd go so far as to say that's why they're here at First Read.

What's more, if you can't sway folks like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, with their left-of-center constituencies...

It's your argument that's no good.

Susan and Olympia are normally more than receptive to centrist arguments...they don't toe Mitch McConnell's line.

"Susan and Olympia are normally more than receptive to centrist arguments...they don't toe Mitch McConnell's line."

You can say that about Snowe http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26885 and Collins http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=379 all you want, but the record shows they vote McConnell's line almost all the time. If Tom Delay weren't already known as "The Hammer" McConnell would be proud to claim the title. Party discipline is everything within the GOP, and the key to much of their success over the last 30 years.

Who crosses party lines more, John?

Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin...or Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins?

Take your time, John...

While I'm waiting...have you ever visited the RCP site?

MICHELLE OBAMA: And Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices, we are going to have to change our conversation, we're going to have to change our traditions, our history. We're going to have to move into a different place.

MB, you're giving me the exception that proves the rule. Did more Democrats cross party lines to vote for Bush's policies than Republicans crossing now to support Obama's policies? It's a no brainer. When GWB took office did the Democratic leaders have a STATED and REPEATED strategy of gridlocking any and all legislation and nominations just to create failure? The FACT that the GOP has created a record number of filibusters in this Senate speaks for itself. The record number of nominees stalled in process tells you what you need to know. Don't tell me Democrats filibustered too, that isn't the point. Of course they did. They didn't do it just to demonstrate that they could throw a monkey wrench into every single thing the Republicans tried to do.

Oh please-look at the R's filibuster of just about everything this session trying to hurt the President but hurting the US. Clean energy will be the engine of innovation and jobs if we continue ahead. We susidise oil at an incredible rate. We are falling behind the world and sending a billion a day to the mideast. I have never seen such a nasty group of people. Indeed the D's have a few turncoats also.

Just heard from Anita... and she sends you a special Birthday wish as well!

Welcome to the 'Cougar Club'... lol

dangerfield:

I would bet my bottom dollar that Obama has had a few private meetings where he consulted with Bill Clinton reagrding the economy, as well as Hillary. I would also bet my bottom dollar that Clinton told Obama I would love to help, but man, I have no clue. The issues you are facing today are much worse and deeper then I faced.

and I would bet that Bill just smiled...

Perhaps, but most likely not. Bill may hold some grudges against Obama but not to the degree and with the same level of detestation as he holds against many of the republicans, some of which did their best to boot him out of office and into jail.

...and say "Nice job on that health care reform thing, but as my old adviser Jimmy Carville famously said..."It's the economy...Mr President"

The president spent the year (and almost all of his political capital) he should have spent focused on the economy on the health care debate, and it has and will cost the party in November.

Jody,

Though I don't share their philosophy, the republicans are opposed to the president's policies and being in the minority have no other option than to obstruct them. That's all you can do when you can't propose and pass legislation. It was the position that democrats were in through most of the Bush years. It is the president's job to inspire and lead, to set the tone and to bring the American people to consensus so that it renders petty partisan politics and petty partisan politicians meaningless.

If unemployment stays above 9% people will not be holding the republicans responsible in November, deserved or not, that is the cold hard reality here.

dangerffield:

You are correct that is how politics works and has worked. The furstration lies (on both sides) that republicans, and dems, should be attempting to move the country forward and realizing that such progress is only possible when they accept the fact that those steps taken will not always be according to their set of political philosophies, rather than placing their own agendas at the top of their priority list and therefore voting no on every single issue that does not match that political agenda.

dangerfield. The problem is the minority party is ignoring the problems this country faces for political reasons only. This has NOT always been the case because there was a time when parties compromised. This country functions on compromise, it is what the founding fathers intended. When one party agrees with 85-95% of legislation (the GOPers have stated that), then they should be willing to compromise on the other 10-15% and vote yes.

This country cannot continue down this road of obstruction. The Constitution states majority rules yet we have a Senate rule, not a law, a rule they created for filibuster to allow debate--but that debate has been twisted into a cloture vote WITHOUT the debate. I have no problem with a filibuster but I want an actual filibuster with the opposition holding the Senate hostage for however long they choose. Let's have the debate but when it is over, the majority vote should pass or defeat any piece of legislation. And get rid of these ridiculous anonymous holds on nominees or legislation. We do not elect kings, we elect legislators yet we have kings who can shut down the Senate just because they want to. That is my view regardless of which party is in power.

