Will Obama explicitly argue GOP blocked recovery for political reasons?

[Bull Moose Base]

He should bluntly call it like it is but he's probably too cautious to do so.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/191667-florida-poll-nearly-half-say-republicans-sabotaging-the-economy-to-hurt-obama

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Bull Moose Base]

He can't blame others for his own failures.

Nice slogan but you actually can blame lawmakers for failing to make laws.

[Bull Moose Base]

Yes partisanship exist but your job is to  sell your legislation, build a connection with the opposite party and play hard ball if neccesary but also to do whatever's necessary to get things done in Washington. Yes partisanship has gotten worse but nothing Obama has faced was any worse than what Clinton faced in the midst of the Republican Revolution when Newt was speaker.

If Clinton inherited the most severe economic crisis in 80 years and this Republican Party (called crazy by Republican senators Clinton faced), we'd be in the exact same place.  Or Reagan.  (I assume Reagan would have to be a Democrat again.)  Obama didn't have any power to get his jobs bill passed by Republicans that had no interest in a pre-Election Day recovery. No president would have done better and that's the explanation he should be giving for why unemployment has only dropped 2 points in past 2 years, instead of 3.

[Bull Moose Base]

Yes partisanship exist but your job is to  sell your legislation, build a connection with the opposite party and play hard ball if neccesary but also to do whatever's necessary to get things done in Washington. Yes partisanship has gotten worse but nothing Obama has faced was any worse than what Clinton faced in the midst of the Republican Revolution when Newt was speaker.

If Clinton inherited the most severe economic crisis in 80 years and this Republican Party (called crazy by Republican senators Clinton faced), we'd be in the exact same place.  Or Reagan.  (I assume Reagan would have to be a Democrat again.)  Obama didn't have any power to get his jobs bill passed by Republicans that had no interest in a pre-Election Day recovery. No president would have done better and that's the explanation he should be giving for why unemployment has only dropped 2 points in past 2 years, instead of 3.

And that's where we disagree, there's plenty of presidents throughout history who I feel have better qualities that influence their ability to take hard stances, compromise and force action in Washington. I personally feel just from watching Clinton throughout his presidency that he was much more effective selling his ideas in a hostile environment whiles Obama undersold and overcomplicated things like his Healthcare bill when he presented it too both congress and the American people.

On the other hand, Clinton couldn't get his stimulus or healthcare bill (spearheaded by Hillary) past the GOP and Obama did.  And Clinton had no better success persuading the country to stop a GOP midterm wave 2 years after his election.  All of which to me is more evidence the public exaggerates the president's power and influence, which are limited by design.  And what matters more is math: how many votes you need, how many votes are determined to vote against you no matter what, etc.  Obama came into a dire situation that required more government action than any president in decades while facing a minority party who settled on obstruction as a strategy and shattered filibuster records.  Obama also had to push against an opposing propaganda apparatus more powerful, influential and aggressive than anything his predecessors faced.  Given  those factors, I think he's performed pretty well. On stuff like presiding over Bin Laden operation, where he's not encumbered by congress and polls, he's come across as a more effective Commander-in-Chief than Clinton or Reagan.

[Bull Moose Base]

Probably he will in debates with Romney but it will make him look incompetent. As far as ObamaCare is concerned Pelosi mostly pushed that through for him.  He didn't push it through and use the bully pulpit of the presidency to do that.

I think the "big deal" to cut 4 trillion dollars off  the defecit he had with Boehner he should have taken it. It was probably a good deal for both sides of the aisle. "Simpson Bowles" he should have used the bully pulpit of the presidency to push that through. Those 2 things will make Obama look more incompetent than a mediocre economy I think.

So a president who's trying to be nice in the face of an opposition committed solely to ruining him should be considered mediocre because he can't get anything done? Are you blaming the Democrats, too, for not marching in lockstep back when Obama had exactly 60 Democratic Senators and needed every one of them? Also, remember that he only had 1 year or so before Scott Brown was elected.

Yes. What part of being nice and playing hard ball politics go together? To get things done in office you have to be strong whiles willing to compromise.  

On the final days of Newt's government shutdown he rejected every budget offer Clinton gave him trying to force him into the big cuts to medicare. What did Clinton do? He shook Newt's hand and he said Newt, there's nothing else I can do because this isn't a line I'm willing to cross. Guess what happened? He won. Hard ball politics is a mental game of toughness, certain politicians have it and certain politicians lack it. (BTW if you can't tell Clinton's one of my favorite presidents despite his faults)

In this example, "toughness" is largely a willingness to stay in a game of chicken longer.  Obama's problem was that it was often apparent to both sides that no matter how much he could attempt to pretend otherwise, he would pay the worse political damage from a deal falling through.  Both sides understood the president will get simplistic blame or credit for the economy.  Maybe, with the 14th Amendment option to blow past debt ceiling (which Clinton suggested he use), Obama had a stronger hand than he seemed to think.  If Obama had done so, we all know public would now blame for the slowdown regardless of any actual connection.  But he probably should have rejected any connection between ceiling and debt deal from go and dared GOP to tank the economy.  When Obama had clear leverage, like payroll tax holiday extension end of 2011, he forced GOP to cut taxes.  Only deal Obama surely botched was not extracting more from GOP (like debt ceiling lift) when Bush cuts for wealthy were expiring end of 2010.

So a president who's trying to be nice in the face of an opposition committed solely to ruining him should be considered mediocre because he can't get anything done? Are you blaming the Democrats, too, for not marching in lockstep back when Obama had exactly 60 Democratic Senators and needed every one of them? Also, remember that he only had 1 year or so before Scott Brown was elected.

Also, Franken wasn't seated until July and Kennedy died in August.  Obama had about 3 months of super majority (in which he still needed the unreliable votes of Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln).  Other than that, he needed Republican votes (owing to record-breaking obstruction), which is why the stimulus (while still successful) was weaker than it needed to be.