Buscar
El que mucho abarca, poco aprieta... O es a proposito que Obama trae la agendaa cargada de temas controversiales???
Página 1 de 1.
El que mucho abarca, poco aprieta... O es a proposito que Obama trae la agendaa cargada de temas controversiales???
por Charlie319 Lun Abr 15, 2013 12:38 am
Considerando que Obama ha traido el matrimonio gay, Su iniciativa contra el derecho constitucional de poseer y portar armas, su iniciativa por fiat ejecutivo de otorgar amnistia a los ilegales, y como si eso fuera poco el peo con Korea del Norte... A nadie se le ha ocurrido que estas son bolas de humo para que la gente se distraiga de lo jodida que esta la economia?
Charlie319- Admin
- Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio -
Re: El que mucho abarca, poco aprieta... O es a proposito que Obama trae la agendaa cargada de temas controversiales???
por Charlie319 Miér Abr 17, 2013 11:02 pm
Bueno, ya cayo el primer reves vergonzoso del Presidente... en este segundo cuatrenio de su marcha a tumbos y tropiezos... Por lo menos en el primer cuatrenio desperdicio su capital politico pasando el bodrio de Obamacare... y se acabo lo poco que le quedaba con Cap & Trade... En este, apenas salio tropezando de la gatera y se desplomo... Lo que le falta en su intento de amnistia. su residenciable actitud en cuanto a la defensa de DOMA; Su torpe manejo de la situacio con Korea del Norte y lo que hoy dia parece perfilarse como el envio de 20,000 tropas a sangrar y morir en Syria... Jimmy Carter quedara desbancado como el peor presidente en toda la historia por el esfuerzo de este fracasado.
Gun control: Obama’s biggest loss
Never before had President Barack Obama put the moral force and political muscle of his presidency behind an issue quite this big — and lost quite this badly.
The president, shaken to the core by the massacre of 26 innocents at Sandy Hook Elementary School, broke his own informal “Obama Rule” — of never leaning into an issue without a clear path to victory — first by pushing for a massive gun control package no one expected to pass, and then sticking through it even as he retrenched to a relatively modest bipartisan bill mandating national background checks on gun purchases.
It was a bitter defeat for a president accustomed to winning, a second-term downer that may — or may not — foreshadow the slow decline suffered by so many of his predecessors. Obama seems to have the public behind him, but it illustrated his less-than-Johnsonian powers of personal persuasion, the possible shortcomings of his decision to wait a month after the killings to present a plan and above all the limits of his go-to “outside” strategy of taking his case directly to the American people.
More than anything, it was an emotional blow to Obama, who was as irritated at the four members of his own party as he was at the 90 percent of Republicans who defeated the bill.
One administration official told POLITICO the White House was especially disappointed with Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D), the only dissenting Democrat not up for re-election next year, who refused to go along with the bill even after White House chief of staff Denis McDonough visited her office to make Obama’s case on Tuesday.
Still, officials believed Heitkamp would have flipped if they had gotten closer to the 60 votes they needed.
“The president was tremendously committed and emotionally engaged. I watched the president with these families. He was there for them and really felt it,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat who worked closely with the White House in the aftermath of the worst school shooting in the history of his state.
“Background checks will happen,” he added, minutes after the vote. “This outcome is a delay, not a defeat.”
Added Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.): “I never saw a president fight so hard, a vice president, never on any issue… It shows us the cowardice of the Senate.”
In the end, however, moderates and conservatives in the upper chamber said they simply couldn’t deal with a flurry of progressive issues at once — from gay marriage to immigration to guns.
The other three Democratic “no” votes — Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska — were never really in play, sources familiar with the situation told POLITICO.
Gun control: Obama’s biggest loss
Never before had President Barack Obama put the moral force and political muscle of his presidency behind an issue quite this big — and lost quite this badly.
The president, shaken to the core by the massacre of 26 innocents at Sandy Hook Elementary School, broke his own informal “Obama Rule” — of never leaning into an issue without a clear path to victory — first by pushing for a massive gun control package no one expected to pass, and then sticking through it even as he retrenched to a relatively modest bipartisan bill mandating national background checks on gun purchases.
It was a bitter defeat for a president accustomed to winning, a second-term downer that may — or may not — foreshadow the slow decline suffered by so many of his predecessors. Obama seems to have the public behind him, but it illustrated his less-than-Johnsonian powers of personal persuasion, the possible shortcomings of his decision to wait a month after the killings to present a plan and above all the limits of his go-to “outside” strategy of taking his case directly to the American people.
More than anything, it was an emotional blow to Obama, who was as irritated at the four members of his own party as he was at the 90 percent of Republicans who defeated the bill.
