ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 02/22/2018 11:53 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.232 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
01/19/2010 06:47 AM ID: 82525 Permalink   

Obama Best First-Year President in 50 Years in Getting Legislative Agenda Passed

 

Congressional Quarterly has been measuring the success rates for presidents in getting legislation passed on which they took a public stand for over 50 years, and the most successful first-year president has been Barack Obama.

Beating out even legendary Congress-wrangler Lyndon Johnson, President Obama has passed 96.7 percent of the bills on which he took a stand. "That´s an extraordinary number," said CQ´s John Cranford, beating Johnson´s 93% and Eisenhower´s 89%.

Experts say that while having Democratic control of both houses of Congress certainly helped, Obama also helped himself by taking strong stands only on key issues that were very important to him, choosing his battles carefully.

 
  Source: www.npr.org  
    WebReporter: Ben_Reilly Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  24 Comments
  
  That´s easy  
 
to do when you have a liberal President and a liberal House and Senate. But now the stuff is beginning to hit the fan. I can´t wait to see the repercussions of his actions. The People of the United States of America, that voted for Obama, seem to be realizing their mistake. The tide is changing FAST.
 
  by: av8rdav   01/19/2010 10:44 AM     
  @av8rdav  
 
Easier than it is for a conservative president with a conservative house and senate?

What is the stuff is hitting the fan?

The tide isn´t changing just because you say it is.
 
  by: Jamesmc   01/19/2010 11:31 AM     
  @pfft  
 
Obama is a noob compared to Bush.
He passed a bunch of morally gray bills at best with the support of the people, Bush invaded 2 countries withOUT any support from the people, now THAT is talent in leadership.
 
  by: silentrage   01/19/2010 12:27 PM     
  @silentrage  
 
no, that´s just being an idiot.
 
  by: m.i.a.elite     01/19/2010 02:52 PM     
  sorry  
 
Bush had support from a vast majority at the time. How where we to know the "evidence" was a lie.
 
  by: monstrddg   01/19/2010 02:59 PM     
  @monstr  
 
Common sense.
 
  by: darkshanker   01/19/2010 05:54 PM     
  @av8rdav  
 
I would not say he is liberal. Not when people like Bush are Republicans. Republican party members are as liberal as Democrats.

Of course when speaking in terms of true liberalism, I would not dare use the word to describe either party. They are not liberal nor conservative. They only serve their own interests. Both are as crooked as all get out.

In terms of fiscal policy, both parties are spenaholics. Their only major difference is their social attitudes. In terms of economics, foreign policy, etc., they are very similar.
 
  by: slavefortheman     01/19/2010 07:31 PM     
  @av8rdav  
 
"But now the stuff is beginning to hit the fan."
Is that the lies Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are feeding you? You people eat that BS up with a spoon.
 
  by: Lurker     01/19/2010 08:01 PM     
  @Lurker  
 
And I suppose that all of the Independents that are about to ruin the Dems´ supermajority were watching Fox News too, huh?

Get your head out of the sand, man. When will people like you get over your partisan hatred of the previous administration and admit that Obama and Bush are two sides of the same coin - POLITICIANS who only care about their own personal interests and not what the voters want to see happen. Bush was the oil guy, and Obama is the bank guy.

It´s ignorant, uninformed voters like you who vote based on emotion rather than the issues that allow corrupt politicians like Obama, Bush, Congress, etc. run this country into the ground for their own ulterior motives.
 
  by: datsuncaptain1     01/19/2010 09:22 PM     
  @datsuncaptain  
 
Ruin the democrats supermajority??? What are you talking about? More republicans retired this year then democrats. The GOP is trying to find a way to morph the TEA party into with their platform but with no avail. They are unsure where they are going next. Their chairman even said so.

You have national politicians that are corrupt yes, but that happens NO MATTER WHO you put in office. Does not matter if you are an "independent thinking voter" like yourself. You think your vote has any power at all hate to break it to you buddy, but you might as well go get really rich so you can buy your votes. It is alot more efficient
 
  by: rj712   01/19/2010 10:50 PM     
  @Lurker  
 
No. I form my own opinions. I am the ultimate skeptic when it comes to media. I don´t listen to Rush or Beck at all.
 
  by: av8rdav   01/20/2010 01:45 AM     
  @rj712  
 
So here´s my suggestion: INTRODUCE TERM LIMITS! End politics as a career and we might re-introduce some accountability into Washington. I´m not coming out on the side of D or R here, I am telling you that our current system is completely broken and no amount of politics on either side will fix it. Although there is no such thing as a true independent, it becomes evident in recent years that an "independent-style" approach must be taken while observing candidates - that is, BREAK AWAY FROM THE PARTISAN CRAP and learn to THINK FOR YOURSELF. That is the problem with most of these people on both sides of the political spectrum, is that they are all wrapped up in Democrats and Republicans when the problem lies in the system itself.

And as far as the supermajority goes, I´m talking about the Dems potentially losing their key 60th seat. That was it.
 
  by: datsuncaptain1     01/20/2010 01:48 AM     
  @rj  
 
are ya blind??

have you seen the way the polls been going?

have you seen how more and more people are involved in politics now then there ever have been?

have you seen how the people running on the less government less taxes stance have been blowing away the competition?

did you see SCOTT BROWN blow Coakley out of the water? i mean if MASS cant get the biggest liberal seat filled by a liberal you have alot to worry about in the up coming elections.

give it up already, the dems have BLEW it..oh and it only took them a short short time to do so..
 
  by: cray0la     01/20/2010 03:51 AM     
  talk about  
 
over-reaching...

see where thats gotten them.

the american people have stood up and through out the idea of a more liberal socialistic government here in the USA..
 
  by: cray0la     01/20/2010 03:52 AM     
  Socialist?  
 
