More

Obama Can Pursue Ambitious Agenda Without Congress's Help

First Posted: 11/04/10 09:34 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:10 PM ET

Obama

If President Obama wants to pursue a progressive agenda in the next two years, there are plenty of ways he can do that even without any help from Capitol Hill.

At his post-election news conference on Wednesday, Obama offered more lip service to the notion of compromise. But the fact remains that the next Congress looks to be hopelessly gridlocked. The opposition party is more radicalized than ever. And the only thing the resurgent GOP seems prepared to even discuss with Obama is cutting taxes.

So the big question will be what lesson Obama takes from Tuesday's election results. If he and his advisors are finally ready to acknowledge that the source of voter unhappiness was government ineffectiveness -- rather than government overreach, or a general economic malaise -- then there's plenty of room for him to maneuver on his own.

Indeed, progressives are urging him to seize the opportunity to take a more muscular approach with his executive powers, starting by getting much tougher on banks. They also hope Obama will use his regulatory authority, his enforcement powers, and his prerogatives as commander in chief to make decisive moves that can't be sabotaged by Congressional Republicans.

The basic message: So much for the prime minister routine, it's time to act like a president.

"The most important thing the president has to communicate is strength," said Neera Tanden, a top official at the Center for American Progress. "One of the lessons of history is that the president stands apart from Congress... He has to think about ways he can lead the country without his fate being tied to the Hill."

"There's tons of things that can be done," said Damon Silvers, policy director of the AFL-CIO. "The administration has a vast capacity to act to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, regardless of what happens in Congress."

The worry, however, is that Obama will be so focused on reaching out to Republican leaders that he will be either uninterested in or afraid of being confrontational in his executive actions.

"The question is not can Obama do things," Silvers told HuffPost. "The question is will he? Will the administration do the things it can do?"

First Thing: Take On the Banks

The president of the United States oversees a massive regulatory apparatus that, when wielded appropriately, can help level the playing field for the middle class.

And nowhere it that more necessary right now than in the financial world. The recent financial reform legislation, known as Dodd-Frank, created a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and gave regulators new authorities they have yet to use.

"Under the Dodd-Frank Act, they have a huge amount of executive power to press banks to give relief to people with underwater mortgages," author and editor Robert Kuttner told The Huffington Post.

Regulators could go in and do real audits of the banks, he said, instead of "conspiring in the fiction that a lot of toxic mortgage paper is worth 100 cents on the dollar, when everyone knows it isn't."

Those real audits would find many big banks insolvent, allowing the regulators (under the new rules) to dissolve them -- or, at the very least, force them to do such civic-minded things as write-down mortgage principals and increase lending to small businesses.

There's also the issue of pursuing possible criminal charges. "You could do an enormous amount with prosecutions in banking," said Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future. "That would help both politically -- in terms of showing which side you're on -- and in terms of accountability in the financial sector, by curbing the tendency to go back and reopen the casino."

Fill In Dodd-Frank's Blanks

"Because Dodd-Frank left so many things to the regulators, in truth much of the bill has yet to be written," Damon Silvers told HuffPost.

"There is very significant delegation to the administrative agencies to figure out how they're going to carry out the spirit of the law," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. And because regulatory implementation "plays to the strength of the insiders," as Weissman puts it, the process "will require a commitment by the administration to stand up to powerful corporate interests"

"Dodd-Frank is being lobbied to death all over again," Kuttner said. "You've got a handful of labor and consumer lobbyists going against hundreds of industry lawyers. If you were willing to be publicly tough on Wall Street, you could turn that into decent politics."

Climate Change and Immigration

Cap and trade legislation and comprehensive immigration reform are two of the most obvious casualties of the rise to power of House Republicans. But some progressives think Obama could unilaterally make progress in both areas.

"I think there will be a lot of action on the executive front," said longtime Washington observer Norman Ornstein, the American Enterprise Institute's house liberal. And at the head of his list is the area of carbon emissions.

"The Supreme Court has basically given the EPA the authority to regulate carbon emissions," Ornstein explained. In theory that means Obama could impose a cap and trade system solely by executive authority.

"It won't work that way," Ornstein said. But Obama's EPA could go part way, by focusing on regulations for utilities -- or the president could use the threat of EPA action as leverage on getting some kind of energy bill through Congress after all.

