The true extent of Obama’s influence over Congress was more accurately described by Ezra Klein yesterday:
[P]oliticians understand their incentives. Republican legislators have to win primaries among electorates that deeply dislike President Obama. In that world, working with the White House very likely means losing your job. It also means making Obama more popular, which means making it less likely that you and your party will get back into the majority in the next election. And on the other side of this equation is—what? Bourbon with Obama? A speech Obama gave to 2,000 people in your state?
The White House can employ better or worse strategies, of course. But it’s deeply insulting to the grown men and women who populate the U.S. Congress to posit that the only reason they’re acting as they are is that the president doesn’t lavish them with sufficient attention, or campaign in their districts, or twist arms like Lyndon Johnson
So how exactly is Obama supposed to change Republican votes again? There’s clearly an audience for simplistic stories about a president’s success or failure in their dealings with Congress, but reporters have to decide whether they’re in a different business than Aaron Sorkin or if they’re selling another version of the same political fantasy.
Follow @USProjectCJR for more posts from this author and the rest of the United States Project team.
I frequently share Dowd's columns with a friend. But Sunday's entry was appallingly naive and unprofessional. Her credibility has plummeted, in my estimation. Or did I miss the irony?
#1 Posted by Donna L Dale, CJR on Tue 30 Apr 2013 at 04:41 PM
Comparing LBJ with Obama is definitely unfair. LBJ had 40 years in the Congress. He had worked for and against actions for both the Republicans and Democrats--often as a favor to the opposition. He kept track--either mentally or by notes--so he gained votes from those that disapproved of the civil rights and Medicare or other actions--by calling what were often called "markers." Obama doesn't have "markers" He wasn't in the Senate a full term to start collecting them and, looking at today's Congress, I doubt if any of those Republicans would honor his markers--if he had any. Many are not that honorable and will vote against anything he puts up if it's for the betterment of the Democrats or the middle class and/or poor just out of spite. As Obama said this morning, the changes in the sequestration bill must be done by Congress. The bills must be introduced and acted upon by the Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate. He can give suggestions individually and then he can sign it into law or veto it. David and Maureen were both VERY wrong in their columns. They obviously have been watching too much TV and have forgotten their basic civil lessons learned 20-30 years ago. Too bad!!
#2 Posted by Trish, CJR on Tue 30 Apr 2013 at 05:27 PM
Harry S Truman is credited with the quote, “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” In Obama's I'd add a second version, "...if you do not care who gets the blame."
IMHO Obama isn't getting his legislation passed, because he's more focused on politics and less on governing, E.g., He would get lots of Republican support if he bluntly addressed the deficits in Social Security and Medicare and took the responsibility for leading an effort to cut those benefits so as to make the programs solvent for the long term. But, he wants Republicans to be blamed for making the necessary cuts, so he isn't taking that sort of appropriate leadership.
BTW amid all the wailing about Obama's inability to pass his bills, he seems likely to pass a highly controversial immigration bill. So, maybe his weakness is exaggerated.
#3 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Wed 1 May 2013 at 05:01 PM