One administration official told POLITICO the White House was especially disappointed with Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D), the only dissenting Democrat not up for re-election next year, who refused to go along with the bill even after White House chief of staff Denis McDonough visited her office to make Obama’s case on Tuesday.
Still, officials believed Heitkamp would have flipped if they had gotten closer to the 60 votes they needed.
“The president was tremendously committed and emotionally engaged. I watched the president with these families. He was there for them and really felt it,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat who worked closely with the White House in the aftermath of the worst school shooting in the history of his state.
“Background checks will happen,” he added, minutes after the vote. “This outcome is a delay, not a defeat.”
Added Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.): “I never saw a president fight so hard, a vice president, never on any issue… It shows us the cowardice of the Senate.”
In the end, however, moderates and conservatives in the upper chamber said they simply couldn’t deal with a flurry of progressive issues at once — from gay marriage to immigration to guns.
The other three Democratic “no” votes — Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska — were never really in play, sources familiar with the situation told POLITICO.
Charlie319- Admin
- Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio -
Re: El que mucho abarca, poco aprieta... O es a proposito que Obama trae la agendaa cargada de temas controversiales???
por Charlie319 Sáb Abr 20, 2013 12:59 pm
Esto es del New Yorker... Por lo visto Obie sabe que no tiene chance de nada y esta buscando el premio de consolacion en una intentona de desbancar la mayoria derechista en el Congreso...
The End of the Honeymoon for Obama: What’s Next
Posted by [url=http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/john_cassidy/search?contributorName=John Cassidy]John Cassidy[/url]
Barack Obama is going gray, and no wonder. He said a while back that it was hereditary, but weeks like this one must be accelerating the process. Even before Friday’s dramatic shootout and manhunt in Watertown, it had been a remarkably stressful few days for the President.
On Thursday morning, barely twelve hours after standing in the White House Rose Garden and consoling some of the Newtown parents who had come to Washington in a futile effort to put pressure on Congress to introduce tougher gun laws, he departed for Boston, where he told an interfaith service at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, “Every one of us stands with you.” His speech was artful and heartfelt, as were his remarks in the Rose Garden. But in Washington, they don’t give out many marks for artistic impression, and they don’t suspend politics for memorial services. By Thursday evening, when Obama returned to the White House, Politico’s Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen, two of the most widely read journalists in the capital, had posted a lengthy article entitled “Behind the Curtain: Obama, boxed in,” which read like an early obituary for his second term:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Obama, regardless of the personality and political approach he displays on any given day, keeps running into the same wall of insurmountable opposition. The cold, hard reality is that the president is trapped in a very frustrating box: He realizes that the vast majority of Congress is as impervious to his pressure as it is his charm. He is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t — and he knows it, several of his friends tell us.</BLOCKQUOTE>
The article cited Obama’s inability to win the support of red-state Democrats like the four senators who voted against enhanced background checks for gun buyers, his likely failure to get anywhere with Republicans on the budget, and the opposition to his Social Security proposals from liberal Democrats. The White House’s spinmeisters will doubtless dismiss the Politico article as overwrought, which it was.
Three months into a four-year term is too early to reach any definitive judgments. In a previous post, I argued that over the long term, the N.R.A.’s blatant power play could end up backfiring, as angry citizens assert their democratic rights. Nonetheless, VandeHei and Allen have a point. In the past couple of weeks, Obama’s second-term honeymoon has come to an end. With the hostile reception to his budget proposal and his defeat on gun control, the underlying weakness of his position, which the White House had managed to mask for a while, has become clearer.
Of course, Obama’s predicament isn’t his own fault. Because of the outrageous filibuster, to get almost anything done in the Senate he has to win over four Republicans and keep all the Democrats in line. In the House, the Republicans have a majority of thirty-one votes. Given this arithmetic, anybody who expected great things from Obama’s second term was being delusional. Absent a surprise Democratic sweep in the 2016 midterms, it was always going to be a four-year slog. That’s the way Presidential second terms usually turn out, as Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all discovered.
For a while there, though, the White House seemed to have gained the initiative. It used the fiscal cliff deadline to force Republicans in Congress to accept higher taxes and then called their bluff by allowing the sequester to go into effect. Whether this was the right thing to do for the economy remains to be seen, but it certainly put the G.O.P. on the defensive. With at least some Republicans eager to present a more moderate image to the public following their defeat in November, there appeared to be room for further deals on gun control and immigration. And by making an overture on entitlement reform, the White House made clear it still hadn’t given up its hope of achieving a “grand bargain” on taxes and spending.