At his press conference on Wednesday, Obama certainly kept his options open, noting that greenhouse gases are now considered to be under EPA's jurisdiction, then expressing his desire to find some agreement with Republicans.

But, he said: "I think it's too early to say whether or not we can make some progress on that front. I think we can." Then he added: "Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem."

The president could even usher in a new era of more humane immigration policy on his own. Deportations of undocumented immigrants have actually increased since he took office.

Robert Borosage thinks the president should not only reverse that, but should make big changes simply by tweaking enforcement.

"You could try to carve out new rules," Borosage said, "so that if you were paying taxes, you wouldn't be deported, or if you were in school, you wouldn't be deported."

In other words, Obama could create a path to de facto legalization. "That," Borosage said, "would be controversial."

Even Campaign Finance?

There's zero chance a Republican House is going to limit money in politics. But Obama on his own could roll back some of the excesses of the 2010 election.

The Supreme Court's January decision in Citizens United allowed, among other things, for nonprofit groups to spend unlimited amounts of anonymous money on campaign ads.

Obama can't oveturn that ruling -- but he could clamp down on the abuse of nonprofit rules that fueled this year's explosion of secret money.

"You could have the IRS revamp its regulations involving 501(C)4s and 501(C)6s," suggested Ornstein. Some of the most controversial political spending this year came from groups organized under those sections of the tax law.

"A good part of the problem goes way beyond Citizens United," Ornstein said. "There have been very fuzzy regulations about what these non-profit organizations that are supposed to be educational are actually supposed to do." According to the rules, 501(c)4s must spend their money exclusively on "charitable, educational, or recreational purposes."

"There's simply no doubt that organizations like American Crossroad GPS are basically thumbing their noses at the clear intent of the law," Ornstein said. Were the IRS to classify them properly, he said, "donors could theoretically be held liable for at least a gift tax -- as well as disclosure of who they are."

Enforcement and Rulemaking

"The main thing I would recommend is enforcement -- much more vigorous enforcement," said Rena Steinzor, a law professor at the University of Maryland and president of the pro-regulation Center for Progressive Reform. "The laws are so under-enforced that you could make a lot of progress in terms of health and safety hazards through tougher enforcement."

More aggressive civil and criminal prosecutions would have particularly dramatic effects, she said, in areas like mine safety, imported food, Clean Water Act violations and dirty coal-fired power plants.

And Obama also needs to stop his White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) from crippling his own regulatory agenda; Steinzor points the finger at OIRA director Cass Sunstein, who she said "frets more about cost-benefit analyses than about regularly capture."

Public Citizen's Weissman, similarly, is hoping for an uptick in the "everyday enforcement of everything from meat inspection to FDA review to workplace safety monitoring.

"One interesting case is what happens with BP," he said, "including what kind of criminal charges are leveled against it, and what fines it has to pay, and whether the government will seek to debar BP from holding federal contracts."

Weissman would like to see the government throw the book at the rogue oil company. "The full weight of the law ought to be brought to bear against BP. We'll see what happens."

Foreign Policy and the Commander In Chief

One area where a Republican House doesn't put a crimp on Obama's plans is foreign policy -- and some progressives are hoping the president rededicates himself to some of the agenda he described during the 2008 campaign.

Steve Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, is hopeful that Obama will reinvigorate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, ideally by getting rid of the "status quo incrementalists" currently on his national security staff. "He's got to do something other than this tired, constantly defeated set of negotiations," Clemons said.

As for Afghanistan, congressional Republicans "are going to complain about whatever he does, so he might as well do the smart thing," Clemons said. "He should realize he's in a Vietnam War moment, and reduce and refocus the mission."

Ornstein adds: "If you can't do treaties, there's a lot that you can do through executive agreements."

And human rights activists are hoping Obama will unilaterally stop the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" ban on openly gay soldiers -- something he could easily do in his role as commander in chief. While only Congress or the courts can actually overturn the law, Obama could nevertheless halt the discharges. "He could actually suspend enforcement," said Borosage.

Trade policy is one of the few things Obama can affect unilaterally that could have a direct impact on job creation. He could, for instance, insist on stricter enforcement of trade accords and could demand that exporting countries including China adjust their currencies and economies. "The big thing is the bully pulpit," said Borosage. "I think it's really important."

