Those first 100 days for the president...a historical perspective

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 3:44 PM GMT
    Commentary: New president's 100 days of pressure

    Story Highlights

    Julian Zelizer: Franklin Roosevelt's first 100 days became a model for presidents

    Zelizer says Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan had good 100 days

    Jimmy Carter's first 100 days were marred by bad relations with Congress, he says

    Zelizer: New president will face huge pressure to accomplish a lot

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/27/zelizer.hundred/index.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 3:56 PM GMT
    whoever is elected is going to be facing a hot shitty mess... i don't know why anyone would want this job: spending $150,000,000 to get a job that pays $400,000/year and gets you the enmity of the entire globe? they're all fools.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 4:55 PM GMT
    There is a lot of pressure for the president elect to start participating in meetings like the G7 before he takes office due to the unprecedented turmoil in the world's economy. Of course George Bush would still be the official head of the government, but it would be useful if the president elect got up to speed quickly. It really is a crappy time for a guy to takeover the presidency. His most important cabinet nominee will be the Treasury Secretary (hopefully Bob Rubin will be involved in this selection process).
  • olden

    Posts: 194

    Oct 28, 2008 5:05 PM GMT
    dancerhussein saidwhomever is elected is going to be facing a hot shitty mess... i don't know why anyone would want this job: spending $150,000,000 to get a job that pays $400,000/year and gets you the enmity of the entire globe? they're all fools.


    $150,000,000, especially when it isn't you money, is a small price to pay for immortality. In any other field, business, art, music only the greatest are remembered. But every President is the subject of a myriad of biographies, even the dullest and least successful of Presidents. You can find biographies of Millard Filmore right there with the Roosevelts and Lincoln, and there will be plenty on Bubba Bush, never fear.

    You are right, the average person wouldn't want the hassle, but there are those how so crave fame that even the hatred of the World is not a deterent.

    This mindset has completely changed the reason people run for President. In the early years of the Republic, people served in office because it was "the proper thing to do." They were there to serve their constituents. Today, people seek office because it is a guarantee of financial success and screw "the prols."

    Please excuse the cynicism, but at times, I think I have lived too long and seen too much to see anything but the worst motives in people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 5:46 PM GMT
    Obama's first hundred days will be memorable only if the Democrats obtain a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the US Senate. Otherwise, Republicans will block his legislative initiatives at every turn.

    It's not well understood that in the US Senate, any single Senator may block legislation if he or she invokes a filibuster. This legislative device may only be overruled by a vote of 60 Senators, out of the 100 total Senate seats representing the current 50 US states (2 x 50).

    This is what the Republicans have done for the last 2 years since they lost their Senate majority in 2006. The Senate is nearly evenly divided, and Republicans have routinely blocked Democratic initiatives using the filibuster, then cynically turned around and criticized Democrats for being "ineffective" and failing to get things done.

    With 60 votes in the Senate, Democrats will get things done.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 6:23 PM GMT
    Red_Hussein_Vespa saidObama's first hundred days will be memorable only if the Democrats obtain a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the US Senate. Otherwise, Republicans will block his legislative initiatives at every turn.

    It's not well understood that in the US Senate, any single Senator may block legislation if he or she invokes a filibuster. This legislative device may only be overruled by a vote of 60 Senators, out of the 100 total Senate seats representing the current 50 US states (2 x 50).

    This is what the Republicans have done for the last 2 years since they lost their Senate majority in 2006. The Senate is nearly evenly divided, and Republicans have routinely blocked Democratic initiatives using the filibuster, then cynically turned around and criticized Democrats for being "ineffective" and failing to get things done.

    With 60 votes in the Senate, Democrats will get things done.


    Hopefully, this will NOT happen... The reason I and many other people are voting for Obama is because he promises to bridge the partisan divide and bring the country together. Steamrolling the Republicans just because you have a fillibuster proof majority would be a big disappointment and harkens back to George Bush type politics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 6:38 PM GMT
    daystroom saidSteamrolling the Republicans just because you have a fillibuster proof majority would be a big disappointment and harkens back to George Bush type politics.


    It might, but would the minority Republicans invoking the filibuster to oppose the will of the American people be any better? The Republicans broke the rule of bipartisanship in the Congress, and should not complain if they have to swallow the same medicine.

    But we all know they'll complain no matter what, and try to throw monkey wrenches into everything the Obama Administration attempts, don't we? This is the era of partisanship, thanks to the Repubs, and we'll continue to see more of this in the future, more like a Parliamentary system than the Congress we knew.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 6:45 PM GMT
    daystroom said Steamrolling the Republicans just because you have a fillibuster proof majority would be a big disappointment and harkens back to George Bush type politics.

    If you have a 60 seat majority, that isnt steamrolling. That's what the people voted for. Besides, look at what Republicans did when they were in power....and I am including a Republican Supreme Court. First being, stealing an election when the people voted otherwise. (You wanna talk strict construction, where do they get off deciding an election?)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 6:47 PM GMT
    Red_Hussein_Vespa said
    daystroom saidSteamrolling the Republicans just because you have a fillibuster proof majority would be a big disappointment and harkens back to George Bush type politics.


    It might, but would the minority Republicans invoking the filibuster to oppose the will of the American people be any better? The Republicans broke the rule of bipartisanship in the Congress, and should not complain if they have to swallow the same medicine.

    But we all know they'll complain no matter what, and try to throw monkey wrenches into everything the Obama Administration attempts, don't we? This is the era of partisanship, thanks to the Repubs, and we'll continue to see more of this in the future, more like a Parliamentary system than the Congress we knew.


    This is exactly what I'm talking about... at some point, someone has to say enough is enough and end it. Hopefully it will be Obama. Two wrongs don't make a right and getting even for past grievences won't do the country any good. Expecting the worst from your political opponents is one of the best ways to bring it out in them... I'm hoping Obama understands this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 6:55 PM GMT
    Red_Hussein_Vespa saidObama's first hundred days will be memorable only if the Democrats obtain a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the US Senate. Otherwise, Republicans will block his legislative initiatives at every turn.


    It doesn't look particularly likely we will get 60 seats in the senate, polls show we will have 59 if everything plays out and the three remaining competative seats are stretches.

    But come on, if policy can't appeal to Arlen Specter or Olympia Snow then it is way too partisan. Throw a dog a bone.