The virulent nastiness that you feel is acceptable in discussing these matters makes it hard to take even your salient points seriously, as mature and serious people tend to try to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. sorry

It was not I but polling of the American people that produced the results I cited.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2010/voters_say_hillary_more_qualified_to_be_president_than_obama_romney_gingrich_palin

Really, you're going to stand above the fray and cite a Rasmussen poll? The pollster with the strongest demonstrable Conservative bias? Don't believe me, prove it yourself. Go here http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php and look at the results. Now hover over the dots and see that ALL the outliers in a Conservative direction are Rasmussen polls. Then go to Filter/IVR-Automated Phone and deselect "Rasmussen". Like magic the disapproval rate for President Obama drops by 1.9%. You can do the same thing here http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/10-us-house-genballot.php here http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php and pretty much ANYWHERE that Rasmussen polls.

Now there is a post without that virulent nastiness when attempting to discuss these matters.

Republicans spent the entire 8 years of the Bush administration trying to pin every problem, mistake and failure on every democratic administration from Clinton to Andrew Jackson, so despite the fact that I find the current practices distasteful, the Obama administration has every right to diagram from the same playbook...

"Now there is a post without that virulent nastiness when attempting to discuss these matters."

Which doesn't excuse excessive and inflammatory rhetoric from either side, and I really hope that isn't what you are implying.

PS Why are all of your comments in bold, making mine appear in bold too?

"Just repeating what your president said..." You have another one?

The President is everyone's President. You don't have to like it but you damn well better honor the office or you are no kind of American...

ditto.

But, they're more bi-partisan than, say, Durbin and Schumer...right?

allow me to introduce you to the National Journal Vote Ratings;

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20090228_4726.php

Where you will find that you are way off the mark...both are true centrists, coming in at 49 and 50 percent respectively on the liberal/conservative scale

McConnell over 80% conservative less than 15% on the liberal side

Their votes in 2008 and where this metric rated them then don't really matter much in the current context. Once the tactical approach of the Republicans became to vote lockstep on every issue, I would imagine that you would see their voting pattern since January, 2009 radically shift in a rightward direction. There is also no particular way to ascertain which votes were 'counted' in that particular device. Did they include votes on procedural issues? Remember, the filibuster is a procedural issue and, as such, Snow and Collins voting against cloture would presumably not be included in their composite liberal/conservative score.

This is a handy method used by many legislators to mask their support or opposition to a specific issue.

Finally, does it include the senator's ability to invisibly block appointments and/or other pieces of legislation from the floor unless they get what they want. I have no idea whether Snowe or Collins have done this - the point is that we have no real idea who does this unless someone tells us later.

The convenient myth is that Snowe and Collins are centrists, but until we actually see them break ranks with their colleagues on an issue - a real issue - of importance, they and Brown are key to the right wing tactics ongoing in the senate. They are always the ones trotted out by the right as 'the bi-partisan' ones who will negotiate in committee for months, then finally vote against bringing the final version of the bill to the floor for a final vote. The Republicans have been rinsing and repeating this strategy for a year and a half.

If a party doesn't want to allow the governance of the country to proceed, the other party better have 66 senators who are all willing to vote as a bloc to overcome that. That is the United States, pure and simple.

I apologize as it is your birthday, but you are as silly and irrelevant in your rhetoric as any right wing crazy. No reasonable person would ever be able to finish reading, let alone be persuaded by the things you write here. I am sorry that I am here on your birthday, telling you the sad truth about how much of a turn-off your posts are. Even if you are correct in your musings, your over the top nastiness riddled with extremist buzz words, diminishes every point you attempt to make.

Why, if you care so much about what you say, would you endeavor to enrage or more likely embarrass all but the most extreme and well, uncivil? You are probably better than that, so why not try to show it?

Again, Happy Birthday...

Obama supporter and Democrat Nate Silver, at FiveThirtyEight.com, ranks Rasmussen 15th, out of more than 60 polling outfits...in the top 25% of the pollsters he reviewed.

Silver ranks Rasmussen ahead of Marist, Sienna, CNN/Opinion Research, CBS NY Times, Newsweek, Quinnipiac, Battleground, and Zogby, among others...all major polling organizations. Many of those ranked ahead of Rasmussen enjoy only a tiny statistical advantage...again, according to Nate, who is no friend of Rasmussen.

When you consider that Nate feels that Rasmussen has a pro-Republican "house effect"...I'd say that's a very high ranking, indeed.

Wouldn't you?

I worked for a time as a poll phone caller and I can tell you for sure that the Rasmussen polls were the absolute worst aside from some individual politician's polls. They were heavily slanted towards certain answers, and as Beverly states, they were mostly Push Polls. They made me so disgusted with the whole polling notion that I left that job. I have more dignity and conscience than that to be having to say their garbage to innocents over the phone. As a result, I rarely pay attention to poll results, they are totally meaningless unless you use them as a barometer of the National Rhetoric, of which they are a large part.