Do you think the Democratic run Senate will continue to vote against the President?

[genglandoh]

In the past month the Democratic Run Senate has been sending bills to the President that he does not like.

Do you think this trend will continue?

Examples
1. The Senate voted 86-13 for the Military Spending bill with the detention without trial of American citizens included.
Obama had made it very clear he did not want this in the bill.

Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitely, White House Threatens Veto
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html

2. The Senate voted 89 to 10 for the Payroll tax cut bill with the Keystone pipeline included.
Obama made it very clear he did not want the pipeline in the bill.

Payroll Tax Cut: Senate Passes Short-Term Extension With Keystone XL Provision
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/17/payroll-tax-cut-senate-passed-keystone-xl_n_1155264.html

[David W Pratt]

If he doesn't like those riders, why doesn't he veto the bill?

[John Smith]

I suspect this is to prove he is willing to compromise and the democrats are willing to compromise.

His position is that he can't get A, B, and C without compromising on D. In order to veto those parts he does not like, he would have to veto those parts he does like, and if he vetoed a bill with the tax cut extension in it because of something put in there to get the bill out of the senate, he would be accused of vetoing the tax cut extension.

Being president is always on the job training. He has had his training, and we are going to see how well he has learned his lessons.

[genglandoh]

I suspect this is to prove he is willing to compromise and the democrats are willing to compromise.

His position is that he can't get A, B, and C without compromising on D. In order to veto those parts he does not like, he would have to veto those parts he does like, and if he vetoed a bill with the tax cut extension in it because of something put in there to get the bill out of the senate, he would be accused of vetoing the tax cut extension.

Being president is always on the job training. He has had his training, and we are going to see how well he has learned his lessons.

I am happy the President is willling to compromise.

I am more interested why is the Democratic Run Senate voting against the President and making him have to sign bills he does not like.
It seems to me the Democrates in the senate are not even putting up a fight for what the President wants.

[Dave Gray]

Maybe because the senate isn't meant to be a rubber stamp body, such as the Politboro during the days of the USSR.

[Norman Bernstein]

I am more interested why is the Democratic Run Senate voting against the President and making him have to sign bills he does not like.
It seems to me the Democrates in the senate are not even putting up a fight for what the President wants.

They are subject to the very same lobbying pressures that the Republicans are.

[Bruce Hooke]

Your statements strike me as quite simplistic. First off, as I am sure you know well, at this point the Senate can't pass much of anything without at least a few Republicans signing on since the Republicans seem to have decided that they should use the filibuster with gay abandon never before seen in the US Senate. Second, as you also know well, the Senate can't get anything to the President's desk without the House also voting for the bill. Sure the Senators could push back more and vote down more stuff that they don't like. Given the intransigence of the conservative House members this would pretty much mean nothing would make it to the President's desk. Frankly, it looks to me like the Senate Democrats are being adults and concluding that compromising in some areas is better than getting nothing done. Too many Republicans are acting like spoiled children and saying that "if I can't have it my way nobody is going to get anything." This of course comes back to the people who voted for those Senators and Representatives, which brings us to the next point, which is that particularly at this point in the election cycle politics enters into every vote. If someone votes against a particular bill will they be accused of "not supporting the troops," or not voting for bill that would provide tax relief, and so on. Sadly the state of politics in this country is such that way too many campaigns are won by lying about and distorting your opponent's record. So, with every vote any elected official needs to ask not just how his constituents will view a given vote, but how his constitutions will view a particular vote after it has been processed through his opponent's slimy attack ad team.

[RonW]

I am more interested why is the Democratic Run Senate voting against the President and making him have to sign bills he does not like.

Obviously they are fed up with him as well...somebody has got to do something other then play golf and vacation..

[Norman Bernstein]

Obviously they are fed up with him as well...somebody has got to do something other then play golf and vacation..

...and the myth about Obama taking excessive vacation lives on.....

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

If he doesn't like those riders, why doesn't he veto the bill?

This is not the trogladytes of the Bush administration. Everyone in the current administration, including the president, has shown himself to be very bright. Any suggestion the president is a cold loser on these bills is not tied to reality. Future events often determine how an article of legislation will turn out. Some stuff may be struck down by the courts. There may be prior legislation that horsecollars the new laws. The president's acceptance of these bills may be intended to be a potent element of the president's upcoming presidential campaign. Phrases like, " I gave the Republicans what they wanted here, and here and here and they gave me nothing in return" could be a dandy retorical hammer.
Anybody suggesting the Obama era is coming to a close are drawing to an inside straight. Obama was and is a great campaigner. The right-wingers don't call him"the messiah" for nothing. He may not win by the same margine as last time but he is very much in the running.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

I am happy the President is willling to compromise.

