I can't argue with that.—Which is why it ticks me off that the forth estate, instead of being the guardian of democracy exposing political corruption, is instead leading the parade demanding the Constitution be damned just so they can sell tickets to the resulting Roman spectacle.

A voter is not insane. voters as a group are practically certifiable, and easily swayed by anything they see or hear, no matter how little sense it might make. or to quote the movie Men In Black,

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

If you want to know which Congress-members are obstructing reform you have to really be paying attention or do serious research. Even though local reporting will name names locally, since local pols are only cited occasionally and the President is cited constantly, its not surprising that congress-members are not held responsible. But congress-members get full credit for bringing home the bacon.

Of course people think their guy is mostly good, that's what the media keeps telling them. If instead of naming the President, who has no legal role in legislating, how about naming all the congress-members whose objections and obstruction are really to blame, in each and every article?

Of course that would weaken any story's punch and lists of dozens or hundreds of names would strain viewers attention spans and have less national appeal if "their" guy weren't on the list, which would affect ratings; far better for the media to keep it simple and just lay it all on the President—even if it isn't true.

I say again, only Congress can legally legislate. The President swears to defend and protest the Constitution. I don't care how he does it, or why he does it, or what "hat" he's wearing, if he circumvents the Constitution he betrays his oath and his office and acts illegally and unconstitutionally.

No-one was naive enough to think he wouldn't try, but those efforts are supposed to fail; if they don't the checks and balances aren't working.

Occum's Razor Chris; is it more likely that voters sit out interim elections but flock to Presidential ones to "make their opinions known" because they think the President is responsible for the bad legislation coming out of Congress, or that they think punishing the President will send a message to Congress and somehow cow THEM, or that the American voter is bat-shit crazy?

Your "Two-hats" argument is pure sophistry. The President is the President 24/7 for four years. He doesn't stop being the President when he's acting as the head of a party. The President has an obligation to inform Congress of the legislative tools he needs to fulfill his office and like every citizen the right to propose legislation, to give them his opinions and advice and Congress can listen or not and be advised or not by whomever they choose—But the Constitution gave Congress the exclusive authority to legislate.

The President swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. Being the party head does not mean he has a right to circumvent the Constitution if he cannot persuade Congress. Threatening Congress-members to influence their vote is still extortion, being the head of a party doesn't change that. Using extortion to legislate by proxy in violation of the Constitution is still both illegal, unconstitutional, and a betrayal of his oath of office.

The fact that both parties have become so corrupt they routinely ignore the law and engage in unconstitutional and illegal behavior does not make it legal or constitutional. Promoting unconstitutional, unethical, and illegal behavior as legal and obligatory simply because corruption has become institutionalized is still a misrepresentation and gross disservice to the public all the more egregious when directed against a President elected on a "change" platform specifically to return the office of the President to one of abiding by the law and honoring the Constitution; and who you are castigating for obeying the law and not violating the Constitution as did his predecessors.

The President has certainly tried to persuade members of Congress. What you, and others, advocate is pressure to force compliance, when persuasion doesn't work. That's over the line. You are also deceiving people when you claim that he is supposed to lead Congress.

The President can wear twenty hats, the one that takes precedence is being President of the United States. Being the party head does not grant the President additional authority not found in the Constitution. The Constitution is clear on just what it takes to amend the Constitution and those procedures are the only way the President can obtain additional authority.

Until the Constitution is amended only the Congress can legislate, not the President. I don't care what sophistry you offer the President has no authority, much less an obligation, to legislate; and blackmail and extortion are still illegal no matter who does it, even the party head.

As I say to all newbies...

"Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD

:D

Using reconciliation to pass an aggressive windfall profits, anti-trust, excessive executive compensation tax that is far more painful than a public opt or Medicare expansion might just get them to call off their obstructionists.

The problem with this approach is that "windfall profits, anti-trust, excessive executive compensation" issues are not just limited to those "puppets" of the health insurance giants.. It would affect all the other corporate "puppet masters" as well.

Which is why we won't see it in a Congress that is, by and large, bought and paid for by Corporate interests..

Michale....

There are puppets in the senate whose strings are controlled by the health insurance giants.

Using reconciliation to pass an aggressive windfall profits, anti-trust, excessive executive compensation tax that is far more painful than a public opt or Medicare expansion might just get them to call off their obstructionists.

This relatively short bill (3 pages max) could be written as to not violate procedural protocols (or bill of attainder rules) and be given top priority and fast tracked until the health care giants back off and allow an up or down vote.

Ya know, things are REALLY bad for Democrats if the likes of Arianna Huffington, Daily Kos, Keith Olberman and Howard Dean are all on the same page as the GOP!!

Dunselcare has beget Crapcare...

Michale.....

Ah, but the president (all presidents) wear "two hats." While they have their government job, they also hold a partisan job - the "leader of their party." And there's nothing in the Constitution that even mentions parties, so there's nothing unconstitutional about withholding party funds from certain candidates -- happens every day in politics.