Drawing a line with China or letting the dollar drop could put millions of Americans back to work.

Odds and Ends

Robert Kuttner recently advocated in the American Prospect on behalf of two presidential measures: Stepped up enforcement of existing labor laws that prohibit such things as phony classifications of workers as temps or contract hires; and the establishment of new rules for government contracting to reward good labor practices and punish scofflaws.

Taking a stand on behalf of decent wages for workers, Kuttner said, isn't just good policy. "It also has the virtue of getting him on the side of ordinary people, which he doesn't seem to be too good at the optics of."

And CAP's Tanden pointed out that presidents can accomplish a lot simply by forcing people to be in the same room with them. "President Clinton did a lot of things where he essentially used the convening power of the president to push an agenda," Tanden said, "literally using the power of the president to push and goad."

That's how Obama got auto executives to agree to increased fuel standards.

Next up, he could conceivably set up meetings with major business and financial leaders, and try to jawbone them into taking some of the mounds of money they are sitting on and spend it or invest it in ways that would create jobs.

A New Crew

And of course Obama could clean house.

"The single best thing he could do is fire [Treasury Secretary Tim] Geithner," Kuttner said. "Get some people in there who speak for Main Street."

Even if he doesn't fire anyone, there are plenty of resignations to deal with. "The question is going to be: Are they trying to send a message by bringing in business executives and insiders and maybe a smattering of Republicans?" Weissman asked. "Or are they bringing in independent voices who will aggressively enforce the law against corporate wrongdoers and deal with the very serious problems the country's facing?"

The Limits Of Executive Power

There is, then, an awful lot Obama can do without having to strike a deal with speaker-to-be John Boehner. But there are limits to his executive power.

Congress, after all, controls the purse strings. And aside from what can be accomplished through changes in trade policy and jawboning, as noted above, job creation generally costs money.

"I think the big challenge for the president is that he has to focus on the economy, and that's a concern that requires a lot of bigger items than you can do just through executive authority," Tanden said.

"The urgency around action to create jobs just grows with every passing day, and that's going to require engaging with Congress and having a plan for engaging with Congress," said Silvers.

"But engaging with Congress doesn't mean engaging at the lowest common denominator level," he said. "Anything that's going to be effective in addressing the country's economic pain, Congress will not be open to doing, at least not the first day in session."

It's bad enough that the Republicans are bound to oppose stimulus measures of the kind and scale that economists agree are necessary to jump-start the economy and fuel job creation. But they actually want to shrink government and cut spending -- at exactly the wrong time.

How hard Obama will fight them on that is still not clear. "My fear," Kuttner said, "is that he's going to decide that the way to win the hearts of the American people is to restore austerity."

The best-case scenario, ultimately, may be that Obama will no longer be the only one taking the blame for continued high unemployment.

"The very brutal math the president has faced is that he pushes a progressive agenda, the Republicans obstruct at every opportunity, and he's the only one held accountable for its failure," Tanden said.

"Now that math will shift. Republicans will determine what happens in the House, and if things don't happen, they'll own part of the responsibility for failure."


*************************

Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail, bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
If President Obama wants to pursue a progressive agenda in the next two years, there are plenty of ways he can do that even without any help from Capitol Hill. At his post-election news conference on...
If President Obama wants to pursue a progressive agenda in the next two years, there are plenty of ways he can do that even without any help from Capitol Hill. At his post-election news conference on...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11,228
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (204 total)
  1 of 39  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
Le Facteur 99 02:19 PM on 11/04/2010
Famous Executive Orders

Emancipation Proclamation

Perhaps the most famous of all executive orders, the Proclamation freed all slaves living in the Confederacy

New Deal

New Deal: Franklin Delano Roosevelt came on the scene facing the biggest crisis since the Civil War. Launched to the presidency through the promise of a “New Deal,” Roosevelt grounded  Read More...
08:01 PM on 11/14/2010
I only hope this failure of a president doesn't damage this country as much as he has harmed the Democratic Party.
11:30 PM on 11/13/2010
"When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled 'made in Germany'; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, "Froomkinism.'"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onlycommonsense
All knowledge is worth having...
07:42 PM on 11/08/2010
And the voters remorse starts... seems a lady who lives outside Milwaukee voted for Walker in the hopes that he could keep her school up and running. Unfortunately, she didn't realize that should Walker kill the Parental Choice Program, in which 98% of her students (or should I say her) rely on, her school which she has owned and operated for the past 15 years goes down the old wazzu.

