Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Carolyn Kaster / AP
President Barack Obama gestures as he speaks about the economy and the deficit, Friday, Nov. 9, 2012, in the East Room of the White House in Washington.
By Karoun Demirjian (contact) 
Sunday, Nov. 11, 2012 | 2 a.m.
Sun Archives
At first, it seemed as if President Barack Obama — despite overcoming the drag of a weak economy — wouldn’t try to suggest that the result gave him an unequivocal mandate to govern.
But that didn’t last long.
“On Tuesday night, we found out that the majority of Americans agree with my approach,” Obama said in a speech Friday, in which he promised to veto any fiscal-cliff compromise that extended tax cuts on incomes over $250,000. “Our job now is to get a majority in Congress to reflect the will of the American people.”
Obama’s decision to put his foot down early marks an important turnaround for the president, who has been criticized for being too conciliatory and too post-partisan in his attempts to broker ways out of past fiscal crises, such as the debt ceiling debacle of summer 2011.
But it may also undercut the focus on bipartisanship that had dominated the first few days after the election.
“If there’s a mandate in yesterday’s results, it’s a mandate for us to find a way to work together on solutions to the challenges we all face as a nation,” House Speaker John Boehner, the nation’s top Republican, said Wednesday. “Mr. President, the Republican majority in the House stands ready to work with you.”
“The American people want us to work together,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the same day, reprising a speech he made in his first turn as majority leader. “I said that I know how to fight. I know how to dance. I don’t dance as well as I fight, but I’d much rather dance anytime. And I still feel that way.”
For the past two years, cooperation has been the elusive. Congress has failed to accomplish much because policy discussions of all stripes were subjugated to a struggle for power between a Democratic-led Senate and a Republican-led House facing down a crucial election.
That election is now past. But not much else has changed.
Sure, Democrats have picked up seats in the Senate in a year when they were expected to lose ground — a testament to the strength of the party’s candidates and their message. But fundamentally, the balance of power in Washington hasn’t been altered one bit.
And neither has the roster of what these lawmakers have to tackle. The fiscal cliff — the combination of government budget cuts and scheduled tax hikes that start to take effect Jan. 1 absent congressional action — still is the first order of business for Congress.
But after a year and a half of bickering, lawmakers desperately need a fresh approach, or at least an infusion of camaraderie, to bring about a resolution and set the stage for other topics — such as immigration and energy — where the parties may find common ground.
Then again, it’s not as if the president was the first to qualify the spirit of compromise. Both Boehner and Reid beat him to the punch.
“A balanced approach isn’t balanced if it means higher taxes on small businesses,” Boehner said, moments after singing cooperation’s praises. “I’m not suggesting we compromise on our principles.”
“I’m going to do everything within my power to be as conciliatory as possible; I want to work together,” Reid said. “But I want everyone to understand: You can’t push us around.”
The question is why Obama will not take YES for an answer
Congress is offering, agreeing, compromoising with increasing REVENUE FROM THE RICH.
Obama take the MONEY and call it a day
Congress will REFORM TAXES eliminating loopholes and deduction for the rich
Obama take the MONEY
If you chose not to change that is why Romney lost. How many more years can the GOP and their lobbyist's afford to keep losing with their thinking?
All that money the uber rich threw at Romney to keep their taxes down? Mega failed.
Prepare to pay another 3.5% in taxes rich people, you can afford it.
;-)
Markey...the problem is that the revenue generated by taxing incomes over $ 250,000 won't make a small dent in the debt (assuming it is used to pay down the debt rather than to fund new initiatives...a large assumption)...and then what do you do?? Take the income level down to $ 150,000? $ 100,000??
Romney would have won - if he had explained two things:
1) You can take every last penny the rich earn in a year and it wouldn't run the government for half the year - it's all about numbers - there aren't enough of them to pay the bills. You need to reform the tax code so that everyone pays a little so that we all have "skin in the game" as Obama once said himself. If only the rich came to vegas, it would still be a tiny desert outpost. The MIDDLE CLASS comes here to trade their money for a little entertainment -- it's simple: most people are middle class, that's where the money comes from.
2) Obama added $6.0 trillion dollars to the debt during his 1st term--and for that sacrifice from the taxpayers (53% of us that is) the economy grew by just $0.9 trillion. How does that math work? How does this country continue like that?
By the way, a 51 to 49 win is not a mandate for anything except working together to solve the problem. Don't worry, barack, you'll get all the credit, just Like Bubba Clinton did after he worked with the Republican congress of the 1990's
People need to wrap their thin skulls around the fact that a beat down by the electoral college doesn't translate into a mandate. The popular vote is the mandate.