I am more interested why is the Democratic Run Senate voting against the President and making him have to sign bills he does not like.
It seems to me the Democrates in the senate are not even putting up a fight for what the President wants.

Sorry to deliver the bad news,geng, but your never-ending queries that imply your side is coming back like the north wind are all based on a whole lot of wishing you'd be right for a change. Don't bet the farm on what your guts tell you. You'll lose every time.

[genglandoh]

In the past month the Democratic Run Senate has been sending bills to the President that he does not like.

Do you think this trend will continue?

Examples
1. The Senate voted 86-13 for the Military Spending bill with the detention without trial of American citizens included.
Obama had made it very clear he did not want this in the bill.

Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitely, White House Threatens Veto
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html

2. The Senate voted 89 to 10 for the Payroll tax cut bill with the Keystone pipeline included.
Obama made it very clear he did not want the pipeline in the bill.

Payroll Tax Cut: Senate Passes Short-Term Extension With Keystone XL Provision
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/17/payroll-tax-cut-senate-passed-keystone-xl_n_1155264.html

If the votes were closer say 60-40 I would not have started this thread.
But the Senate is voting in large majorities against the President.

Maybe the President needs to talk with the Democrats in the Senate before he makes his public statements.
Drawing a line in the sand and then having to give into Senate pressure is not the way a leader acts.

[Bruce Hooke]

...and the myth about Obama taking excessive vacation lives on.....

Calling it a myth is giving too much credit to the people propagating this story. They know very well that it is a flat out lie and they are knowingly and willingly lying to further their cause. Just like some many of the politicians they claim to dislike because they use techniques like this to win elections. One might well ask why they think it is OK for pundits and voters to pull this sort of garbage but not OK for politicians.

[David G]

Your statements strike me as quite simplistic. First off, as I am sure you know well, at this point the Senate can't pass much of anything without at least a few Republicans signing on since the Republicans seem to have decided that they should use the filibuster with gay abandon never before seen in the US Senate. Second, as you also know well, the Senate can't get anything to the President's desk without the House also voting for the bill. Sure the Senators could push back more and vote down more stuff that they don't like. Given the intransigence of the conservative House members this would pretty much mean nothing would make it to the President's desk. Frankly, it looks to me like the Senate Democrats are being adults and concluding that compromising in some areas is better than getting nothing done. Too many Republicans are acting like spoiled children and saying that "if I can't have it my way nobody is going to get anything." This of course comes back to the people who voted for those Senators and Representatives, which brings us to the next point, which is that particularly at this point in the election cycle politics enters into every vote. If someone votes against a particular bill will they be accused of "not supporting the troops," or not voting for bill that would provide tax relief, and so on. Sadly the state of politics in this country is such that way too many campaigns are won by lying about and distorting your opponent's record. So, with every vote any elected official needs to ask not just how his constituents will view a given vote, but how his constitutions will view a particular vote after it has been processed through his opponent's slimy attack ad team.

Simplistic and slanted seem to be the two things ol' Genglish Con does best. I've been tempted to call him a troll... but I think this stuff represents his true world view.

[genglandoh]

Simplistic and slanted seem to be the two things ol' Genglish Con does best. I've been tempted to call him a troll... but I think this stuff represents his true world view.

You are right this is my true world view.
I try to support my statements with facts but in the end they are my opinions.

If you are unhappy with the way the Democratic Senators are voting in large numbers against the President, call your Senator.

[David G]

Might I add 'deef' to simplistic and slanted?

What I object to... what's been pointed out to you in this thread, to no apparent avail is your simplistic approach. You lost any consideration from me - right from the thread title. It, and your subsequent characterizations, baldly state that Dem lawmakers are 'voting against' the President. As the C'Chuck would say - it just ain't that simple, booger. I'd add - and any attempt to make it appear so paints the author as either a partisan hack or a fool (though, of course, they are by no means mutually exclusive).

[genglandoh]

Might I add 'deef' to simplistic and slanted?

What I object to... what's been pointed out to you in this thread, to no apparent avail is your simplistic approach. You lost any consideration from me - right from the thread title. It, and your subsequent characterizations, baldly state that Dem lawmakers are 'voting against' the President. As the C'Chuck would say - it just ain't that simple, booger. I'd add - and any attempt to make it appear so paints the author as either a partisan hack or a fool (though, of course, they are by no means mutually exclusive).

