Will Congress bust Obama's balls more than they did Bush's?

[yurbud]

Something really ironic just occurred to me: the Democratic Congress might be far tougher on Obama than they ever were on Bush.

I remember when Clinton came into office, the leaders of the then Democratic Congress had a private meeting to "straighten him out" and tell him what was and wasn't possible.

I also remember some ball-busting of Jimmy Carter by a Democratic Congress over ethical lapses of appointees that were one-billionth the magnitude of later republican presidents.

Will Democrats rake Obama over the coals or give him the same servile, rubber stamp with only token grumbling ass-kissing they gave Bush?

[BuyingThyme]

1. They better.

Or what's the point?

[yurbud]

7. depends on why--if they try to make him more progressive, great. If they try to make him more

corporate, no.

[lurky]

2. When did congress ever bust Bush's balls?

As far as I can tell, they've been tea-bagging him for the last 8 years...
:shrug:

[polichick]

3. LOL - pretty much.

[yurbud]

6. that's why it will be ironic if they go after Obama

[FrenchieCat]

4. Everyone wants to bust his balls. Congress will just have to get in line......

behind the rest of the crowds, most who got there early.

Because Obama came in on a mandate, with almost 70,000 million votes and a margin larger than anything since Reagan, one would think that it would be more difficult....

but since Obama has pledged to be honest and open, busting his balls will be an easier thing to do....and congress, like most others do what's easy if given a choice.

I call him the Janitor-in-chief....who was allowed in only to clean up everyone else's shit.....and the shit is piled miles high.

[BuelahWitch]

5. They had damn well better not!

:grr: With the country facing its biggest crisis since the Great Depression those fuckers better tow the line, Repub and Democrat alike. They had better not mess with our P.E.'s plans for getting the economy moving again. I know they were rotten to Carter and Clinton (and helped usher in Newtie's Contract on America) we CANNOT allow that to happen this time!

[gravity]

8. Obama will bust Congress's balls

Obama is going to straighten out Congress and set the agenda

[yurbud]

9. I hope so. Usually though, having voters behind you isn't enough

[gravity]

17. Congress is lacking leadership

and Obama is the person who can help them gain the support to get some shit done.

I see Obama setting the agenda unless he does something that really pisses off the members of Congress. Obama is a smart politician though, so I don't see that happening.

[yurbud]

18. I hope you're right.

[karynnj]

11. Obama is a Constitutional Law expert

He will not set Congress's agenda - he will work with Congress not expect it to work for him.

[TayTay]

10. Will Congress do their job and become the investigative arm they are supposed to be?

I certainly hope so. This country sorely needs that. The US Congress, especially under George Bush, abandoned it's Constitutionally mandated role to demand oversight and accountability from the Executive branch. This country would have been far, far better served if the Congress had actually investigated the claims the Bush team made in favor of going to war in Iraq and so forth.

Bush claimed the powers granted under a "unitary executive" theory of the Presidency, something that the Federal Society and certain conservative legal theorists dreamed up. This theory held that the Executive Branch was supreme unto itself and did not have to submit to Congressional oversight or obey the edicts of Congress when they interfered with Presidential power. They also believed that the Executive Branch should have been free to politicize it's departments. (US Attorney's scandal anyone?) make personnel changes without interference from other branches and so forth. This view of power also said that Bush or any other President had the inherent power to wiretap Americans without warrant, gather information domestically without recourse of law and so forth. Republicans in the Congress rolled over and played dead and allowed Bush to assume these powers.

There is a role for a muscular Congress to play in the American system. They are, after all, a co-equal branch of government whose members are elected independently of the President. It doesn't involve 140 hours of Congressional investigations into whether or not Bill Clinton used the White House Christmas card list to illegally solicit donations. That was Congressional abuse of the power of oversight. But, dammit, I do want Congress to do it's job. I want our Constitutional form of govt back and that does rely on a Congress that does it's job, which includes oversight of the Executive Branch.

[Occam Bandage]

12. The 2006-2008 Congress voted against Bush more than any has ever voted against the President.

They forced him to launch an unprecedented flurry of vetoes and veto threats, and forced the Senate Republicans to set an all-time record for filibusters. They got some good legislation on ethics reform, oversight, and veteran's care passed, but beyond that, they couldn't get a whole hell of a lot done, because they couldn't hit the 67 and 60 votes needed to get past vetoes and filibusters.

"Token-grumbling ass-kissing?" Ridiculous. If Pelosi and Reid literally strung Bush up and gutted him on the House floor, the netroots would be calling them "mealy-mouthed wimps" because they didn't flay him first.

[BeFree]

13. And

.... they did that without alienating the sheeple. More dems got elected.
-----------------

Will congress bust Obama's balls? Surely the republicans will. The question is will the dems? And will DU? Doesn't look good for DU, and congress? We'll see.

[yurbud]

15. I understand the thinking behind what they are doing as a strategy--don't give the far right a stick

to beat them with.

At the same time, if they don't take any radical action, the brain cancer that has taken over the the very wealthy and their political tools in the republican party will be in only brief remission and come back and kill us.

[yurbud]

14. yeah, let's see, they kept the war going, they didn't investigate shit, and they gave him more votes

for the bailout than the GOP.

And when they were in a minority, they would only THREATEN to filibuster when the netroots melted down their switchboard.

They are doing better, but they are still not doing their job.

They should be making it difficult for Bush to sleep at night, and his cabinet should already be seeking asylum in Saudi Arabia. I don't see any of that happening.

[last_texas_dem]

16. I am hopeful that the legislative branch will operate as an independent branch of the government.

Obviously I don't want any pointless "ball-busting" on the part of congressional Democrats towards Obama, but I also don't want the House and Senate Democrats to forget that they are not simply extensions of the executive branch. The fact that the Repugs in Congress willingly "forgot" this and simply did everything they could to give * any and everything he wanted, turning a blind eye to all of the corruption in his administration, is a large part of why our country is in the trouble we're in...

I should say, though, I'm not expecting that the congressional Dems will give Obama nearly the same problems that they gave Carter and Clinton, largely because the congressional Democrats are more united ideologically than they've been in decades. There are relatively few southern conservative Democrats left to cause problems for Obama if he chooses to advance a liberal, or, at least, liberal-leaning, agenda. At the same time, the Repugs are more uniformly conservative/right-wing than they've been in decades so building truly "bipartisan" coalitions to pass legislation is also likely to be fairly difficult. It may be somewhat easier during the early months of Obama's presidency since it looks to be likely that he will be granted a somewhat typical honeymoon period; most accounts that I've read have concluded that Clinton was never really granted this.

[kennetha]

19. Two Way Street

When the Congress and the Administration are of the same party, there is lots and lots of horse-trading behind the scenes. A democratic Congress has the power to mostly give the President what he wants. But a democratic President also has the power to give a democratic Congress what it wants. So there will be horse-trading. But it won't happen in public.

[WinkyDink]

20. HELL, YES. There's ALWAYS a Newtonian swing back against DEMOCRATS.

[old mark]

21. They will kiss his ass, even most of the GOP - he has the thing they

all crave - popularity, which = votes!
They will say and do anything to be associated with a winner, and will run through flames to avoid going down with the Bush ship.
Remember, they are all politicians, which means they are self serving scum.

mark