gut;1294158 wrote:Spin it however you want...He had more control/votes than any President in recent history, but he still had trouble getting his own party to follow. And if he could reach across the aisle to even a handful of Repubs a lot more would get done. You simply can't blame Congress for Obama's failures, especially the first two years.
The reality is Harry Reid has been more obstructionist than anyone. Obama is just a complete failure of leadership - arrogance and ignorance is not a successful combination. The sooner people like you come to grips with this the sooner we as a country can start getting better leadership in the WH.
Let me give you an example. The IMF has basically said that attempting to run a balanced budget in a depressed economy is wrong and that the multiplier effect of spending cuts under this scenario is more harmful than most people thought. They have compiled an impressive amount of evidence to this effect. Yet, despite this...I'm very confident your views will not change.
Despite my will and effort, you will not change.
I'm am not the Green Lantern and neither is the President. People who have core beliefs about the world that are not marked to market cannot be persuaded by any amount of "leadership."
And it really is amazing that you consider Harry Reid the obstructionist for having to deal with the filibuster.
When it mattered and the President was actually able to govern...he was able to persuade vulnerable congressmen like John Boccieri to make tough votes that ended his career and committed liberals like Dennis Kucinich to vote for bills he basically thought were repugnant.
Republican children who turned down the deal of a lifetime on the debt and rejected their own healthcare plan that they invented could not be persuaded.