Famous last words-"I thought they were going to help the middle-class."


Maybe she can sell her house out in Germantown and live in the building because she'll have one heck of a time selling her building in the inner city.
photo
4TJefferson
Promote the General Welfare
04:01 PM on 11/06/2010
Yes we will from yes we can.
03:40 PM on 11/06/2010
It is very true that the Obama administartion can do many things without the House. If they want to use agencies to jam through ideas that they cannot get passed on the Hill, he is President and that is his right.

The question is whether that is wise politically. Wednesday he stated that one reason he got trounced is people didn't like the way the health bill was passed.

Cap and Trade is a huge bill with tremendous reprecussions. It will impact almost every aspect of people's lives.

Of course, much of that could be jammed through by the EPA. However, if it is not popular in two years that will be foddor for the Tea Party.

He is accused now of being a Chcago bully, "Rhamming" through legislation for which he couldn't get popular support.

Would it be wise to raise the price of everyone's light bulb by regulation?

If he does it and it is not popular enough to be the votes needed on the Hill, the next President can appoint his own EPA head to dismantle everything.

It is harder to undo legislation that agency regs. If you want it to stick, go with the Hill. If you want resentment, use executive fiat.
12:40 PM on 11/06/2010
Most republicans that I know believe there should be NO government interference in daily lives. They are running scared of socialism and communism. They believe they are aligned with God's agenda. Nothing that President Obama does now, short of getting rid of Roe Vs Wade, will prove to them anything less than that he's a card carrying socialist, God hating, muslim. They will tell you taxes have gone up. The best thing the Obama government can do now, is take on Glenn Beck and Rush, and hold them accountable for the disinformation campaigns they are responsible for.
03:31 PM on 11/06/2010
It is just silly to say that most GOP believe there should be "NO governmental interference in daily lives." It is just a question of regulation of what and how much. Of course, they believe they should not be allowed to rob banks. No one questions parking meters. No one questions some taxation. (I just don't like working 7 months for the State, when you count every time of tax snuck in.)

When is it the government's job to take on commentators. I thought the First Amendment allowed a huge range of free speech. The theory is Glen Beck can lie his nose off, but if the Left is correct, they can counter in in the market place of ideas. There are many intelligent, very rich, people on the left with tremendous experience in entertainment and information sharing. Just say your ideas and let the battle if ideas begin.

Indeed,the fringe that wants "NO" regulation is probably akin to anarcists, who are usually assoicated with the left.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sean Laney
03:57 PM on 11/06/2010
"It is just silly to say that most GOP believe there should be 'NO governmental interference in daily lives.' It is just a question of regulation of what and how much. Of course, they believe they should not be allowed to rob banks."

Yet the banks are allowed to rob us, time and time again.

"The theory is Glen Beck can lie his nose off, but if the Left is correct, they can counter in in the market place of ideas."

We both know that is nonsense. Propaganda provably works, and those with the money to produce more of it are much more likely to win in the marketplace of ideas, especially with a citizenry that largely lacks critical thinking skills. Plus, just like it is easier to get a person to accept religious nonsense if they were raised "in the faith," it is easy to push American exceptionalism and other silly ideas on Americans who have been inundated with these things from the time they were kids.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ShanaJuly
09:42 AM on 11/06/2010
If you repeat a lie often enough, you are a republican...
06:41 AM on 11/06/2010
When President Bush was in office; I learned a lot about Corporations (Corps.); Politicians; and "Enemy" Nations! Republicans & R.W. Pundits - ACCUSE - Democrats of being Socialists & Communists; who want to create Social Programs to Redistribute Wealth to the middle class and poor! NOW, they blame Pres. Obama and "Illegal Mexicans" for the debt and job losses!

***TRUTH***
1.) Corps. did not like the laws that forced them to:
- Pay their employees a living wage plus benefits
- Provide a safe working environment for their employees
- Respect the land; water; and air where there factories are located

2.) Corps. bought Politicians and Judges, who would create Laws to REWARD them for taking Jobs & Money out of this country & help them AVOID PAYING TAXES! (Taxes pay governments bills!)

3.) Corps. moved their factories, jobs and money to CHINA; TAIWAN; PAKISTAN; & INDIA! Corps. paid the Leaders (very well) for allowing Corps. - to pay their people - as little as $1.00 per day; for appx. an 18 hour work day!

4.) Corps. ship the vast majority of the products that were made overseas - to the U.S. - and charge US - as much as 1000% mark-up; reaping HUGE profits - that EXCITE WALL STREET!

5.) Pres. Bush DECIDED not to include the cost of the WARS in Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan - or the BILLIONS that he BORROWED from China in the U.S. BUDGET!

***OUTSOURCING has made U.S. Corporations & Wall Street VERY RICH!***
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
conservicide
I don't play nice.
05:18 AM on 11/06/2010
Lazy, lazy, lazy!
05:07 AM on 11/06/2010
Democratic Voters are Angry because:

1.) President Obama and the Democratic House & Senate NEGOTIATED from a PLACE OF WEAKNESS! They gave EVERYTHING that the COUNTRY NEEDED - AWAY - in an effort to appease the Republicans; Big Corporations; Oil Companies; Insurance Companies; Big Pharma; Big Banks and Wall Street!!!

2.) President Obama and the Democratic Congress got a lot of LAWS PASSED! Question: How EFFECTIVE will those Laws be? Based upon the process: There are numerous loopholes in those laws! This means that MANY of those Laws are USELESS. The Health Care Mandate Benefits the Insurance Industry: IMMEDIATELY! The vast majority of the public has to wait - YEARS - before they see ANY benefits - if ever!

3.) Instead of doing what is necessary - to help this country - by ABOLISHING Senate Rules - that create gridlock: Senator Harry Reid allowed the Republican Minority to bully him into doing what they wanted! Therefore, HUNDREDS of Bills have been sitting in the Senate; dying a very slow death!

4.) When Bush and the Republicans were in CHARGE of EVERYTHING: They IGNORED the Democrats and passed all kinds of LAWS and got us into THREE WARS - that were NOT paid for and kept the TRUE COSTS SECRET! Now, Obama is being blamed for the DEBT that Bush created and hid!!!

5.) Pres. Obama KEEPS PLAYING "NICE" with the Republican/TeaParty - BULLIES - WHO - are determined to DESTROY him!!!

These are the reasons we are ANGRY!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
conservicide
I don't play nice.
05:20 AM on 11/06/2010
Gloves are OFF.
We're doubling up on your Xsses!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ShanaJuly
09:36 AM on 11/06/2010
Too bad you didn't get this angry when republicans went hog wild on their unfunded spending spree...
02:09 PM on 11/06/2010
Actually, I did! I was active on a lot of news-sites like the HuffPost. I am a HUGE FAN of MSNBC! BTW: I changed my account name, yesterday so that I could streamline all of my accounts....

I was a HUGE ADVOCATE of President Obama when he was running for President! I donated to his campaign and to the DNC!

- Like Millions of Democrats & Independents: I thought he would send President Bush and his cronies to jail.... We accepted the fact that he said he wanted to focus on moving forward....

- We wanted him and the Democratic Congress to USE the MANDATE that we GAVE them to FIGHT for REAL CHANGE - like Roosevelt did....

- We were hoping that he would do what was BEST for the country DESPITE how loud the Repugs & their Financiers complained!

- We NEVER expected him to ask the Republicans for PERMISSION to do his JOB - especially - after - they made many public announcements that they would NOT work with him! Knowing this - he kept trying to BUY their favor - while ignoring his base and the independents who voted for him! He fell into the Republican Trap, over and over, again!