This country is as divided as it was during the Civil War..... Look how that turned out.
The Dems, and the Repubs if they had won, need to realize that governance and jingoism are two different things.
Ruling with an iron fist will not accomplish anything but compromise by both parties needs to occur.
There is an "I" in TEAM...... It's in the A-hole. Congress needs to put the people first. Not their contributors.
"Then again, it's not as if the president was the first to qualify the spirit of compromise. Both Boehner and Reid beat him to the punch."
So few words say much, much more. One should look at Reagan and Tip O'Neil to get a sense of how deals are made between two parties saying they won't budge on principles.
President Obama approach to compromise is wrong when comparing President Obama's approach to Reagan and O'Neil.
Knowing how opposed the Republican congressional leaders were to President Obama, he did two things wrong 2 years ago when dealing with the House Republicans.
(1) He said he was willing to work with them publicly.
(2) He say he was willing to compromise publicly.
On Friday 11-09-2012 the President gave ground again by saying publicly he is willing to compromise. Once you say what the President said publicly, this implies you will give up your position before the negotiations start. You walk into the negotiating room empty handed. By saying what the President said publicly, his is giving up ground he controls. Saying it also is send a white flag message to the opposition. You do not start negotiations in public, as President Obama done, again, by saying publicly He is willing to compromise.
To be clear, the President should not say he unwilling compromise, or say he is unwilling to work with the other side. No, not all all.
In other words, compromise and a willing to work with an opposing side is done behind closed doors, in words and in deed. You hold strong to your principle in public, and relax your position at the negotiation table.
Karoun, I have to disagree with the statement that not much else has changed. I have worked both paid and volunteer in politics in 5 western states for the past 40 years. We all recognize that elected officials are dependent on financial backers and voters to keep them in office. Despite the bluster from Rove and comments from the online yappers about reasons for the loss and the win, most professionals in the field will, perhaps anonymously at this point, that the Republican product and message does not fit the demographic that they are attempting to reach. President Obama and the Democratic Party crafted a message which was more appealing to the target audience. Worse for the Republicans that demographic continues to work against them. The Republican Party has a core philosophy of fiscal conservatism which is reasonable even to me, a left-wing prairie populist: REA, public power, dams on the Columbia and all that. Americans are not by nature ideologues or zealots and the Republican diminishes its chances at broader support by pandering to those inclinations.
We'll see what happens. But I believe that the more centrist and business elements of the Republican Party will prevail in the coming year. There will be the customary strum and drang but much of it will be posturing and PR. Personally, just for the sake of spectacle, I'd like to see the long knives come out as Ryan and Cantor look to kill Boehner, but I don't think that will happen.
Long says that compromise must be hidden, be secret from the public.
No so Obama promised transparency
We need to know. The grand bargin failed because the president reneged on the $800 billion revenue deal offered by Republicans - if it had been public it would have been harder for Obama to renege.
Friday Obama was careful to not box himself in or out. It was most telling that Obama emphasized REVENUE from the RICH and never mentioned RATES
People reject his "change" because they don't fully agree with it. He needs to compromise and change it a bit if he wants people to change their minds. You can't just shove things down half of America's throats and expect them to take it every time. One definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. I wouldn't like to think we have insane people running this country. The people of America shouldn't have to do what their leaders want (that a large portion doesn't agree with), the leaders should do what the people of America want!
Sheldon Adelson spent $50 million to buy the election but all he got for it was an invitation to a christening party for Karl Rove' new $50 million yacht, the R.I.P. G.O.P.
The simple minds who took us into an eight-year, trillion dollar war based on a WMD threat that did not exist went into Tuesday's election convinced they had the victory sewn up.
Yeah, we want those idiots running the show again, uh huh.
Does anyone believe if Romney had won he wouldn't be pushing Ryan's budget as a mandate?
President Obama campaigned on the fact his policy would be allowing Bush's tax cuts on those making 250K or more would expire. Romney campaigned on the fact he wanted to extend all of Bush's tax cuts and cut more. Obama won...it IS a mandate on their campaign positions. Margin of victory has never mattered in the past when declaring a mandate, why now?
