Walking the Walk

West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin says something I’ve been saying for some time now:

(CNN) – The President’s failure to build friendships with lawmakers has damaged his chances of finding bipartisan support for legislation, a senator from his own party said Sunday.

“It’s just hard to say no to a friend,” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“When you build that relationship and that friendship, you’re looking for ways to try to work things out and find a compromise and, you know, that friendship means an awful lot. When you don’t build those personal relationships, it’s pretty easy for a person to say, well, let me talk about it, you know, and not really make, you know, that extra effort.”

To be president you need to win elections but to be an effective president takes more than winning elections. It’s reassuring to me that I’m not the only person pointing this stuff out.

Not all of that is the president’s fault—there’s plenty of animosity from the Republican side. But that doesn’t absolve the president. It just means he should be working twice as hard to cultivate the relationships that are a necessary part of doing the job of president.

14 comments… add one
  • jan Link

    To be president you need to win elections but to be an effective president takes more than winning elections.

    You have to build bridges, not burn them down, to be an effective “anything,” let alone a leader of a country considered to be a world super power. Managing such an office, well, is a matter of temperance, balance, humility, courage, and selecting a competent team in which to hold counsel with. Obama has proven to use none of these traits or tools. He is arrogant, sullen, aloof, counsels with like-minded and inexperienced people, and considers himself beyond reproach because of his high office and the amount of adulation people have bestowed upon him over the years. IOW, he has taken the Messiah role to heart, and feels that the last word is his word. That’s why he has isolated himself from both his own party, as well as the opposition, running the country in what is more and more being called an “Imperial Presidency”.

    I regret that the pendulum of power has swung so harshly to the left, leaving the House more as a whipping boy than an elected representative of the people, retaining the power of the nation’s purse, as they are constitutionally tasked to do. The PPACA drama, though, has frankly been a travesty, in that the republicans were chastised for wanting to delay the implementation of the individual HC insurance market — called by the dems as “terrorists,” holding the country “hostage.” But, when Obama unilaterally made similar extemporaneous changes (some 14 of them), ironing out the wrinkles continuously creasing the reality of the PPACA though delays he called for, there is little critical backwash from his base. It’s seems to be a perfectly understandable move for a democrat to make, but not a republican.

    Unfortunately, I think this kind of “stuck-on-stupid” mentality of the dems will come back to haunt them, if and when the time comes that they are out of power. There will be a backlash, whereas the R’s will embrace the umbrage the D’s are currently manifesting, and we will have a repeat of the circus, except with exchangeable letters behind the names calling the shots in the WH. And, as usual, it will be the people, holding the bag of such back and forth gamesmanship, that seems to be the repeated foreplay of the two major parties holding sway in the central casting department of our political arena.

  • Red Barchetta Link

    Coalition building, trust building, relationship building etc – all variants on the same thing, are a hallmark and required skill of senior executives or legislators. Obama has no such skill. No experience and far too arrogant. And who has been pointing this out for 6 years? Oh, that’s right, me.

    And payback is a bitch.

  • CStanley Link

    The fact that he never developed alliances within his own party is telling ( and proof that Republican intransigence wasn’t the root problem.) To the extent that moderate Dems came on board for PPACA, for instance, it was all Reid and Pelosi, not Obama, who herded them in.

  • Red Barchetta Link

    Its unfortunate that Republicans are so intransigent while Democrats are so willing to work with, understand and compromise with the other side.

    Otherwise we might have terms like “Borked” or Hillary Clinton calling opposition “patriotic” or cost controlling budgets called “dead on arrival,” and god forbid, telling your constituency that republicans want to poison children with contaminated water, keep blacks down or starve the elderly unless dog food be described as gourmet food…….. to pay for prescriptions. Or, can you imagine?, Tea Party types being called tea baggers or MSNBC hosts calling for basic bodily functions to be deposited on opposition political figures?!

    Yeah. Good thing.

