pacino wrote:i get the sense people complaining about campaign promises have some idealized version of politics

pacino wrote:i get the sense people complaining about campaign promises have some idealized version of politics

kruker wrote:The savior promised real change, now let's see if he's willing to live up to what he promised.

kruker wrote:I understand the complexity of getting a real cap and trade bill passed, but what is being presented right now smacks of lip service. The ringing endorsement I've seen so far was Krugman and he was the one that used the phrase "better than nothing". What we're getting is far from a compromise or due to the result of new facts coming to light. To me this seems like an attempt to pass some "green" legislation now without alienating too many people and then, ideally, go for the jugular in term 2. That's fine and an understandable political move (pragmatic indeed), but it's nothing close to what he campaigned on and, arguably, not completely out of his hands.

Yea it's naive to assume politicians are going to live up to the letter of their campaign promises or to forgo political capital at any cost for results, but that doesn't mean he/they should get a pass on it. Personally, all I'm looking for is for him to put some pressure on the legislature to up the numbers. Show me that you aren't going to let something so weak get through just so you don't upset the wrong people before election 2.

pacino wrote:i get the sense people complaining about campaign promises have some idealized version of politics

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:i get the sense people complaining about campaign promises have some idealized version of politics

This is bad enough, but it's even more annoying when the opposition complains that the politician they didn't support breaks their promises. I mean, if you didn't support the candidate, odds are his/her breaking their promises means they're doing more to satisfy you than their own supporters.

The speech gave a crystal-clear view of Mr Obama's approach to politics, but was also a token of how increasingly difficult he will find it to govern so long as he persists in thinking he is still on the campaign trail, rather than in the White House and actually running the country. Despite having won his election nearly seven months ago, and perhaps because of grumblings from critics that he could emulate Jimmy Carter and be a one-term Democrat president, Mr Obama cannot help but try to court popularity. He often does this, as in the abortion speech, by seeking to create an idea that he is somehow above differences within the American nation, and that he can represent neither camp or both camps on any question, however tendentious. It won't work.

....

In the legislature, the delivery of campaign promises is proving difficult despite the President's party having clear majorities in both the House and the Senate. His attempts to demonstrate a commitment to countering global warming have been impeded by Democrats from mining states worried about jobs in their districts. Those representing farming areas have hindered reform of agricultural subsidies; and the President's progress towards health care reform is sniped at as much by some of his own side, who worry about a potential $1 trillion cost and its effects on the deficit, as by his opponents. Some of the President's supporters warn him against avoiding confrontations with Congress, arguing that George W Bush's reluctance to take on the then Republican-controlled legislature exacerbated America's present economic mess, by allowing incontinent spending and the running up of enormous debt. And, of course, the economy remains the President's overriding problem.

.....

The disarray of the Republican party here – it remains shattered after last year's defeat, inadequately led and effective only at sniping – means Mr Obama is under little pressure for the moment to confront the really big issues, to take sides and make the really hard choices. But he can't keep fudging it, as he did at Notre Dame, for much longer.

TenuredVulture wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:i get the sense people complaining about campaign promises have some idealized version of politics

This is bad enough, but it's even more annoying when the opposition complains that the politician they didn't support breaks their promises. I mean, if you didn't support the candidate, odds are his/her breaking their promises means they're doing more to satisfy you than their own supporters.

I've always wondered about this. Didn't they ever experience one of the great joys of childhood--saying, "I told ya so!"?

Werthless wrote:

I must admit, I enjoy pointing out that Obama isn't nearly as anti-war as some of his supporters thought he was. His actions over the next few years in Afghanistan and Pakistan will likely surprise some people.

dajafi wrote:OTOH, it's not supposed to be easy to get legislation through the Senate. So it could be argued that the system is working as it should, and that we all collectively have become so impatient, so fixated on a news cycle or quarter or campain cycle, that we've lost sight of this truth.

Still frustrating though.

NY Times 5/26 When the Justices Ask Questions, Be Prepared to Lose the Case A few years ago, a second-year law student at Georgetown unlocked the secret to predicting which side will win a case in the Supreme Court based on how the argument went. Her theory has been tested and endorsed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and has been confirmed by elaborate studies from teams of professors.

“The bottom line, as simple as it sounds,” said the student, Sarah Levien Shullman, who is now a litigation associate at a law firm in Florida, “is that the party that gets the most questions is likely to lose.”

Chief Justice Roberts heard about Ms. Shullman’s study while he was still a federal appeals court judge, and he decided to test its conclusion for himself. So he picked 14 cases each from the terms that started in October 1980 and October 2003, and he started counting.

