President Obama: What's next?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In an odd sort of a way, the loss of the Senate and overall shellacking in the last election was liberating for the President. Despite the lip service, there is no more real pretense of working together across party lines; he knows it isn't going to happen. Therefore there is no real reason for him not to do what he can to advance the policies that he believes are important, limited though that may be.

I do think the uproar over claims that he is doing exactly what he said he could not do is amusing, and sad, at the same time. What he said he could not do was unilaterally implement the sweeping immigration reform that was contained in the bill passed by the Senate and languishing in the House. And he can't. These actions fall well short of that, and are firmly within his power, even his limited purse power. And I have to think that despite the bluster, the GOP knows that, and realizes that there options to oppose this are very limited. I'm fairly sure that the party learned its lesson with the last government shutdown and won't try that again, when the prize of the presidency in 2016 is at stake. About all that they can do is refuse to work with the president, and blame the president for it, which they likely would have done anyway.

[River]

There was bluster about defunding the agency that Obama is working through but it turns out USCIS is self-funded. Looks like Congress relinquished some power of the purse there.

I heard a couple GOP congressmen or maybe senators howling on NPR last night about this is a betrayal and now they're going to obstruct and it was all meant to strike fear. Except that's the way it's been since Jan. 21, 2009 and even more so after the 2010 mid-terms so really it'll all be business as usual. What Obama did yesterday didn't make his life any harder than it already was. But he did get certain elements within Boehner and McConnell's caucuses (caucii?) riled up and that'll make things harder for those two men. Not that Boehner had that much control over his caucus to start with...

[Inanna]

I am waiting with bated breath to see what this means for the GC quotas - the part about not counting spouse GCs towards the quota is supposed to clear up the huge Indian and Chinese backlog.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Don't rule out the possibility that the GOP will want to score some legislative victories while in power. There are even signs that some of the Senate GOP leadership wants to do something on climate, lest they seem completely out of touch for the 2016 Presidential election cycle. Nixon meet China, and all that.

[Primula Baggins]

Na ga happen.

That's my prediction. The entirely intelligent will to appear (however falsely) to have done something to address significant concerns of the actual modern world? Won't survive the rather different will to service the enthusiasms of the more, well, passionate members of the base. Nixon in this world would nuke China.

[Passdagas the Brown]

That's also a very real possibility. But in the past week, we suddenly saw Republican Senators Graham call for action on climate change, and Republican Senator Thune recognize the partly anthropogenic causes of the issue. These were likely trial balloons, but they indicate that the GOP leadership is nervous about doing nothing on the issue. They are also very worried by internal polling which shows that Republican youth, including many of those who will be of voting age for the first time in 2016, are overwhelmingly in support of government action to address climate change, and are disappointed with GOP science denialism and inaction. So there's something happening here because the GOP is in power and has to show some results, and it shouldn't be too quickly dismissed. That is, if the Senate leadership can wrangle the feral cats in the House...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'll believe it when I see it. Those couple of things look like outliers to me when compared to the tidal wave of outrage at the very modest agreement with China that Obama made on climate change.

[yovargas]

So I just got around to watching Obama's speech on the immigration policy and I wanted some clarification - am I right in understand that the issue isn't that the immigration bill that passed the Senate wasn't voted down by the House, it was that they refused to vote on it at all??

[Passdagas the Brown]

V,

That was criticism of a deal President Obama made with China (and a non-binding one at that). But that doesn't mean the GOP doesn't want to put forward its OWN plan, that has "nothing to do with Obama." Criticism of President Obama's actions does not at all imply that the GOP will not want to put forward a plan of its own. Will it be a revenue-neutral carbon tax, as some conservatives have proposed in the past? Doubtful, at this point. But they may do something, even if it initially focuses on energy R&D and climate adaptation.

I'm not suggesting they're going to suddenly get bipartisan. I'm suggesting that they may put forward a partisan plan for climate change, in order to show that they can get things done on an issue a growing number of people (including in their base) care about.

[River]

Yov, not only has the House just flat-out refused to even vote on the Senate's legislation, they've failed to advance any alternative of their own. See PtB's comment about feral cats.

The GOP nevertheless picked up more House seats this election cycle, though the press is claiming that the victors are moderates. Or whatever passes for moderate these days. That hasn't stopped the feral cat contingent from running their mouths. And who knows what will happen with Cruz et al in the Senate. But maybe something will move.

It would also help if Congress decided to work more than ~1 day out of every 3. I wish I got a six figure salary for the kind of hours those guys have been keeping.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I missed the 'feral cat' reference initially. Please make your points without name-calling, everyone.

[Passdagas the Brown]

To clarify, V, I was talking about the House of Representatives (as a whole), and my comment was a play off of the expression "herding cats," which is obviously not to be taken literally. In other words, I'm not calling anyone "feral cats." I'm simply saying that the Senate's job of wrangling the House will be as difficult as wrangling (or herding) feral cats.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I understood that, of course. My admonition stands. It is not necessary to engage in name-calling in order to make your point, and that is not allowed in this forum.

ETA: Please see number 2 in the PLEASE READ: Guidelines for Political Discussions thread above.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I understood that, of course. My admonition stands. It is not necessary to engage in name-calling in order to make your point, and that is not allowed in this forum.

ETA: Please see number 2 in the PLEASE READ: Guidelines for Political Discussions thread above.

Understood, V. But see my revised post above. I wasn't calling anyone names. I was using a modified expression to describe the difficulty the Senate would have getting the House to play along. It's figurative language, not name-calling.

ETA: I am very conscious of the guidelines, and very confident that my use of that expression is not in violation of those terms. Particularly in the context of my broader comments, which were non-partisan in nature. Personally, I think the GOP, at least in the Senate, is going to try to get a number of things done. And I hope they get better at herding cats!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Fair enough. However, without the explanation, most people would read that and conclude that you we're referring to the House GOP as feral cats.

---------
Sent from my LG G3 using tapatalk

[Passdagas the Brown]

Yeah, I think a lot of people are attuned to figurative language, though some may not be. So I agree that an explanation was probably sensible. But given that this is a site devoted to the literature of an author who was an expert user of such language, I felt it an appropriate thing to say...

In any event, I should modify my statement to read: "That is, if the Senate leadership is able to herd the feral cats in the House." My original use of the word "wrangle" probably clouded my intent.

[yovargas]

Yov, not only has the House just flat-out refused to even vote on the Senate's legislation, they've failed to advance any alternative of their own. See PtB's comment about feral cats.

Ugh. I find that so damn appalling.

[River]

Yeah, there's so much noise directed at the White House that what Congress is/isn't do just gets lost in the shuffle. And then, when the finger does get pointed at Congress, they take it so poorly one is reminded of the old warnings about kicking a hornet's nest.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A very interesting article about how history will see President Obama by Jonathan Chait:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... chait.html

[Inanna]

Thanks for posting that, V. It gives me the ammo I sometimes need.


---------------
Please bear with my typos & grammar mistakes. Sent from my iPhone - Palantirs make mistakes too.