At least for now, depending on how the reaction to what’s happening in Boston shakes out, immigration reform is still alive—partly because the Republican Party needs Latino votes, and partly because many of the business interests that bankroll and support it are pro-immigration. But, if Obama wants to get much more done, he’s going to have to work the system more successfully than he did on gun control. Ultimately, all of his stumping and speechifying didn’t work. Even with the Newtown families and archconservative Republican Pat Toomey on his side, he couldn’t win over enough votes to pass a very modest bill. Inevitably, more questions will be raised about his inability, or unwillingness, to court and cajole members of Congress. Again, that’s a bit unfair. Short of kidnapping their children, it’s hard to see how the White House could have won the votes of Max Baucus, Mark Pryor, and Mark Begich, all Democratic senators in red states who are up for reëlection next year. As for Republicans, asking them to defy the N.R.A. is largely a lost cause.
The consoling news for Obama is that, to some extent, gun control is sui generis. For almost twenty years after the losses sustained in the 1994 midterms following Bill Clinton’s push on assault weapons, the Democratic Party as a whole considered it such a toxic issue they wouldn’t go anywhere near it. After the Newtown massacre, Obama decided to try and take a stand. Even after the loss, when the history books are written, that will be a big mark in his favor.
The other issues he has to deal with now are less polarizing. But the fact remains that the President’s strategic position is weak, which leaves him with two options: look for crumbs or go big.
The first strategy would involve continuing to search for legislative deals with the Republicans on issues like the budget, and, where they aren’t possible, using executive orders to advance a progressive agenda in modest ways. On the environment, for example, the executive branch can use its administrative authority to toughen up the rules for power plants, cars, and other polluters. The new standards for fuel economy that Obama introduced in his first term show that such changes can have a significant impact. But incrementalism would be the order of the day.
The second strategy would be more ambitious, and riskier. It would involve finally abandoning efforts at bipartisanship, declaring war on the Republican obstructionists, and going all out to overturn their majority in the House in November, 2014. As my colleague Ryan Lizza noted last month, when the latest round of budget negotiations broke down, “A fundamental fact of modern political life is that the only way to advance a coherent agenda in Washington is through partisan dominance.” While incumbent parties usually do badly in midterm elections, the Republican majority is small enough, and the party’s approval rating is low enough, that winning the seventeen seats the Democrats would need to take the House isn’t wholly out of the question.
Which way will Obama go? As long as there is still a good chance of immigration reform passing Congress, he will surely continue to work with Republicans who are willing to coöperate. But if immigration reform goes down, too, what point is there of sticking with this strategy? The anger Obama exhibited following the Senate votes on gun control showed another side of his personality—a tougher, more combative side, a part of him willing to label his opponents scoundrels and liars. With the Super PAC that supports him, Priorities USA Action, already preparing to raise—and spend—more money, the President may be coming around to the view that going into battle is his best option.
The End of the Honeymoon for Obama: What’s Next
Posted by [url=http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/john_cassidy/search?contributorName=John Cassidy]John Cassidy[/url]
Barack Obama is going gray, and no wonder. He said a while back that it was hereditary, but weeks like this one must be accelerating the process. Even before Friday’s dramatic shootout and manhunt in Watertown, it had been a remarkably stressful few days for the President.
On Thursday morning, barely twelve hours after standing in the White House Rose Garden and consoling some of the Newtown parents who had come to Washington in a futile effort to put pressure on Congress to introduce tougher gun laws, he departed for Boston, where he told an interfaith service at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, “Every one of us stands with you.” His speech was artful and heartfelt, as were his remarks in the Rose Garden. But in Washington, they don’t give out many marks for artistic impression, and they don’t suspend politics for memorial services. By Thursday evening, when Obama returned to the White House, Politico’s Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen, two of the most widely read journalists in the capital, had posted a lengthy article entitled “Behind the Curtain: Obama, boxed in,” which read like an early obituary for his second term:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Obama, regardless of the personality and political approach he displays on any given day, keeps running into the same wall of insurmountable opposition. The cold, hard reality is that the president is trapped in a very frustrating box: He realizes that the vast majority of Congress is as impervious to his pressure as it is his charm. He is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t — and he knows it, several of his friends tell us.</BLOCKQUOTE>
The article cited Obama’s inability to win the support of red-state Democrats like the four senators who voted against enhanced background checks for gun buyers, his likely failure to get anywhere with Republicans on the budget, and the opposition to his Social Security proposals from liberal Democrats. The White House’s spinmeisters will doubtless dismiss the Politico article as overwrought, which it was.
Three months into a four-year term is too early to reach any definitive judgments. In a previous post, I argued that over the long term, the N.R.A.’s blatant power play could end up backfiring, as angry citizens assert their democratic rights. Nonetheless, VandeHei and Allen have a point. In the past couple of weeks, Obama’s second-term honeymoon has come to an end. With the hostile reception to his budget proposal and his defeat on gun control, the underlying weakness of his position, which the White House had managed to mask for a while, has become clearer.