As for leading Congress, what exactly would you have a president do? Remain mum on what his agenda is? Not comment on the goings-on of Congress? The president is a co-equal branch, that means he's free to offer advice, cajole, or otherwise try to get Congress to do what he wants. Congress, being co-equal is free to listen to him, or ignore him and refuse to take his calls. But ever since Teddy Roosevelt, the president basically has two ways to influence this debate -- the veto, and the "bully pulpit." A strong president will "take his message to the people" and then leave it up to the people to contact their congresscritters. And a president issuing veto threats is indeed excercising his constitutional check and balance over what Congress does. Threatening it, rather than waiting for Congress to pass something and then vetoing it anyway, just saves some time. And it influences the debate in Congress. But Congress has a check against this, too, if something is truly popular enough they will pass it and then override the veto.

This is the competition between the branches you speak of in your first paragraph. Sure, the president doesn't have any REAL power over Congress, but then neither is he utterly without influence over them. He can try to influence them, and they're free to ignore him. Co-equal.

A major problem in American politics is that when asked, most voters say "Congress is broken, they're all corrupt and should be thrown out." But then the very same people will also respond "except my guy -- I like my congressman, he does a good job." It's frustrating, but that's why incumbents usually return.

-CW

You have been hanging around me too long! :D

Republicans will claim victory and scream that Democrats can't get anything accomplished. Big deal, we scream back that they obstructed everything.

Won't work. Everyone knows that the GOP is "dead" and "irrelevant"... Trying to blame the GOP for the failure of CrapCare is useless and will just seem (rightly so) as Democrats once again trying to fix blame instead of fixing problems.

Chris, just because you don't start with reconciliation doesn't mean you can't use it later. And we are not entirely done with the process of legislation. Let's see what happens in the conference committee.

Using the Nuclear Option now is like closing to barn door after the horse has already been hit and killed out on the freeway.

Michale.....

While I generally agree with you, I take strong exception to your insistence that Pres. Obama "lead" by dictating what's in a bill. It simply is not the Presidents job to "lead" Congress. They are an equal branch of government not an agency of the executive branch. While I, of course, recognize that traditionally Presidents have done so, it was always the founders intention that though each branch would strive for supremacy that very competition would provide "checks and balances."

Those checks and balances were noticeably absent in the last administration because the President did, in fact, "lead" Congress. While the media, new and old, insist on promoting the fiction that its the President's job to "lead" and the President should be held accountable, absolving the people with the sole authority to legislate of any responsibility is one reason why we have such unrepresentative government.

The reported one-third of Democrats who may sit out the 2010 election is another result of the media amending the Constitution and misinforming Americans; they believe their votes were futile because they elected a President and look what happened! Congress gets a pass. If the outrage being directed at the President were directed at members of Congress instead we wouldn't have this problem. If Americans were informed voters they be swearing to go to the polls and throw the bums out, not sit it out!

Everyone gripes about the corruptive influence of money in politics and yet you advocate the President using party money to blackmail Congress-members. That isn't leadership, that isn't Constitutional. Corporations aren't buying Congress outright, they're buying votes. Its the votes that influence Congress. Our votes. And we allow our votes to be used against us because we are so thoroughly misinformed and uneducated about both our role and those of Congress and the President.

That's what keeps Americans from effectively using their votes to ensure an agenda that benefits America. That's what allows corporations to manipulate ignorant Americans to vote against their own interests and force Congress to also vote against those interests; thoroughly aided and abetted by a disingenuous media.

It isn't the money that's destroying America, its the press, the media, new and old. As long as all Americans get is the story instead of the facts, the spin instead of the truth, this sad state of affairs will continue. I'm glad Pres. Obama proposes initiatives but refuses to "lead" the legislative effort. He's returned the Presidency to its constitutional duties, one of the much needed changes he campaigned on. Your insistence, along with the rest of the media, on perpetuating unconstitutional, undemocratic, imaginary Presidential responsibilities as if they were constitutional obligations is where we part company.

Keep trying Senator Brown. He's a good guy, and he deserves support.

Osborne -

Yeah, I know, the real Final Battle is going to happen in conference, but I'm not holding my breath at this point. My point is that "just because you threaten reconciliation doesn't mean you have to use it" -- Reid should have used this tool a bit better in the process, even if he never had to actually use it. He's from Nevada, he should know how to gamble, right?

-CW

http://www.google.ca/finance?q=NYSE:CI,NYSE:WLP,NYSE:AET,NYSE:UNH,NYSE:HUM,NYSE:CVH

Keep the Medicare provision in and force Lieberman to play his card. Nothing may get passed, but what does happen is that everyone remembers who killed this.

Republicans will claim victory and scream that Democrats can't get anything accomplished. Big deal, we scream back that they obstructed everything.

But this is better than the alternative, passing a horrible bill that goes against our base principles and will eventually cause a lot of blowback.

It makes me think, how did Democrats get painted into this corner of a lose-lose situation?

What it comes back to is setting expectations.

The expectation Obama set was that he had to pass something. So this is his goal.

The expectation he should of set was, give me a bill with competition in it, or I won't sign it.

Period. End of story.

Then he never paints himself into this corner. That would have been leadership.

Geez. This is frustrating. The good news is I had trouble getting through to Sherrod Brown today so I'm guessing the phones were a little busy :).

-David