“The most-asked-question ‘rule’ predicted the winner — or more accurately, the loser — in 24 of those 28 cases, an 86 percent prediction rate,” he told the Supreme Court Historical Society in 2004.

Chief Justice Roberts had argued 39 cases in the Supreme Court, and he was considered one of the leading appellate advocates of his generation. He sounded both fascinated and a little deflated by the results of his experiment. “The secret to successful advocacy,” he said playfully, “is simply to get the court to ask your opponent more questions.”

dajafi wrote:I keep thinking about that "Why Democrats can't govern" piece Paul pointed out a couple months back. Obama really has more trouble with his former Senate colleagues than any other group. Part of that is probably Reid's weakness as a leader,...

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I keep thinking about that "Why Democrats can't govern" piece Paul pointed out a couple months back. Obama really has more trouble with his former Senate colleagues than any other group. Part of that is probably Reid's weakness as a leader,...

The Senate (and House Dems) don't owe him anything, either. It's not like they rode in on his coat-tails, they got their majority power without him. I think the folks who pointed out that Democrats would be a bigger problem for Obama than Republicans were right.

In terms of the senate, they may recognize him as one of their fraternity, but I really really doubt he's thought of as a capital F "Former Senator", even in his own party.

kruker wrote:This is why I wouldn't say I'm outraged, as some others seem to be doing. My complaint is that he doesn't come across as willing to turn the screws available to him. I'm kind of caught between personal views here because like Atown said above regarding the cap and trade issue, maybe this is all they can get and maybe a veto threat would be just posturing, but I think he's got to exert some pressure. In a pragmatic sense, a veto is probably a waste of time, but then, I'm of the belief that posturing isn't an idle task but a worthwhile move that could pay short and long term dividends, if not necessarily with this specific piece of legislation.

BREAKING: President Obama will name Second District Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his pick for the Supreme Court at 10:15 a.m. -- Mike Allen (8:28 a.m.)

If Obama becomes president, his first nominee to the Supreme Court will likely be Sonia Sotomayor. As a Hispanic woman with 16 years of court experience, Sotomayor would slay two of the court's lack-of-diversity birds with one swift stone. "These are criteria that matter these days. Even Laura Bush was disappointed that her husband didn't name a woman to replace Sandra Day O'Connor," says Mark Tushnet, the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Harvard. And because Sotomayor has a reputation for staying behind the scenes and sits on a federal bench known for its centrism, it's likely that she would be able to garner a two-thirds majority in the Senate, even if the Democrats only control an estimated 55 or so seats. Plus there's an insurance measure if the nomination gets too politicized publicly: Sotomayor was appointed to the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush. Says Tushnet, "If you're a Democratic strategist, you can gin up ads that say, 'She was good enough for George H. W. Bush. Why isn't she good enough for Mitch McConnell?' "

In her rulings, Sotomayor has often shown suspicion of bloated government and corporate power. She's offered a reinterpretation of copyright law, ruled in favor of public access to private information, and in her most famous decision, sided with labor in the Major League Baseball strike of 1995. More than anything else, she is seen as a realist. With a likely 20 years ahead on the bench, she'll have plenty of time to impart her realist philosophy.

drsmooth wrote:Chief Justice susceptible to confusion by small sample size? This gives me little confidence:

NY Times 5/26 When the Justices Ask Questions, Be Prepared to Lose the Case A few years ago, a second-year law student at Georgetown unlocked the secret to predicting which side will win a case in the Supreme Court based on how the argument went. Her theory has been tested and endorsed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and has been confirmed by elaborate studies from teams of professors.

“The bottom line, as simple as it sounds,” said the student, Sarah Levien Shullman, who is now a litigation associate at a law firm in Florida, “is that the party that gets the most questions is likely to lose.”

Chief Justice Roberts heard about Ms. Shullman’s study while he was still a federal appeals court judge, and he decided to test its conclusion for himself. So he picked 14 cases each from the terms that started in October 1980 and October 2003, and he started counting.

“The most-asked-question ‘rule’ predicted the winner — or more accurately, the loser — in 24 of those 28 cases, an 86 percent prediction rate,” he told the Supreme Court Historical Society in 2004.

Chief Justice Roberts had argued 39 cases in the Supreme Court, and he was considered one of the leading appellate advocates of his generation. He sounded both fascinated and a little deflated by the results of his experiment. “The secret to successful advocacy,” he said playfully, “is simply to get the court to ask your opponent more questions.”