I think it is very straight forward.
The Senate passes a bill that President say he would veto.
So the Senate is voting against the President.
This happened and is on the record.
Now if you want to reduce yourself to name calling go ahead but remember I am just pointing out the actions of the Senate.

The big question is will the Senate continue to vote against the President?

[David G]

I think it is very straight forward.

Yes, you do... that's exactly what I'm saying. It's not.

[genglandoh]

Yes, you do... that's exactly what I'm saying. It's not.

Thank you for expressing your opinion on the matter.
My opinion is that it is that simple.

But don't worry I will not insult you for having a different opinion.

[jack grebe]

I am happy the President is willling to compromise.

He is NOT compromising, He is being castrated..........

That will come back to haunt in the election

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

If the votes were closer say 60-40 I would not have started this thread.
But the Senate is voting in large majorities against the President.

Maybe the President needs to talk with the Democrats in the Senate before he makes his public statements.
Drawing a line in the sand and then having to give into Senate pressure is not the way a leader acts.

I tried to explain it to you but it must have not sunk in.
The president may well be satisfied with the situation. There is no way to know from this distance. Now if you could come up with analysis from someone with access to the White House like Chuck Todd of NBC or Kelly O'Donald or whoever you might have a case. Analysis based on what your guts tell you always exhibits your antithesis to the president. Why is that? Do you really think posting your stuff as a question will really masks your biases?

[S.V. Airlie]

Well, CC no one can mask your bias.

[LeeG]

Well, CC no one can mask your bias.

that's because CC is confident about expressing what he things. Geng isn't.

[S.V. Airlie]

Being confident is one thing, being overconfident is something else.

[genglandoh]

I tried to explain it to you but it must have not sunk in.
The president may well be satisfied with the situation. There is no way to know from this distance. Now if you could come up with analysis from someone with access to the White House like Chuck Dodd of NBC or Kelly O'Donald or whoever you might have a case. Analysis based on what your guts tell you always exhibits your antithesis to the president. Why is that? Do you really think posting your stuff as a question will really masks your biases?

Chuck I have tried to understand your points but most of the time you attack without even reading the post.
This time you did read the post, thank you.

As to your points.
1. I do not need some expert to tell me what my opinion should be.
Sorry I know this is hard for you to understand but some of us like to come to our own opinions.
2. I have stated many times that I am a small Government Guy so I am not hiding my point of view.
3. I do not hate the President but I do in most cases disagree with him.
Not a big surprise when I post that I am a small Government Guy and the President is a big Government guy.
I have given the President good marks on his supporting the Lybian rebels.
Please also notice I do not attack the President I just call them the way I see them.
4. Yes I start most of my threads with a question because I am interested in others opinions.
5. Most of my post include links to where I get my information from so others can read the info.

To the point of this thread
1. Did the President say he would veto the Bill (Y/N)?
2. Did the Democrats in the Senate vote for the bill (Y/N)?
These are facts and hard to argue with.

3. Why do you think this happened?
Here is where you can state your opinion or if you prefer want until you can read what your opinion should be for some expert.

[genglandoh]

It looks like the President is going to be put in the corner by Senate again.
I am talking about the Keystome Pipeline.

1. The news stories are starting to point out how this was a poor decision. (see below)
2. The Republican run House will pass a law approving the Pipeline
3. The Democratic run Senate will pass the bill with a veto proof majority.

The other option is the President will cave and approve the pipeline.

1/19/2012 -Rejecting the Keystone pipeline is an act of insanity
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...6AQ_story.html
1/19/2012 - Pipeline politics: Misguided Obama blocks Keystone pipeline
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,3017097.story
1/20/2012 - Keystone pipeline sparks labor civil war
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71733.html
1/20/2012 - Keystone pipeline rejection splits Democrats
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNJN1MRNI8.DTL

[genglandoh]

Well the Democrats in the Senate did it again.

1. The President threaten he would veto the FAA Bill
2. The Senate passed it 75 to 20 with a majority of Democrats backing it.
3. The President caves and sign the Anti-Union Bill.
4. Now the Green Party is upset with the President because the Bill is anti-union.