More like corporatism by two right wing christian parties hell bent on helping the already wealthy for at least a couple of decades. It´s a disgrace.
 
  by: Kaleid   01/20/2010 04:06 AM     
  a snippet  
 
of a SPOT ON piece in the wallstreet journal...

"Tomorrow marks the anniversary of President Obama´s Inaugural, and it´s worth recalling the extraordinary political opportunity he had a year ago. An anxious country was looking for leadership amid a recession, and Democrats had huge majorities and faced a dispirited, unpopular GOP. With monetary policy stimulus already flowing, Democrats were poised to get the political credit for the inevitable economic recovery.

Twelve months later, Mr. Obama´s approval rating has fallen further and faster than any recent President´s, Congress is despised, the public mood has shifted sharply to the right on the role of government, and a Republican could pick up a Senate seat in a state with no GOP Members of Congress and that Mr. Obama carried by 26 points."
 
  by: cray0la     01/20/2010 05:37 AM     
  ill be posting  
 
the opinion piece i posted the snippet above in the forums section..
 
  by: cray0la     01/20/2010 05:38 AM     
  Just a quick note  
 
I am saving my grading for Valks link but Crayola I take issue with something and I have watched it happen and can not believe that no one sees it or cares to.

Obama ran on a platform of bi-partisanship, but made one mistake with that because none of the Republicans are willing to work with him. So half of your polls and charts and whatever should take that into consideration and for all the SN´ers here that claim to be right leaning but open to anyone and for those honest enough to be so far shoved up the right it isn´t pretty? You are applauding your Republicans for "getting" the Democrats or even Obama himself when they are laughing at you because you, actually WE, have paid these Republican Senators and Representatives to do nothing at all.

As for Brown winning in MA it isn´t as big as everyone is making it out to be since most of the Democrats I know out there, including my in-laws voted for him too. Also Romney won out there before and he is the one that got Health Care to all in MA...think about that one and Brown isn´t as huge as you and the media want it to be.
 
  by: TaraB     01/20/2010 05:53 AM     
  @TaraB  
 
I think that the thing that makes Brown´s win such a big deal is that MA has been hardcore leftist for such a long time, that to break with that tradition must be saying something about how the public views leftists and their ideas.

I´ve heard a lot of fear mongering on both sides of the political fence. But I think that Brown´s win in such a liberal state is a huge statement about what people fear the most. People don´t want a health care plan that is rushed through the legislative process with artificial deadlines. That was my main fear about it. Democrats wanted it so bad that they were willing to push it through with numerous flaw, just to be able to claim victory.

Frankly, I was starting to worry about this crap being force-fed to me, and having to take money out to pay for health insurance (under penalty of law), even though my budget is strained already. I truly didn´t see any way out of that, but now I do.
 
  by: WillyMaykett   01/20/2010 08:36 PM     
  @willy  
 
You haven´t heard about the exceptions made for people for whom the insurance requirement would create hardships?
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     01/20/2010 08:41 PM     
  @Ben_Reily  
 
You would have to be on welfare, or close to that income level for any kind of exception to kick in, and I´m not a hardship case yet. But I do have lots of expenses (bills to pay, for those of you who don´t have them), and I have pleasures that I can afford now that I would not have should I have to take money out for something that I don´t want or need.
 
  by: WillyMaykett   01/20/2010 09:11 PM     
  @crayola / datsun  
 
ok first I agree with your sentiment on term limits datsun but we need to go further than that. We need to severely strict lobbying down to its most basic form, restrict campaign donations, and restrict corpoate involvement in the political process in general!

It is known that in national elections both the democratic and republican candidate are funded by the largest financial institutions as well as the largest corporate firms on the earth. It is well known that K street in NW DC is home to thousands of lobbyists that are paid for one goal only, no matter what the social cost. They have budgets which rival other developed countries GDP.

Secondly, the commercialization of politics is sickening. Look how they call it an "upset" and use other sport jargon like it s a F´ing sport game or something? Political consequences should never be equated to a sport game unless the people of the country have no other way of comprehending it aka we are stupid as crap.

No longer are these two parties stand for anything. They are more like strategic arms for the people who donate the most to them to help mold public opinion towards a certain product or candidate.

And Crayola I enjoy your enthusiasm for politics but I think you are misguided. Think locally down to your own community and start with the problems there. If you see problems try to solve them. Then you will see political activism will grow from communities. It is a waste of time talking about senate races not inb your state. You are not a paid political pundit, you have nothing to gain about talking about the parties on a national level because you will never have influence over what their next strategic move will be.
 
  by: rj712   01/20/2010 09:37 PM     
  @Willy  
 
So what happens when you´re in a car accident and you can´t pay the $20,000 or so the hospital wants to charge you for looking you over for 10 minutes or so? You´ll just skip the bill and pass that expense on to the rest of us, huh?
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     01/20/2010 09:45 PM     
  @Ben_Reily  
 
No Ben. That´s the way a Democrat would do it. First of all, I would have auto insurance which would cover any injury sustained in an auto accident.

If something else should happen (say, a heart problem), then I would set up a payment plan with the hospital. To me, paying the hospital a few hundred per month directly for something that has happened is a much better solution than paying an insurance company for something that might never happen. Almost any hospital will work with you if you show that you are willing to pay in installments, no matter the size of the bill. It´s the deadbeats that walk away from their bills that the hospitals don´t like.
 
  by: WillyMaykett   01/20/2010 10:09 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com