Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drunks

Friday, November 9, 2012

President Obama Just Hit Congress with the Mandate Stick

Posted by on Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:33 AM

President Obama just gave a statement. It wasn't as full of braggadocio as George W. Bush's post-reelection press conference, but it was confident and clear. What's he going to focus on? "Jobs and growth." He talked about making the middle class bigger and more secure by, among other things, "strengthening Medicare and Medicaid for the long haul." And the way to fix the middle class, he says, involves "asking the wealthiest to pay more in taxes."

Obama never mentioned the word "mandate," but he peppered his speech with reminders that he won a convincing victory this week: "On Tuesday night we found out that the majority of Americans agree with my approach." Perhaps in an attempt to get in front of Fox News claiming that President Obama was unveiling a hidden socialist agenda, he repeated several times, in several different ways, that this is the plan that he ran on, and Americans accepted it. He also called for Congress to take a major bargaining chip off the table before the talks about the fiscal cliff begin—"Let's extend the middle class tax cuts right now," he said. "Let's do that right now."

President Obama didn't take any questions, which was pretty shitty—even George W. Bush took questions in his first post-election appearance—but presumably he wanted to make sure his message was undiluted. House Speaker John Boehner called on President Obama to show leadership, and that's what just happened.

UPDATE: Video finally went online:

 

Comments (26) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Banna 1
If Bush could claim a mandate in 2004 with 284 Electoral College votes and a 3.5 million popular vote margin, Obama should be just fine with a 303 EC count and 3M (as of today) popular lead. Anyone remember, "I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it"?
Posted by Banna http://www.ucp.org on November 9, 2012 at 10:42 AM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 2
It means NOTHING without filibuster reform in the US Senate.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on November 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 3
@2 um, dude, we picked up seats in the Senate.

Right now Patty Murray could block any extension of the Bush Tax Giveaways with a secret hold. And they would expire.

Boo ya!
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 9, 2012 at 10:53 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 4
Besides, Patty already called Boehner's bluff by signaling she is quite willing to put a secret hold on any extension of the Bush Tax Giveaways to the Rich.

I'll survive without the $5 per paycheck.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 9, 2012 at 11:03 AM · Report this
biffp 5
Victor writes the history. Fuck Fox News, Ann Coulton and Donald Trump.
Posted by biffp on November 9, 2012 at 11:10 AM · Report this
6
How is it shitty that Obama didn't take questions from a corporatized news media that has been completely, utterly, and thoroughly delegitimized?

These mendacious little assholes have been lying through their teeth for the past decade. There's not a decent reporter in the entirety of traditional media. Fuck em.
Posted by johnjjeeves on November 9, 2012 at 11:10 AM · Report this
biffp 7
And self-deport John Boner.
Posted by biffp on November 9, 2012 at 11:11 AM · Report this
GlennFleishman 8
Filibuster reform is a nuclear option away. Reid just has to invoke. Majority vote. No Lieberman shit-head to piss on it. Doesn't even need the two independents. Then, once passed, it can be invoked continuously for majority.

I expect Reid to either threaten to drop the bomb to prevent filibuster attempts on key legislature or to lay down that hammer. Americans aren't going to care. Rules of cloture too obscure. Americans think of filibustering as Jimmy Stewart (which would still be allowed under nuclear option, of course).
Posted by GlennFleishman http://blog.glennf.com/ on November 9, 2012 at 11:17 AM · Report this
MrBaker 9
He doesn't have to answer another question from the "media" again. He should only answer questions from actual journalists when the mood strikes him.
He should have a ton of press conferences just like that, though, keep messaging, without taking soundbite tv filler questions from the "media".
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on November 9, 2012 at 11:24 AM · Report this
10
Who f'n cares what Boehner thinks?

That ultra-loser couldn't even make it through Navy basic training?????

Drunken halfwit, anyone who even bothers to pay any attention to him is dimwitted....
Posted by sgt_doom on November 9, 2012 at 11:25 AM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 11
@3, Idiot Will, Dude...we don't have 60 votes on our side dude.

God how stupid are you?
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on November 9, 2012 at 11:26 AM · Report this
12
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-australian-…

700,000 new galaxies ---- WTF???

I can't even locate my own...
Posted by sgt_doom on November 9, 2012 at 11:26 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 13
The Pres just announced (multiple MSM sources) that he will veto any extension of Bush Tax Cuts for top 2 percent.

@11 you really don't get what a secret hold is or how the Senate works, do you? Seriously, retake Civics.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 9, 2012 at 11:32 AM · Report this
MrBaker 14
@8, all true.
The problem then is the House that just watched the Senate lose seats to the Dems. Do enough Republicans choose to solve problems or do they take a beating for two years and then make that choice?
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on November 9, 2012 at 11:33 AM · Report this
15
Question - any thoughts on Patty Murray heading up the senate re-election...????
Posted by ng53 on November 9, 2012 at 11:38 AM · Report this
MrBaker 16
@11, sadly, Will is correct.
The "60" number is in a Senate Rule. The Senate (and House) routinely decide on their Rules by simple majority voting.

They could pick 51, or 53, or 70, or whatever the majority of Senators agree to use.
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on November 9, 2012 at 11:43 AM · Report this
17
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08…

Contrary to GOP talking points, if majority Americans supported ANY directional moves by Congress it was in the Democrats direction. Even though the GOP holds more seats, it is due to gerrymandering. Democrats got most the votes.
Posted by bgix on November 9, 2012 at 11:46 AM · Report this
sperifera 18
My Fiscal CliffBar only has 52 calories.
Posted by sperifera on November 9, 2012 at 11:46 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 19
@17 is correct. America is blue, it just has a thin veneer of red filter on top. So is Texas, actually.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 9, 2012 at 11:47 AM · Report this
20
@19 I'll believe it in Texas when more Democrats start winning actual policy making state-wide races. It doesn't matter if it is full of our allies. Unless they are voting for us, they are part of the problem.
Posted by bgix on November 9, 2012 at 11:52 AM · Report this
sperifera 21
@20 - fwiw, the Republicans lost their supermajority in the Texas Senate and the Texas House on Tuesday. Change it is a'coming.
Posted by sperifera on November 9, 2012 at 12:06 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 22
@ 16, the Senate needs to agree to get rid of the filibuster. I'm not so sure they want to do that because, some day, Dems are going to be the minority again.

I think they'll wait to see whether the new Senate GOP is finally going to play ball, before changing or eliminating the cloture rule.
Posted by Matt from Denver on November 9, 2012 at 12:12 PM · Report this
23
@16, Except that the vote to change the rules by "simple majority" is itself susceptible to filibuster, thus @11 is correct that reform would require 60 votes.
Posted by Here, let me google that for you... on November 9, 2012 at 12:18 PM · Report this
24
Who are the people standing behind the president? And why are they so damn important that they need to be on risers for maximum photo op goodness?
Posted by Asbel on November 9, 2012 at 12:41 PM · Report this
25
I'd for once just like them to actually enforce the filibuster, rather than cave at "the threat of a filibuster." Seriously, introduce important policy and then make them actually waste American time by reading from the phone book. Let them explain why drastic economic changes are coming, but they felt it was more important to read names Quinn to Stan, you know, on principle.
Posted by lone locust on November 9, 2012 at 1:41 PM · Report this
26
Yeah. A filibuster ends inside of 72 hours. A threat of one can tie up business for years.
Posted by david on November 9, 2012 at 4:57 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy