We need 60 votes to do anything, FDR had it easy

[FogerRox]

Some folks have been comparing Obama to FDR or LBJ, that Obama doesn't use the Bully pulpit as well, that he doesn't build consensus, he just compromises, that Obama likes Unity. And then I hear how we needed 60 votes for this or that and didnt have 60 votes, and it was the fault of the republican obstructionists. Obama didn't have the supermajority that FDR had.

Yeah well, not so fast. In the 73rd Congress (33-35) there were 59 Democratic Senators, 96 Senators total, so 2/3rds is (if my math is right) 64 votes for cloture.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Cloture_Rule.htm

FDR was sworn in on March 4th, 1933, got his cabinet sworn in, in due haste, and then on March 5th, issued 2 proclamations, one declared a bank holiday, he closed all banks. No bank was allowed to open until it could prove it was solvent. The other proclamation ordered Congress back to session March 9th.

FDR walked into Washington swinging for the upper deck, the Republicans saw this and no one want to be the first to get in the way of FDR. the first 3 weeks saw the creation of the CCC and the passage of the Emergency Banking Act.

On FDRs first 100 days in office:

By its end, he had passed 15 major laws, given 15 messages to Congress and 10 speeches, held press conferences and cabinet meetings twice a week and sponsored an international conference, made all major policy decisions, foreign and domestic, and, as Arthur Schlesinger notes, "never displayed fright or panic and rarely even bad temper."
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma02/volpe/newdeal/hundred_days.html

In office for 8 days FDR gives his first "Fireside Chat".

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma02/volpe/newdeal/firesides.html

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma02/volpe/newdeal/timeline_text.html

The important thing I note here is that FDR went right to work, on his first day, with congress not even in session. Would FDR have gotten better Support for the Public Option? Yeah maybe. He certainly would have twisted more arms and more people would have been threatened in back rooms, than have been the last 2 yrs. Those were different times in the Great Republican Depression, so it may not be entirely fair of me to compare. But do not tell me FDR had a supermajority, he did not have one in the 73rd Congress.

[Liberty Belle]

1. Republicans have gotten worse and more obstructionist.

In the old days a filibuster was rare and some Reps actually put the good of the country ahead of partisan politics. The new breed of Reps in Congress today is an entirely self-centered bunch - if they can't get their way, they make sure nobody else can get anything done.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

19. actually, no. They are about the same, if you read

about that period. Vile, corporate controlled, greedy sumabitches who held Ayn Rand like theories even before she wrote that crap.

[FogerRox]

34. and because times were worse, the '32 election brought major change, no pun intended.

[Radical Activist]

2. False comparison. There were liberal Republicans in FDR's time.

There are none today.

Obama also did some interesting things on his first day in office, like ending Bush's torture policies.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. FDR made them Liberal

They weren't liberal under Hoover.

[bornskeptic]

25. George Norris, Robert LaFollette jr, and William Borah were liberals long before FDR's election.

[FogerRox]

15. Then there was the Southern Veto

[MannyGoldstein]

3. FDR was determined to do the right things

Thanks for your post.

[Fruittree]

5. As is Barack Obama...

These are very different times and anyone who can't see that is intentionally ignoring reality for the sake of making a preferred point.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. We'll have to agree to disagree

Attacking Social Security is pretty black and white.

[FogerRox]

10. lets see what happens, the 2% break is supposed

to be temporary.

[Fruittree]

14. I don't think he is attacking social security..

But it is possible that things are going to have to change. Our population has gotten much larger, we're more integrated with a world economy than we used to be and there's a lot more divisiveness than there used to be. I actually believe that what Pres. Obama is doing which is trying to get people to work together is, in the long term, the absolute right thing to do. We need to move beyond recalcitrance and vilifying each other and move toward logical, realistic and compassionate approaches to the issues we face so that we leave a better world for our children.
But we can agree to disagree - Thank you for the polite response.. :)

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Social Security is in fine shape

The population change was totally anticipated. The estimates being used to claim it's mot sustainable assume that the economy will grow far slower in the future than it has in the past. Even if it grows only a good bit slower, there is no shortfall.

For more info: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/buchanan/20090521.html

Be careful of which information you believe. A lot of people are trying to snow you.

[Fruittree]

27. To a certain extent it's in fine shape...

I do believe that but the reality for people who have to live on ss alone is that it often isn't enough. My mom, for example, lives on $600/month - That's not a life of luxury by any means. I believe one of the items in the Simpson-Bowles (and I'm not defending them or saying it's the right thing - I don't know enough at this point to say so) report was to concentrate the payments more toward those in more financial need and maybe not pay out to those in the upper income brackets who don't need the supplement. I think there's a certain logic to making it more of a safety net and less of a supplemental savings account.