If the President is presented with a bill that would not safeguard the ability of railroad and airline workers to decide whether or not they would be represented by a union based upon a majority of the ballots cast in an election or that would degrade safe and efficient air traffic, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...h_20110330.pdf

Senate Passes FAA Bill With Anti-Union Measure
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1258430.html

Obama betrays labor again, guts union rights
President Obama’s recent signing of the FAA Reauthorization Bill —over the protests of at least 19 major trade unions including the UAW, Steelworkers, Transportation Communications Union (IAM) and Teamsters
http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2012/...-union-rights/

[BA.Barcolounger]

If he doesn't like those riders, why doesn't he veto the bill?

86-13, and 89-10 are veto-proof majorities.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

You must spend a god-aweful amount of time mining for stories that spell doom for the president. All your wishful thinking will not deny the president four more years.
You had better come to grips with that. We don't want to read in The Plain Dealer your demize was from a broken heart.

[RonW]

Hey Chuckie I didn't have very far to go to mine this one..........

Minutes earlier, the House also defeated Mr. Obama’s own budget, submitted last month, on a 414-0 vote arranged by Republicans to embarrass the president and officially shelve his plan.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/20...s-down-defeat/

[ljb5]

Hey Chuckie I didn't have very far to go to mine this one..........
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/20...s-down-defeat/

I saw that.

It was a completely shameful display by the Republicans for no reason other than petty politics.

Does 414-0 seem odd to you? I mean 50-50 would seem likely in a split Congress. Perhaps 75-25 on a bad day... but 414-0? There must be more to the story.

Doesn't that make you want to find out the whole story?

[genglandoh]

I saw that.

It was a completely shameful display by the Republicans for no reason other than petty politics.

Does 414-0 seem odd to you? I mean 50-50 would seem likely in a split Congress. Perhaps 75-25 on a bad day... but 414-0? There must be more to the story.

Doesn't that make you want to find out the whole story?

The House is made up of
242 Republicans
192 Democrats

I do wonder why 192 Democrats voted against the Presidents Budget.
Maybe it was because the budget was bad.

[Norman Bernstein]

I do wonder why 192 Democrats voted against the Presidents Budget.
Maybe it was because the budget was bad.

If you really wonder, then you might want to do some research on the history and practice of strategic voting, and why the members of one party might suddenly decide to vote against their own bill. There are reasons, and they don't have anything to do with whether they support the bill or not. I know this doesn't go well with what you're trying to imply about the vote... but as you said, if you really wonder, you can find out.

[genglandoh]

If you really wonder, then you might want to do some research on the history and practice of strategic voting, and why the members of one party might suddenly decide to vote against their own bill. There are reasons, and they don't have anything to do with whether they support the bill or not. I know this doesn't go well with what you're trying to imply about the vote... but as you said, if you really wonder, you can find out.

So you are saying the losing is really winning.
Interesting but how does the President benefit from
1. Presenting a budget to the house that not one democrat agrees with.
2. Stating clearly to the Democratic Run Senate not to pass a bill and the Senate Passes it with a Veto proof majority.

Maybe you can contact Nate Silver and have him come up with a spin for you.

[ljb5]

I do wonder why 192 Democrats voted against the Presidents Budget.

It's easy to imagine 100 or 150 Dems voting against it because they thought it was bad....

....but every single last one of them? That's too much to believe.

And how does a bill even come up for a vote with zero support? Doesn't it need a sponsor and a motion to procede? Hmm... that seems odd.

There simply must be a reasonable explanation. Are you willing to look for it?

[Orange]

Didn't really understand this idea much, but saw the Senate voted down the President's proposal to take away "tax breaks" oil firms receive.

"Another Legislative Defeat for Obama"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/29/senate-kills-repeal-oil-company-tax-breaks/

[ljb5]

Didn't really understand this idea much, but saw the Senate voted down the President's proposal to take away "tax breaks" oil firms receive.

Yup... and a careful examination of the voting is instructive. 51 senators voted for it, but, as we all should know by now, you need 60 votes to get anything passed in the Senate. calling it the "Democratic run Senate" is obviously disingenuous.

49 Democrats in favor, 4 opposed.
2 Republicans in favor, 43 opposed.

With ratios like that, it's not hard to see who is blocking this. It's not the Democrats.

[genglandoh]

Yup... and a careful examination of the voting is instructive. 51 senators voted for it, but, as we all should know by now, you need 60 votes to get anything passed in the Senate. calling it the "Democratic run Senate" is obviously disingenuous.

49 Democrats in favor, 4 opposed.
2 Republicans in favor, 43 opposed.

With ratios like that, it's not hard to see who is blocking this. It's not the Democrats.

Just to be clear I only included Senate Votes where
1. The President stated clearly do not pass this bill
2. The Democrats in the Senate voted in large numbers against the President.