The electoral win was a landslide and THAT is how we elect our President. Millions in California and New York don't bother voting because they know their state is solidly blue. If we changed to a popular vote you would see millions more in solid Blue/Red states voting, BUT we would see all campaigning directed at major population centers, which by the way are solid Blue, even in red states.
the repugnicans and their controlled right wing disinformation media sabotaged the Clinton presidency because he was doing so good. He balanced the budget, he did not make any fake wars, the economy was growing and he was trying to improve the middle class.
let's hope they don't do it again and lie to the american people and fool them so that their rich friends can make billions more and destroy the middle class.
plebs and overlords - the repugnican dream
Mr. Gordon, I respectfully disagree with your theory that millions stayed home due to a knowledge that their vote wouldn't count. That's hogwash.
As for your assertion that bigger cities always go blue is easy to understand. Bigger cities have a higher ratio of welfare recipients and other folks who the democrats like to keep down by giving out freebies. The Democratic Party is still the largest supporter of welfare in the US. The biggest campaign issue that the democrats effectively drummed home was that Romney was going to take away their freebies. That's sir is a fact!
When it comes to govt assistance, those over age 65 recieve seven times more of it than those under the age of 19.
And guess which age group is the GOPs biggest supporters? That's right, many of the same screeching right-wing voices on this site are in fact recieving more than their fair share of tax payer funded pork.
Apparently sucking on the government teet is wrong only when it's not a conservative whose doing the sucking.
Gridlock => the spendaholic's antidote?
: {
Ms. Demirjian,
Respectfully, this article is the first one in recent memory where you used logic, reason, and rational thought. I trust it won't be the last -- please continue.
We need your voice and your position to help us get out of this mess.
Regards,
Purgatory
2 things haunted Romney..
His 47% comment
His stance on the auto bailout
He might have won...otherwise
In addition, his stance on immigration (which now Hannity has flipped), keeping tax rates on top earners and being pro choice....
He would have won. Let's face it if ere was a candidate who was vulnerable it was Obama.
Don't put all the blame on Willard's weak shoulders. There's a reason the GOP candidate has won the popular vote JUST ONCE in the LAST SIX presidential elections (W Bush eked out a 50.34% margin of victory over John Kerry in 2004).
The demographics of the US are changing. Whites now are about 70% of the population. The GOP is going to have to find a way to get more of that 30% vote. I know it's anathema to them as they have a tendency to view that 30% as either illegals or welfare moms, but the reality is they will continue to lose elections unless they can find a way to attract that demographic. Romney was moderate enough but then he catered to the tea party members by going with hard line Ryan and his no abortion under any circumstance position. If they go with Santorum or Newt in 2016...don't even run an election because you have zero chance.
Romney lost because the GOP over estimated the swing to the right the country took in 2010.
They rushed to embrace the far right thinking, the religious zealots and tea party types when the reality is much of the country moved only a little more to the right.
Had the GOP come up with a candidate other than the one they chose the election would have a different outcome. Romneys arrogance and untouchable attitude cost the republicans another election. Obama has so many voters on welfare depending on him he could win 4 or 5 terms if it were allowed. HEY' GOP , come up with a candidate that can communicate with the common middle class voter, at least during the campaign.
Obama lied, he said he wanted to raise taxes on millionaires, towards the end of his campaign he changed it to $250,000, which is the heart of the middle class. Obama dismantled the middle class as it was once known, now the only middle class left are those in the upper income level. Obama needs to stick with his original plan and raise taxes only on millionaires.
"The more voters reject change, the more things stay the same!" Republican drible. All governments are inherently evil, but it is better than the alternative. Republicans attempt to decieve more than democrats and they think American voters who can and do listen to thier rhetoric are to stupid to know the difference.
express445...
Respectfully, those making over 250K are NOT in the middle class, let alone the 'heart of the middle class'.
"now the only middle class left are those in the upper income level."
What planet are you from?
Mr. Sun,
Please remove demforlife's 11.Nov.12 9:33 p.m. comment as he plagiarised another's words. Thank you in advance for your action.
Regards,
Purgatory
The contempt and disdain the Republican Party pundits have verbalized post election reveals the real truth of the Romney backers. Using words like "takers", referring to minorities as illegals and calling voters ignorant and stupid isn't helpful hindsight. The truth is Romney's 47% remark probably reflects an accurate view of the wealthiest Republican donors.
Our country is changing-the demographics hit the Republicans in the face. The party of old white men stands on its last legs. Hopefully the change you are talking about is reality. We need those business minds in our government as well as those who have compassion and understanding. It has never been all or nothing. Checks and balances were built into our political system for a reason. We now know millionaires cannot buy an election. Thank-goodness.
Mr. Sun,
Please remove demforlife's 13.Nov.12 10:46 a.m. comment as he has, yet again, plagiarised another's words. Thank you in advance for your action.
Regards,
Purgatory