[FogerRox]

38. GDP growth of about 2.6% or better

and SS is good to 2085, the issue is averaging that much growth, requires jobs, and the 10-15 million jobs we need are not on the horizon.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/17/929335/-Its-gonna-take-27-yr-recession-to-make-Social-Security-go-broke-by-2037

[MannyGoldstein]

51. 3.2% average since 1960

Unless we're willing to admit that our economy is perma-fucked, Social Security is OK.

[Hawkowl]

23. No they are not

That is the excuse used throughout history--"this is different". The only thing that is different is that Obama cares more about the rich oligarchs than the average American. He's made a cold, calculated decision on who can help him get re-elected more easily and he's sided with the oligarchs.

And a ruler throwing the rabble under the bus to side with the power brokers is as old as history itself.

[Fruittree]

28. You seem to know Barack Obama better than I do I guess...

Otherwise how could you pretend to know his motivations so clearly?

[Hawkowl]

52. Been watching him since 1992

Native Chicagoan and I have friends who do know him.

[Fruittree]

54. You could be right...

But I tend not to think so...It's just not what I see. I see a basically good person and I really believe that the President determines history in a way but history also determines the President..Anyone's actions have to be viewed within the context of what's happening in the world at the time. One person, whatever their status, has only so much control and what I see with B. Obama is that he's trying to get done what he can incrementally given the situation.

[Hawkowl]

55. I sincerely hope

That you are right, and I am mistaken.

[Fruittree]

57. Me too...

[Cherchez la Femme]

62. Sure he is

depending upon which way the wind is blowing that day;
more properly, which way the Pentagon, the rich & corporations tell him the wind is blowing.

[jaxx]

7. Can you imagine Barack Obama getting his cabinet sworn in in one day?

Why didn't FDR's nominees have to go through long, windy sessions? That's just one thing, to compare the Obama congress to FDR's is madness.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. FDR used his mandate

Hoover had much the same Congress, and they behaved very badly.

FDR made it clear that he was not an appeaser. Just read his inaugural address!

[jaxx]

9. Yeah and he didn't have a republican wing that voted NO on everything either.

In the 30s the country gathered together for the best of the country. Today it's just the opposite. If you don't want to believe me, look at the vote tallies.

[FogerRox]

12. not so, we almost didnt get the Wagner Act

Child labor laws took 4-5 yrs, so know your history before you go off talking without a citation.

[jaxx]

17. My gawd 4-5 years for a law?

President Obama is being hounded for what he has accomplished in less than 2 years.

[FogerRox]

32. times are a bit different. yup.

[bornskeptic]

30. The Wagner Act passed the Senate 63-12. Only 8 Republicans voted no.

Actually, FDR didn't indicate that he supported it until it had passed in the Senate. Apparently it then passed in the House by a voice vote.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Republicans are badly behaved because they're allowed to be.

If they knew that there were serious consequences, they'd stop. That
s the crux of the problem with appeasement.

[FogerRox]

16. Exactly, FDR swung for the upper deck from the start

and he had his fireside chats, outside of the state of the Union, how many national addresses has Obama made, .... Obamas use of the Bully Pulpit has been very low key.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Obama's used the bully pulpit quite well, thanks

He's used it to further demonize the Left.

[FogerRox]

39. I'm from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Well then. It's all your fault.

You want the Palin as president.

[avaistheone1]

53. Got to hand it to George Bush he knew how to handle the bully pulpit.

Obama not so much.

[treestar]

44. LOL they are not Obama's children

They are Senators, not kids.

[tritsofme]

48. Much the same Congress?

In 1932 Democrats gained nearly 100 House seats and 12 Senate seats. I would call that a radically different Congress.

Regardless, the modern nature of partisan politics makes this an apples to oranges comparison.

[FogerRox]

11. big difference, though we are talking the march

after the election, FDR had plenty of time to make his selections. lol

[quaker bill]

18. True but

a fact you fail to mention is that there were disgruntled "liberal republicans" who voted with the Dems on most major issues. Find a "liberal republican" actually in office today. If there were 10 in the Senate, we would be talking an apples to apples comparison.

[FogerRox]

33. All I am saying is that FDR did not have a supermajority in the 73rd Congress

All should agree that many other things were different though.

[bornskeptic]

37. He didn't need a super-majority.

As far as I know the only filibusters executed or threatened in th 1930s were of anti-lynching laws, none of which FDR ever supported. What President Obama faces in the automatic threat of filibuster on every bill and every nomnation is totally unprecedented in American history.