  • steve Link

    Or Swiftboating wouldnt be a term in our vocabulary. Or we wouldnt have Dems telling Repubs they arent Real Americans. Or we wouldn’t have people ostracized for opposing a war that they ended up being correct about. Or we wouldnt have Dems shutting down the government for refusing to raise debt limits when the budget they passed required debt limits to be passed. Or we wouldn’t have Dems who were so stupid to call themselves Tea Baggers, then get miffed when they found out what it meant in slang. Or, we wouldnt have Dems passing laws requiring women have large probes shoved inside them because they want to foist their religious beliefs on everyone else. Etc. (Oops, these are all GOP things. Who knew?)

    We shouldnt let you read Jan’s cut and paste from Red State before you make your own comments. The problem is not that both parties say mean things about each other. That has been going on for many years. The problem is that pols are more worried about losing in the primary than in the general. We had a sweeping loss for the GOP in 2008 as the voters rejected them for their awful domestic policy and even worse foreign policy. (This was more of a vote against the GOP than for Obama.) The remaining GOP pols in office were from districts so safe they wouldnt vote for a Dem no matter how badly the GOP screwed up. The only thing the remaining people were afraid of was a primary challenge from the far(ther) right. Which one of those guys does Obama become buddies with, and how do they win re-election?

    Just a reminder of how bad things were and are. The original “death panel” clause in the ACA was put in with three GOP co-sponsors (one Dem sponsor). It got tossed out when it was decided it could be called a death panel to garner votes against the ACA. A clause that was supported by every major medical group, and its GOP sponsors gone in a heartbeat for fear of being seen as helping Obama.

    Now, to be fair, as Chief Exec, part of Obama’s job is to figure out some way to get past this impasse. He needed to figure out some way to adequately incentivize some GOP pols to work with him. I dont know what that incentive was/is, and neither do any of you as I certainly dont see you offering up anything, but that doesnt relieve him of the job.

    Steve

  • Now, to be fair, as Chief Exec, part of Obama’s job is to figure out some way to get past this impasse. He needed to figure out some way to adequately incentivize some GOP pols to work with him. I dont know what that incentive was/is, and neither do any of you as I certainly dont see you offering up anything, but that doesnt relieve him of the job.

    That’s almost precisely the point I’ve been making. And I’ve made suggestions any number of times. The president could appoint Republicans as close advisors rather than old Chicago buddies. He could go golfing with Republicans rather than his close cadre of associates. He could preferentially socialize with Republicans.

    Heck, he could preferentially socialize with Democratic Congressional leaders. That would be an improvement over what he’s done in the bridge-building department to date.

    This is an area in which, clearly, the president and I disagree. I think that politics is a business of relationships. It’s not just a matter of being right and everybody falling into line, darn it.

  • jan Link

    We shouldnt let you read Jan’s cut and paste from Red State before you make your own comments.

    Steve,

    I don’t read Red State. Years ago I stumbled upon it and didn’t like it.

    As for the term “swiftboating,’ becoming a derogative term — the allegations against Kerry were not without merit, IMO. The number of men coming in contact with him, and having a less than admirable opinion of the man should not be dismissed. Being in the service you develop instincts about those you serve with, expecially in life and death situations. The remarks and observations about Kerry came from credible veterans with honorable records, whose stories had a common thread to them of a man out to make a name for himself — guts and glory resume builder — with a political career being constructed in the back of his mind. I have viewed Kerry as an opportunist — in his marriages to rich women, his changing views on the war (one giving him JFK standing, while the other made him a hero of war activists), and now with his awkward portrayal of SOS.

    The loss in 2008 was a rejection of Bush. In hindsight he was not as bad as people made him out to be. But, dems are far more creative and adept at demonization than the R’s could ever be. Just the fact a POTUS is republican, puts such a person in negative territory before having a chance to exercise any policy. For instance, if a republican had the demeanor, incompetence, made the mistakes that Obama has made he/she would be at 25% approval rating. IMO, Obama is coasting on excuses and base loyality.

    The original “death panel” clause in the ACA was put in with three GOP co-sponsors (one Dem sponsor). It got tossed out when it was decided it could be called a death panel to garner votes against the ACA. A clause that was supported by every major medical group, and its GOP sponsors gone in a heartbeat for fear of being seen as helping Obama.

    Do you have a link to that assertion?

