Saying that Obama needs to act like LBJ is stupid

[CTLawGuy]

What people don't understand is that LBJ worked in an environment when the Rs weren't in absolute lockstep opposition to anything he was trying to do.

In fact, taking the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a lot of conservadems i.e. Southern "Democrats" voted against it. But it was ok because there were liberal and moderate Rs that were receptive to the CRA that could more than make up the losses.

As you see below, Obama/Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid have lost fewer Democrats than Johnson and his leadership did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_1964

By party

The original House version:<9>

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:<10>

* Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version:<9>

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:<9>

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

--------------------------------------------
In the "original house version" stage of HCR, Obama lost only 39 Democrats, whereas LBJ lost nearly 100 Democrats for CRA.

On the senate side, Obama will, at worst, lose 3 Dems for cloture (hopefully none) and 8 Dems on the underlying bill. LBJ lost 23 dems on cloture and 21 on the bill.

Imagine if, as to the CRA, all Republicans voted no. In the House, CRA would have lost 268 - 152, in the senate, it would have lost a cloture vote 56 against to 44 in favor and never made it to a final vote. The bill would have had to have been watered down so much as to make it acceptable to Southern "Democrats". Fortunately LBJ did NOT have to kowtow to Southern "Democrats". This is essentially and unfortunately, what Obama has to do in regard to HCR.

But fortunately for us, LBJ had a reasonable Republican opposition party who did not have a strategy to disrupt any and all progress for political advantage. He governed before the rise of movement conservatism, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and most importantly, 1994.

I cannot emphasize this next point enough so I am going to write it in bold:

The Republicans are going to do everything they can to block anything Obama tries to do because they believe that the public will become so disillusioned with the Democrats that there will be another 1994-style "revolution" that will vault them back into power. They are counting on the left base of the Democratic Party becoming frustrated and staying home in 2010. They are hoping that Obama DOESN'T come through in this difficult situation that THEY THEMSELVES created and continue to create, and that people will blame him and the Democrats and not the Republicans. They are hoping people will ignore that they are voting against and filibustering EVERYTHING.

The GOP's strategy cannot be allowed to work in 2010. If it does, then they will do it AGAIN the next time they mess everything up and the country hands power back to the Democrats. Next time you get frustrated at Obama, think about how much easier his job would be if he had a reasonable opposition party like LBJ did, or think about how lucky LBJ was to get 138 House Rs and 27 Senate Rs for CRA. I'm not saying don't be constructively critical, but don't go around fomenting disillusionment. That's EXACTLY what the Rs want you to do.

So, you wanna talk about LBJ? Once there is a world where Obama does not need to please the Joe Liebermans or the Bart Stupaks of the world or face utter failure, THEN you can compare him to LBJ.

[CTLawGuy]

1. I guess facts get unrecs around here

In that case, here are some more. Try Medicare, 1965 http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/tally65.html

SENATE

D: Y - 57; N - 7; NV - 4
R: Y - 13; N - 17; NV - 2

HOUSE

D: Y - 237; N - 48; NV - 8
R: Y - 70; N - 68; NV - 2

Medicare would probably have failed to pass a cloture vote in the senate, and LBJ lost nearly 50 House Dems for Medicare. Fortunately he had 70 moderate Rs to back him up.

[impik]

8. Facts are not good for the Anti-Obama narrative

So why use them?

[alsame]

2. Also, LBJ didn't have to deal with the CBO. nt

[Zynx]

4. The CBO is necessary and they generally do a very good job.

This is a very difficult bill to assess the costs of.

[alsame]

5. Oh I know, I'm just pointing out that it wasn't even an issue in LBJ's era. Senators

couldn't use the CBO scores as an excuse to vote against legislation.

[DailyGrind51]

3. Obama could not act like LBJ if he tried, because he is not a "power broker", like LBJ was.

LBJ had been around much longer and knew where the proverbial bodies were buried and what strings to pull. Barack Obama apprenticed under power brokers Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. When Obama tried to flex his political muscles by running against former Black Panther and present Congressman Bobby Rush, he got his political posterior handed to him.

[impik]

10. And still

He had to compromise A LOT. So what do people want from Obama, who is close to get even a better results, under much much more difficult circumstances?

"when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter – that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves". (Barack Obama, September 8, 2009).

[phleshdef]

11. Also, people overlook the fact that LBJ was a jerk with an enormous ego.

For all the good or bad that he did, that much is just a complete fact in regards to his personality. Obama is, well, the complete opposite of that. People are who they are.

[Laelth]

6. You're right, of course.

But the correct response to this situation is to attempt to energize the base. It would be better to go down fighting for progressive goals (and lose) than it is to achieve "victory" on a bill that hurts the American people more than it helps.

I hope Obama learns this lesson, and I hope the Democratic Party fails to pass the "health insurance reform" bill that they are currently debating.