- Because he catered to the Repugs; many of the Laws & Actions that he took were WATERED DOWN and WEAKEND to such a degree; it appears that NOTHING was done! He let the Repugs STEAL his Bully Pulpit: Ref. Obamacare & Death Panels!
04:34 AM on 11/06/2010
Actually I would like him to display the cojones of a former Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau. He was, and still is the gutsiest leader of all those on the North American Contient between the 1960's and the present time. Nixon hated him, and all your other presidents feared his intellect. The fact that he spent time in China and abroad, and experienced both socialist and communist societies left them somewhat less than able to even converse on these matters. You are not the be all, and end all of everthing. Get used to it. Most of you are not liked worldwide. Ah, what do I know, I'm just a Canadian....???
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:26 PM on 11/05/2010
"The most important thing the president has to communicate is strength"
Reagan and Bush did a good job with that..did it improve the country? noooooooo

nobody wants corporations and the rich running and ruining the country, .....do we have a choice? nooooooooooooo
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ShanaJuly
09:37 AM on 11/06/2010
But it's all President Obama's fault whatever he tries to do...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:22 PM on 11/06/2010
"whatever he tries to do"? that's the problem, he has done very little...just minor cosmetic changes. therefore the nickname "bush-lite".
with congress and 60 senators, in two years, he could have changed the "globe"

it's not up to him to decide or "change" anything
people who tried to really change things are not with us, anymore!
03:09 PM on 11/05/2010
Dan you are still on the kool-aide.
America soundly rejected Obama's progressive agenda and voted to reverse our direction away from huge government.
Here you are preaching the same garbage which got dems ousted.
Just remember in 2012 there are some 21 more democratic senators up for reelection and your suggestions will certainly lead to either demise as well.
As the president so eloquently said to Republicans " elections have consequences - I won"
Get over yourself Dan - you LOST!!!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TEHelms
Still learning....
03:29 PM on 11/05/2010
Define "huge government", please. You still can't name anything of substance you would cut if you leave out entitlements and the military. Besides, the Repubs have worst ratings than Dems..people voted out incumbents for the most part. People want effective government and the Repubs just saying "cut taxes" and "don't tax the wealthy" is not going to fly in the end. So, you make up your mind if you want corporations and the rich running and ruining the country or you want effective government by and for the PEOPLE. There is the choice.
04:34 PM on 11/05/2010
But do you really think government by executive fiat as proposed above is a good solution? I'm pretty amazed that this kind of article doesn't seem to get any pushback from liberals! How far does he have to push it before you see what is being described? Even if you favor more government involvement in healthcare, for example, the idea that the legislature would get together, write detailed payoffs for each other, then leave the actual legislation to be written by a bunch of executive appointees, this should bother you at least a little bit.
Can someone tell me why this is acceptable? Why would liberals accept that this benevolent dictator model is a good way to guarantee peoples rights?
08:10 PM on 11/05/2010
This is one conservative who can think of a few cuts. First, cut 80% of the IRS by adopting a flat tax (national sales tax). The IRS is the largest employer in the US. Eliminate the Dept of Energy. Eliminate the Dept of Education. Repeal the 17th Amendment. That will do for starters.
05:20 PM on 11/05/2010
America "soundly rejected" the GOP in 2008 and yet they thought they had a mandate to say no. Just wait till the "small gov't conservatives" vote to privatize social security and start a war with Iran.
photo
Tribal Knowledge
Show respect to all people and grovel to none.
08:29 PM on 11/05/2010
America soundly rejected the Democrats in 2010 - this year.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dunkleberger Karl
Historian,Humanitarian,Hedonist.
03:09 PM on 11/05/2010
If you feel John Bonher is taking too long to get us jobs , call his office @513) 779-5400 or (202) 225-4000. Let him know Its been a week, where are the jobs,Calanders are for Democrates, we republicans won last night , we are now in charge, and any lame duck regulations or legisltion will be overturned befor the ink is dry(Vitter)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
trinity77
09:20 PM on 11/05/2010
Karl,

This is a great idea, even better we should get the phone numbers of all Republican and Tea Party elected officials and call their offices once a week to ask where the jobs are. Great Idea.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dunkleberger Karl
Historian,Humanitarian,Hedonist.
06:19 AM on 11/06/2010
Best Idea I have read since posting on huff post, if you lookup the names after the letter "J" I will focus on a-i! we will we will, rock you!
02:55 PM on 11/05/2010
Go ahead, ignore the electorate, listen to your small minority of progressives, watch all your programs get defunded and the rest of the dems get thrown out of office in 2012. Keep it up and you'll be impeached, few dems are now willing to follow you off a cliff, and could vote you out of office