  • jan Link

    I think that politics is a business of relationships.

    To be an effective POTUS you have to be a skilled negotiator, not lead with a chip on your shoulder, break bread with everyone to make a deal, like people, have a thick skin, release and let go of unworkable idealogical agendas, prioritize the importance of what policies get done first, and last but not least try to do no harm.

  • steve Link

    jan- Sad that you still buy into the Swiftboating narrative. They did their work well. Granted, it takes all of a minute or two to find that all of those involved were politically motivated.

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

    “A bill to provide for reimbursement every five years for office visit discussions with Medicare patients on advance directives, living wills, and other end of life care issues was proposed by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) in April 2009—with Republican cosponsors Charles Boustany (R-LA), a cardiovascular surgeon, Patrick Tiberi (R-OH), and Geoff Davis (R-KY).[32][33][34] The counseling was to be voluntary and could be reimbursed more often if a grave illness occurred. The legislation had been encouraged by Gundersen Lutheran and a loose coalition of other hospitals in La Crosse, Wisconsin that had had positive experiences with the widespread use of advance directives.[32][33][35][36] Blumenauer’s standalone bill was tabled and inserted into the large health care reform bill, HR 3200 as Section 1233 shortly afterward.[32][37][38] Supporters of the Section 1233 counseling provision included the American Medical Association (AMA), AARP, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, and Consumers Union; the National Right to Life Committee opposed “the provision as written.”[39] It was removed from the Senate version of the bill due to the death panel controversy[40] and was not included in the reconciled and final bill which became law in March 2010 and which is known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[13]”

    If you ever come up to PA, would be glad to introduce you to the young nurse who wept through her grandmother’s being intubated and placed on a vent against her and her grandmother’s wishes. They couldnt find her living will, and her two brothers didnt want to make a decision as they had never talked with the physicians caring for her. All taken care of if we had left the “death panel” in. At least it made for a good talking point and what’s a few thousand old people tortured to death compared with gaining a few votes?

    Steve

  • ... Link

    I think that politics is a business of relationships.

    Almost EVERY human endeavor is a matter of relationships. I don’t carre how good an engineer is, or how good his bridge design is, it ain’t gettin’ built UNLESS he can get a lot of other people to agree to do it, in a large variety of different fields.

    There aren’t that many fields in which one can ignore relationships and expect to do well, and even in those it is usually a matter of other people suffering genius in order to get the results those others want.

  • Andy Link

    This post reminded me of this recent piece about “This Town” (DC):

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/this-town-sam-youngman-shove-it-101307.html

    Here’s the quote:

    I suppose part of my disillusionment had to do with my breakup with bourbon, after a real-life, devastating romantic breakup that was followed by a downward spiral. When I returned from my 28 days in rehab, in January 2010, it was harder to ignore the near criminal disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country, especially in an industry that has turned neighbors against each other while its instigators clock out and meet for a beer together, skilled actors who in many cases spend the day feigning hatred for each other on camera but are actually bound by their shared nihilism and reckless self-absorption. In Washington, a divided America is good for business.

    The whole thing is well worth reading.

  • jan Link

    Steve,

    I have referred to the term ‘death panels’ as relating to IPAB, not coined by Palin — The Independent Payment Advisory Board — a 15-member government agency, that was created in 2010 by sections 3403 and 10320 of the PPACA. Considering the loose, unilateral and changing language of the PPACA, such a board could be a guise to simulate a ‘death panel’ of sorts, in order to save costs.

    Critics of IPAB have charged that the board’s cost-cutting mandate will inevitably bring about a reduction in care, despite the anti-rationing language in the bill. Congressman Phil Roe from Tennessee, a medical doctor, warned that IPAB will ration care through payment policy. American Medical News charged that the bill gives IPAB “unprecedented, dangerous authority to cut Medicare pay rates and strangle access to care.”[14] IPAB has frequently been denounced by its critics as a death panel

    There is a big difference between a “voluntary counseling session” with people about end-of-life options and wishes, versus one where treatment is denied by a bureaucratic board who is not necessarily even medically trained. That’s why people have ‘Living Wills,’ and Power of Attorney paperwork. For instance, when my mother-in-law had cancer, family decisions were made with her doctor, to not put her through torturous chemotherapy which would only serve as a short life extension. As an RN I’ve had many experiences dealing with the struggles of disease and death. So, I don’t need to go to PA for a lesson I have already dealt with in both my professional and personal life.