[FogerRox]

40. understood, but so many folks have been telling thats what he had

the Senate in the 73rd was not to far from what we have today. and yes the environment is quite different today.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ladjf]

22. Either change the Senate rules or abolish the Senate. nt

[pinto]

24. Cloture requires 3/5. In the 73rd Congress that would be 57 Senators.

Or 58 depending on how they figured it. (3/5 of 96) :hi:

[FogerRox]

31. it was 2/3rds until the mid 1970's

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Cloture_Rule.htm

[krawhitham]

63. Something is wrong

On March 8, 1917, in a specially called session of the 65th Congress, the Senate agreed to a rule that essentially preserved its tradition of unlimited debate. The rule required a two-thirds majority to end debate and permitted each member to speak for an additional hour after that before voting on final passage. Over the next 46 years, the Senate managed to invoke cloture on only five occasions.

You are telling me from 1917 to 1963 the senate only passed FIVE laws?

[ClassWarrior]

26. Easy?

:rofl:

So sayeth a lone keyboard jockey.

NGU.

[namahage]

29. Are you sure you read the OP? n/t

[creon]

36. Huge majorities

FDR had huge majorities:

73rd Congress: 313 Dems in the House; 59Dems in the Senate

74th Congress: 322 Demis in the House; 69 Dems in the Senate

75th Congress: 333 Demis in the House; 75 Dems in the Senate

For the 76th Congress, the Dems lost 70 seats in the House and retained control.


FDR had an overwhelming majority and kept it for over six years.

[FogerRox]

41. The Senate in the 73rd is not too far from what we have today

Just looking at the numbers. But during the last 2 yrs Repubs have used the filibuster hundreds (?) of times, thats the dirt in the details.

[creon]

47. True.

The dynamic was different in those days. The Democrats were much closer to being of one mind. The power of the deficit hawks came later.

[treestar]

43. Republicans were reasonable then

FDR was not black.

What's the point of this kind of thing? It was over 70 years ago.

And FDR had three terms plus. Why didn't he get us a single payer health plan then?

Why didn't the tough Harry Truman? The British got theirs around then.

[JoePhilly]

45. Bingo.

[JoePhilly]

46. Did the liberal blogs rip FDR a new ASS for any compromise???

I'm serious. Did FDR COMPROMISE any?

Because if he did, then you have to accept the fact that he did. The fact that he got some things done, AND at times compromised.

And he had no "liberal media" to bash the shit out of him when he did.

[NYC Liberal]

49. From 1933 to 1935 there were ZERO - ZERO - cloture votes.

There were a grand total of four over the course of his entire 12-year presidency.

There have been 89 in the last two years.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

The fact is, the Republicans were nowhere near as obstructionist during FDR's presidency as they are today. In addition, FDR did not have a 24/7 right-wing media attacking him day in and day out as Obama does.

[TheKentuckian]

50. So what. Most of the issues "we couldn't get through the Senate"

were actually horsetraded away.

The Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act took months to beat the Congress down to accept the deals using fall guys and friendly Chairs shepherding the bullshit plan with oddball committee setups like the Gang of Sev...err...six (once Hatch bounced).

[NYC Liberal]

56. So, the OP's claim that FDR was dealing with the same political environment

as Obama is and did so much better is incorrect. FDR did not have a supermajority from 1933 to 1935, but he did not need one because the Republicans were not filibustering left and right. The Republicans have filibustered *89* times since Obama took office. They filibustered exactly zero of FDR's and the Democrats' legislation from 1933-1935.

Obama is dealing with reality, not some magical fantasy land where he screams and shouts a lot, calls people names, and then the Republicans say, "Oh my - we're no match for him! I guess we shouldn't filibuster after all!"

He is the president and as such his job is to get things done. He cannot afford to grandstand like members of Congress can. Each member of Congress is one in 535. People do not blame any individual member if things don't get done, but they do blame the president because he is one man and thus the most visible.

Between compromising and getting some (or most) of you want, and standing your ground but getting none, compromise should win out every time.

[TheKentuckian]

61. You're still talking about votes when the pieces were already long bartered away

I know he is getting most of what HE wants, I'm dubious that we are getting most of what WE need.

[bornskeptic]

60. None of the four cloture votes during his presidency were on bills supported by FDR.

Two were on anti-lynching legislation and the other two on anti-poll-tax legislation. FDR never openly backed either, for political reasons.

[BklnDem75]

58. False

You conveniently forget that we're dealing with more conservatives in the Senate today than FDR dealt with in his day. Blue dogs are conservatives regardless of the D behind their names. Liberals owned the 73rd Congress. Making a D's and R's comparison is simply lazy.

[harun]

59. We didn't have a Corporate Media back then. Also the GOP

and Conservative Dem's are united in their oppression of the Middle Class to the benefit of the Upper Class.

Most of your premise I agree with whole heartily. The whole political establishment has moved about a million miles to the right since then though as more of the population becomes affluent.