In the case of voting down the Oil Companies Tax Breaks it was the republicans who voted it down not the Democrats.

[ljb5]

Just to be clear I only included Senate Votes where
1. The President stated clearly do not pass this bill
2. The Democrats in the Senate voted in large numbers against the President.

There is always nuance and subtlety in how these votes come about. Often, there is compromise and change in postion.

In your first post, you said, "The Senate voted 86-13 for the Military Spending bill with the detention without trial of American citizens included.
Obama had made it very clear he did not want this in the bill."

In fact, the version of the bill that was passed into law does not allow detention of American citizens without trial. (As you can plainly see in section 1021, Part (e) on page 265 and 1022 (b) on page 266. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...2hr1540enr.pdf)

So it seems there has been some sort of breakdown in your understanding of what the Senate is voting on and whether or not it supports Obama's position.

[Donn]

There is always nuance and subtly[sic]..

Subtlety.

[genglandoh]

There is always nuance and subtlety in how these votes come about. Often, there is compromise and change in postion.

In your first post, you said, "The Senate voted 86-13 for the Military Spending bill with the detention without trial of American citizens included.
Obama had made it very clear he did not want this in the bill."

In fact, the version of the bill that was passed into law does not allow detention of American citizens without trial. (As you can plainly see in section 1021, Part (e) on page 265 and 1022 (b) on page 266. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...2hr1540enr.pdf)

So it seems there has been some sort of breakdown in your understanding of what the Senate is voting on and whether or not it supports Obama's position.

Thanks for posting the details and the link to the bill.

I looked at the sections you pointed out and I read them the same way you do.
But the President and the News Media believe the Bill does include the detainment of American citizens.

I have to believe that both of us are not reading the bill correctly and the President and the following News sources are reading it correctly.

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...sident-hr-1540

With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law — including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...n-of-citizens/

President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?

Worse, the NDAA authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...-act-now-what/

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...scal_Year_2012.

[ljb5]

I have to believe that both of us are not reading the bill correctly and the President and the following News sources are reading it correctly.

It's tough to argue with the actual wording of the law. I'm confident that I am reading it correctly.... and yes, that does imply that I think some in the media are reading it wrong.

If you read Obama's signing statement, you will see that it completely confirms my (our) reading of the bill. He says very clearly that it was modified (at his request) so that it does not authorize detention of American citizens:

under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.

He points out that he does have some other criticism with the bill, but he is very clear that there is no issue at all about detaining Americans without trial.

[Norman Bernstein]

So you are saying the losing is really winning.
Interesting but how does the President benefit from
1. Presenting a budget to the house that not one democrat agrees with.

Once again, I would strongly urge you to do a little research into strategic voting, to understand why there are times when the proponent party will write a bill, and then will end up instructing its caucus to vote against it. In the instances of strategic voting, the vote does NOT always reflect the sympathy of the legislator; instead, it recognizes that when your party is about to lose a vote, it is sometimes better to decide HOW to lose the vote. It's the very same reason why some senators or congressmen will vote 'present', rather than yea or nay... the consequences of the vote are often more important than the vote itself.

[ljb5]

Once again, I would strongly urge you to do a little research into strategic voting, to understand why there are times when the proponent party will write a bill, and then will end up instructing its caucus to vote against it. In the instances of strategic voting, the vote does NOT always reflect the sympathy of the legislator; instead, it recognizes that when your party is about to lose a vote, it is sometimes better to decide HOW to lose the vote. It's the very same reason why some senators or congressmen will vote 'present', rather than yea or nay... the consequences of the vote are often more important than the vote itself.

Occasionally, the reason for the vote is even more venal than strategic.

Both parties come to the negotiating table... and then, after having negotiated for a bit, both parties agree to modify their positions (and therefore, not support the initial position.)

Why then hold a vote on the initial proposal? Both sides have already agreed to modify it. They have already agreed not to pass the original, even if they support it.

The only possible reason to hold a vote is to generate a headline, such as the one we see here.

Most legitimate news sources see right through this pathetic and shameful charade. If you do a google search, you see that this story is primarily getting space on far-right webpages such as humanevents.org, washingtontimes.com and (very briefly), FOX.

[genglandoh]

Well the Senate followed the House and voted 100% against the President’s Budget.
You would think there would have been just a few Dems who would have supported his budget.

The Senate rejected Obama’s budget on a 0 to 99 vote.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/senate-rejects-obama-budget-republican-alternatives/2012/05/16/gIQAUA3WUU_blog.html