Of course, Obama’s predicament isn’t his own fault. Because of the outrageous filibuster, to get almost anything done in the Senate he has to win over four Republicans and keep all the Democrats in line. In the House, the Republicans have a majority of thirty-one votes. Given this arithmetic, anybody who expected great things from Obama’s second term was being delusional. Absent a surprise Democratic sweep in the 2016 midterms, it was always going to be a four-year slog. That’s the way Presidential second terms usually turn out, as Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all discovered.
For a while there, though, the White House seemed to have gained the initiative. It used the fiscal cliff deadline to force Republicans in Congress to accept higher taxes and then called their bluff by allowing the sequester to go into effect. Whether this was the right thing to do for the economy remains to be seen, but it certainly put the G.O.P. on the defensive. With at least some Republicans eager to present a more moderate image to the public following their defeat in November, there appeared to be room for further deals on gun control and immigration. And by making an overture on entitlement reform, the White House made clear it still hadn’t given up its hope of achieving a “grand bargain” on taxes and spending.
At least for now, depending on how the reaction to what’s happening in Boston shakes out, immigration reform is still alive—partly because the Republican Party needs Latino votes, and partly because many of the business interests that bankroll and support it are pro-immigration. But, if Obama wants to get much more done, he’s going to have to work the system more successfully than he did on gun control. Ultimately, all of his stumping and speechifying didn’t work. Even with the Newtown families and archconservative Republican Pat Toomey on his side, he couldn’t win over enough votes to pass a very modest bill. Inevitably, more questions will be raised about his inability, or unwillingness, to court and cajole members of Congress. Again, that’s a bit unfair. Short of kidnapping their children, it’s hard to see how the White House could have won the votes of Max Baucus, Mark Pryor, and Mark Begich, all Democratic senators in red states who are up for reëlection next year. As for Republicans, asking them to defy the N.R.A. is largely a lost cause.
The consoling news for Obama is that, to some extent, gun control is sui generis. For almost twenty years after the losses sustained in the 1994 midterms following Bill Clinton’s push on assault weapons, the Democratic Party as a whole considered it such a toxic issue they wouldn’t go anywhere near it. After the Newtown massacre, Obama decided to try and take a stand. Even after the loss, when the history books are written, that will be a big mark in his favor.
The other issues he has to deal with now are less polarizing. But the fact remains that the President’s strategic position is weak, which leaves him with two options: look for crumbs or go big.
The first strategy would involve continuing to search for legislative deals with the Republicans on issues like the budget, and, where they aren’t possible, using executive orders to advance a progressive agenda in modest ways. On the environment, for example, the executive branch can use its administrative authority to toughen up the rules for power plants, cars, and other polluters. The new standards for fuel economy that Obama introduced in his first term show that such changes can have a significant impact. But incrementalism would be the order of the day.
The second strategy would be more ambitious, and riskier. It would involve finally abandoning efforts at bipartisanship, declaring war on the Republican obstructionists, and going all out to overturn their majority in the House in November, 2014. As my colleague Ryan Lizza noted last month, when the latest round of budget negotiations broke down, “A fundamental fact of modern political life is that the only way to advance a coherent agenda in Washington is through partisan dominance.” While incumbent parties usually do badly in midterm elections, the Republican majority is small enough, and the party’s approval rating is low enough, that winning the seventeen seats the Democrats would need to take the House isn’t wholly out of the question.
Which way will Obama go? As long as there is still a good chance of immigration reform passing Congress, he will surely continue to work with Republicans who are willing to coöperate. But if immigration reform goes down, too, what point is there of sticking with this strategy? The anger Obama exhibited following the Senate votes on gun control showed another side of his personality—a tougher, more combative side, a part of him willing to label his opponents scoundrels and liars. With the Super PAC that supports him, Priorities USA Action, already preparing to raise—and spend—more money, the President may be coming around to the view that going into battle is his best option.
Charlie319- Admin
- Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio -
Re: El que mucho abarca, poco aprieta... O es a proposito que Obama trae la agendaa cargada de temas controversiales???
por Contenido patrocinado
Contenido patrocinado
Temas similares» El papel de la raza en las elecciones
» Este es un tema que veremos repetido mucho camino a Noviembre...
» El quiebre de los votantes con Obama
» Obama se dirige a la reelección
» La solucion del 10% de Obama y su responsabilidad
» Este es un tema que veremos repetido mucho camino a Noviembre...
» El quiebre de los votantes con Obama
» Obama se dirige a la reelección
» La solucion del 10% de Obama y su responsabilidad
Página 1 de 1.
Permisos de este foro:
No puedes responder a temas en este foro.