Hacker News Reader

Comment by tempestn | Hacker News Reader

Legitimate question: what could Obama have done better? Being Canadian I didn't take as close an interest as I would have in my own government, but it seemed from my perspective like he was doing everything he could to bring about change. The problem appeared to be that he had a very different idea of what that change should be than the Republican Congress, and short of utterly capitulating, I'm not sure how you unilaterally engender cooperation in that situation. I'm sure that I'm both biased and largely uninformed though, so I'm interested in the counter-argument.

View on HN

>> Legitimate question: what could Obama have done better?

I don't know, i'm no politician; i'm just waiting on the 2008 Obama campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay (to clarify: I mean cease black operations at that site indefinitely -- I don't have any illusions that the U.S. will stop illegal black operations internationally.).

I don't know whether or not if it's an impossibility at this point to do so; but I also believe if it is impossible it probably shouldn't have been a campaign promise used to influence voters.

He lacked sufficient Congressional support for a lot of that. And when he did release detainees? He was demonized by many (particularly from the right).

Let's hope you're so particular when it comes to Trump and his campaign promises. So far his "draining the swamp" means he's filled it with establishment sewage. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/donald-trump-transiti...

Closing Guantànamo Bay turned out to be much more difficult than Obama assumed. The full sordid story can be found here:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-f...

I agree with the overall message that Obama was way more establishment than he made himself seem in the campaign, but Guantanamo is a horrible example. He's consistently brought it up and fight for it, if it was an empty campaign promise he would have quietly never mentioned it again.

Impossibility can mean a couple of things - the logistical challenges of where Guantanamo prisoners should go, and the impossibility of getting it done in a Republican-controlled senate and house.

The first is in line with your point, although I think it's a reasonable assumption that Obama honestly underestimated the challenge. For the second, it's not reasonable to call it a broken promise if he made a good faith effort and was blocked by something out of his control (that he couldn't have necessarily predicted)

Very little, Obama didn't have the advantage of a friendly congress.

Obama had both houses of Congress for his first two years. He could have passed any law he wanted (indeed, that's how Obamacare got passed).

Which wasn't even the bill he wanted (Obamacare). They lacked a super majority (two thirds) in the Senate, so lots of compromises still had to happen.

Fortunately, the Republican's also lack a super majority in the Senate this time around.

"They lacked a super majority (two thirds) in the Senate, so lots of compromises still had to happen."

Sorry, that is simply not true. Obamacare was passed without a single amendment (or even a full debate), and without a single Republican vote.

That doesn't at all mean no compromises were made. It would be oversimplifying and naive to assume that the only compromises made in political dealings manifested as amendments.

I'll have to re-read stuff on the ACA's passing through Congress.

But my statement about the supermajority is true. The Democrats (with Independents) had at most 60 members of the Senate (2009-2010), Republicans had from 39-42 (vacancies and other things going on).

Democrats did not have sufficient control of the Senate to guarantee they could get whatever they wanted.

See above. They could have used the nuclear option on day one (as they eventually did do).

Perhaps they were trying to stick to Obama's primary campaign promise of seeking bipartisan cooperation.

Their motivation doesn't enter into it. The argument is about whether they had the power. They clearly did, and they clearly did exercise that power at a later time.

I recall one of the Republicans predicting that at some future time the Democrats were going to regret having used the nuclear option. That time is probably about right now.

I'm afraid there's no way to put that big cloud back into that shiny metal ball.

Does getting Lieberman's vote by leaving out a public option count as a compromise?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Afforda...

No one seriously believes that Lieberman was ever anything but a Democrat, so no.

"Fortunately, the Republican's also lack a super majority in the Senate this time around."

Unfortunately, the Democrats have already gone nuclear repeatedly.

What makes you think the Republicans won't do the same?

Edit: typo.

Can you clarify what you mean by "gone nuclear"? I'll admit, that's not ringing a bell in my mind when it comes to Congress, but it's also late here and I'm tired.

EDIT: Ah, rules changes on filibuster and such. There's no guarantee. The Republicans do only have 51 members, though, with 48 for the Democrats and (per CNN's results) 1 seat still being tallied (?).

They could change the filibuster rules and make it easier on themselves, but it's a much narrower margin than in 2009.

EDIT 2: Regarding the empty seat, that's LA. If people vote in the runoff (not still being tallied) by the same party lines, it'll likely go to the remaining Republican candidate. So it'll be 52/48. Rule changes will need Democrats on board with them, this is unlikely.

Changing the rules requires only a simple majority.

There's a reason it was called the "nuclear option".

Misread the necessary numbers on the rules change. Still a narrower margin, but doesn't require Democrats to help out.

If they change it to only require simple majority then I guarantee it will never change back. Partisanship is dead. The thugs won't appoint a supreme court justice, the thugs won't appoint any other judicial appointments. This will never be forgotten and there will never be compromise again. It's obstructionism on both sides from here on out.

You mean "Bipartisanship is dead," right?

A super-majority is 3/5th or 60 senators in the US Senate, not 2/3rds. From July 2009 to January 2010, Democrats (+ Independents Sanders and Lieberman) had such a super-majority in the Senate.

Democrats in the Senate used this super-majority to pass the ACA (Obamacare) in December 2009. Technically, they used the super-majority to end the filibuster and then voted on the bill.

It is a myth that Democrats had full control of the House/Senate for 2 years to pass any bill he wanted:

http://cjonline.com/blog-post/lucinda/2012-06-01/no-obama-di...

I'm trying to figure out if the person who wrote that doesn't understand how Congress works, or is simply being deceptive.

The only "myth" there is pretending that it requires a filibuster-proof majority to pass any legislation.

The truth of that "myth" was well established during Obama's tenure.

Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

They could have done that on day one.

Why the downvote? The Dems clearly had the power to use the nuclear option (and in fact they did use it later in Obama's term, so this isn't just theoretical).

IMO the ACA was an overreach that cost him the congress in 2010 and possibly Clinton's presidency. That political capital would have been better spent on getting higher taxes at the top and fixing social security.

> better spent

Most people might think that except maybe the people with pre-existing conditions who were able to get healthcare.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com