Otherwise, what you predict may pan out, and we may lose Congress in 2010. If you want to win as a Democrat, you need to act like a Democrat.

:dem:

-Laelth

[impik]

7. It's stupid and completely baseless

It's all myth and urban stories. LBJ compromised the hell out of Medicare, while having a much bigger majority than Obama, not facing Filibuster or 24 hours a day of stupid cables or complete bankrupt MSM.

The Left is full of ignorant teabaggers almost as much as the Right.

[Odin2005]

9. It's full of people who prefer hagiography over reality.

I noticed that whenever I point out that even FDR wasn't the FDR of popular imagination before 1936 I get flamed.

[impik]

19. Yep. FDR too had to compromise, and

he couldn't even get HCR out of the committees. Sometime i feel like banging my head at the wall. People just invent some reality and they stick to their version, no matter what.

[Kdillard]

12. Thanks for that. I hate those comparisons with a passion.

Obama is not LBJ. You are also absolutely correct in your point about what the Republicans want to happen in 2010. It is already beginning to happen. I can't believe some of the Republican talking points being pushed on here.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. LBJ took strong, clear positions and worked personally and directly to get them passed.

Yes, that was then and this is now.

No one who is rational would say what worked for LBJ, in every detail, would work now. It won't. To say nothing of the fact that LBJ had lots of experience in the halls of government and knew how things worked.

I think what people want to see when they express the sentiment that Obama should be like LBJ is that clarity of goals.

[Kablooie]

14. There are many similarities though...

They both eat food.
They both walk on two legs.
They both speak English.

Damn I write useless posts.
Somebody stop me.

[HopeOverFear]

27. lol

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. Agree totally with OP

Republicans are salivating at the prospect of 2010 being a redux of 1994 and are doing everything they can to somehow create the conditions that will allow that to happen. Although this is a lot less likely than it was in 1994 for several reasons, they are no doubt hoping and praying that it WILL happen and the corporate media whores have been ever faithful in helping to create the "hope" of a national GOP resurgence- first by promoting the "teabaggers" and their anti-HCR protests back in August and emphasizing/publicizing polls showing a supposed massive decline in Obama's support, and, more recently, hyping the GOP's wins in the New Jersey and Virgina GUBERNATORIAL races while downplaying the results of the CONGRESSIONAL NY-23 election and all of the other special elections, Congressional and otherwise, around the country that the Democrats have won SINCE 2008, some of them being in Republican-friendly territory. The corporate media whores have also been busy deflecting attention from REPUBLICAN obstructionism by talking up the "Blue Dog" Dems and the food fight fight going on among Democrats hoping that the Democratic base will be too demoralized and upset by the time the 2010 midterms come around that a lot of us will stay home. Judging from a lot of people on DU, this strategy seems to be working- with a lot of progressives here infuriated at PRESIDENT OBAMA and fellow Democrats for one reason or another and threatening to stay home and/or vote third party come election time. Some have even gone so far as to declare President Obama a failure not even a year in. Thankfully, DU does not seem to be representative of the vast majority of Dems in the country whom are sticking with him for now but it would be nice if we turned our fire on the Republicans more than on each other.

And yes, President Obama is NOT LBJ or FDR reborn. He is who he is and he has his own way of getting things that, on the surface, seems to be working just fine so far- if a bit slower than a lot of us would probably prefer.

[ClassWarrior]

16. He shouldn't "act like LBJ." He should learn from him.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/14/804307/-A-Christmas-Carol-for-Obama

NGU.

[impik]

20. Really?

Did LBJ achieved all the above in 10 months? Did he have to deal with the worst economic crisis since 1933? Did he have to deal with two wars? Did he have a terrible congress? Would you judge LBJ after 10 months?

Yea, yea, talk is cheap.

[madrchsod]

23. maybe you should do a bit of research on lbj....

he was the best politician since fdr. and yes i was against his war and have a file to prove it.

[ClassWarrior]

24. You know, it helps to comprehend someone's point before commenting on it.

The point of that graphic is the fact that LBJ never achieved withdrawal from a bloody armed quagmire. And that, no matter what Obama achieves or when he achieves it, it could all be overshadowed if he makes the same tragic mistake.

NGU.

[quiet.american]

17. K&R nt

[LWolf]

18. I'd be happy if he would just act like

a supporter of labor, education, and citizens.

[Cha]

21. I know..It's a broad brush leaving

out some important details.

[Clio the Leo]

22. Precisely. NT

[treestar]

25. I agree

45 years ago everything was different.

[andym]

26. In 1965, LBJ had the biggest Dem majority in the last 70 years

and a large group of liberal/moderate Republicans willing to support his reforms, yet he did not even attempt Universal health care, just an age limited partial version with a moderate price tag (at the time).