    Your allegation that the military criticism leveled at Kerry was politically motivated doesn’t make numerical sense, as there were 200 Navy veterans (an “overwhelming majority”), with distinguished records, who called Kerry out on his questionable service in Vietnam. The charges leveled against Kerry are not minor. They include filing false operating reports; lobbying for and receiving three Purple Hearts for minor wounds, two of which were self-inflicted; receiving a Silver Star under false pretenses; offering false confessions of bogus war crimes in both print and testimony; and recklessness in the field, including the burning of a village without cause or direct order. Supposedly he self-reported going to Cambodia, which turned out to be a lie. Lastly, Kerry only served in Vietnam a mere 4 months (when the usual tour of duty is one year), so he could go back to the states, flamboyantly throw his unearned metals away, openly testify about atrocities, while endangering POWs still in captivity.

    I don’t call Kerry courageous, nor do I think he is worthy of any office. The man is a sham — pure and simple.

  • steve Link

    All allegations by people with significant GOP ties. You dont see the military taking these claims seriously. You do see veterans groups unhappy about these kinds of claims. The fact is that he served on a small boat going up and down rivers in Viet Nam. He was at risk. Unlike any number of true GOP patriots, some of them getting up to five deferments, who managed to avoid the military.

    As far as the IPAB, read what you quoted. “Its critics claim” means that they dont care what it says, they are just going to make up predictions about what will happen in the future. The current IPAB does not allow any of those things to happen, so they cant attack the current version, just some make believe future version. Here, let me show you how this works.

    Paul Ryan’s vision of health care reform will inevitably lead to the formation of armed police groups that will hunt down and kill on the spot poor people who receive any free care at our hospitals in an effort to cut costs. A medical doctor and corporate CEO, and frequent commenter at the Glittering Eye, has confirmed this possibility.

    See? It is actually kind of fun. Appeal to authority, unsubtantiated claim and lots to be scared of.

    Steve

  • jan Link

    Unlike any number of true GOP patriots, some of them getting up to five deferments, who managed to avoid the military.

    Steve,

    Do all your arguments have to end with comparing the bad behavior of a dem to the worst behavior of some obscure GOP people? There are bad and incompetent apples in every group — I agree. But, frankly what I read about the background of the people signing petitions against Kerry, their major beef was that he was a yahoo type of soldier — in it for the gain and fame in order to have an exciting military background to caw about when running for a future position in government. Remember how Kerry came out in the dem convention, after winning the D presidential nomination, saluting and saying he was “reporting for duty!” What a crock!

    Furthermore, the military men who supported him, ironically, also became paid members in his campaign too. I think Kerry is an out-and-out-phony. You can bring up other republicans who are just as scandalous and false as he was. But, it still doesn’t take away from the blight on his own character, in trying to exonerate these allegations, by bringing up the flaws of others, on the other side of the political spectrum.

    “Your people” say that the PPACA, along with the IPAB, will do exactly as they rhetorically guarantee it do — bend the cost of HC, have greater HC access for those not having any, and have a neutral agency determine better end of life standards. That’s called the best case scenario. But, everyone knows that such a scenario seldom happens in the way it’s supposed to. As we speak now, the entire equation of the PPACA is suffering reversals in it’s original marketing gambit — with more people signing up for medicaid, less healthy, young people falling for taking the brunt of HC costs, fewer people in general liking this legislation, more people than predicted having their plans canceled, and lots of rumors spreading about the government having to bail insurance companies out (via the risk corridors quietly written into the bill, for good measure) for unforeseen financial losses which bends the HC curve upward.

    So, when you rationalize that reservations about the IPAB is merely the critics negativity bleeding though, I will remind you that many of these same critics tried to warn people about all the problems the PPACA would generate, simply through the creation of a myopic partisan push for an idealistic solution to a pragmatic problem.

Leave a Comment