exactly. the power of the bully pulpit is what Obama needs to wield. He must continuously pound home his message over and over to win the ideological struggle with the wealthy elite and the Republicans. Do that religiously, and he may get a Congress he can work with in 2014.

I see Scot is willing to help our President with his agenda, why am I surprised, yes, those evil mean republicans. FYI Scot, President Obama has been taking his agenda to the people for four years now. I hope he gets everything he's looking for, when it crashes the people will certainly be surprised. 

Which part of congress has not passed a budget since 2009 as required - answer the senate controlled by Democrats

so whose fault is it ?

Scot, these worde from your column were chilling:  "Obama must keep uppermost in mind that the best way to win in Washington is make his opponents fear the consequences of thwarting him"

NEW PARAGRAPH:  What made this line so bad, was that you spent the entire column showcasing how bad the Republicans have been, and touting Obama's gift at oratical appeal to the masses.  Then, you toss aside any pretense that Obama is a reasonable man, and suggest he simply dare them to disagree, as he will make the, look like extremists.

NEW PARAGRAPH:  This is gamesmanship and "brinksmanship" that trumps any such conduct from the GOP.  Obama has NEVER been able to negotiate.  He simply demands what he wants, calls the opposition extreme, and forces his will on an unwilling nation. (sometimes by fiat).

NEW PARAGRAPH:  His defiant, angry inaugural speech portends more of the same.  He has no desire to work with the half of the country which disagree, but his cheerleaders like Scot will continue to act like his conduct is serious, and to chastise his opposition.  Yes Scot, your closing idea proves that you see no need for the president to work with the opposition.  

What B.O. wants to do is push our country faster towards the horrendous financial sewer of Southern Europe. I applaud all Republicans who do everything they can to stop him.

Clearly Scot has shed any pretense of objectivity as regards President Obama. What Scot is advocating is the Imperial Presidency, one which denies the Constitutional concept of three seperate but equal branches of government. Any moderate who cast her/his vote for President Obama in the recent election is geting a rude awakening. This president is trying force our centrist nation sharply to the left. I hope that Congress and the Courts have the courage to reign him in.

Obama - the food stamp president, and lord of the low-information voter.

The difficulty for Republican's here and for those commentors here is that they fail to see that the public has moved.  They fail to see or perhaps do see and cannot deal with the idea that not only the demographics of the nation but the mindset of those in those demographics have moved.  We seem to have had an interesting confluence of events.  The President sees it, main stream Republicans see it, but the far right and their supporters cannot seem to deal with it.

The Presidents speech basically said I debated and ran and won on these particular issues the American public has decided.  Main stream Repubicans recognize that this coalition has determined it will not see cuts to SS, Medicare etc. that these programs are part of the American scene and has shown that the R's cannot win a national election running agaist these programs.  Hence we see an attempt to change the very way President's are elected by altering the electoral college. 

Main stream Republicans now must return to the old fashion means of legislating which is acting in the loyal opposition.  This they accomplish by bringing bills to the floor molding them with amendments as they can while they seek a means to reformulate their message to a national public that has changed.  I am hopeful that the R's will take this more pragmatic role, recalculate the message and seek a way forward that includes those programs that the American public believes to be a permanent part of this nation. 

The country needs a strong Republican Party but one that recognizes what the vast majority has made clear it desires from government.  There is nothing in the word "conservative" that says we cannot have these programs that have long been a staple of the nation. It is in fact conservative to "conserve" something that has now long been a part of our national scene.  "Conservatives" should in fact seek a means to conserve these programs and their benefits through a proper tax code that meets the national needs.

Attaturk:

Maybe you have missed this, but the GOP controlled House has passed budgets, the old fashioned way.  It has been the senate that has refused to engage.  They have simply relied on "continuing resolutions" to maintain spending at existing levels.  It is the Democrats who have refused to negotiate.  

The GOP would be guilty of malpractice if they simply went along with the Democrats, because "the people have spoken".  The path the president wants makes no cuts in spending, and no reforms to entitlements.  Even if the people "want" to commit suicide, the grown ups need to step in.  

"he will have to rally the country on a continual basis."

The devil is always in the details.  Scot, you hit the nail right on the head, "the country".  It is becoming apparent that "the country" is becoming more divided every day this president is in office, and sharply so.  Your premise is that Obama should keep "campaigning" to keep the pressure on, to rally his supporters to force issues.  Campaigning, and saying those oh-so-forceful sounding slogans goes over great with the base that loves him, it has exactly the opposite effect on those who wish he had never been born.  A leader does not lead by ramming agendas down throats, that might work for a little while, but not in the long run.

The best Obama can hope for is that he can campaign hard enough in the next two years (while he should be leading the country) to get more support in the Congress.

He is an orator, not a leader.  I will give one example:  Gun control.  After all the speechifying, what exactly did he accomplish?  Signed 23 Executive "actions", some that require congressional funding.  Supported Feinstein's bill that may not even make it to the floor of the  Senate and has virtually no chance of being passed in the House.  He formed a panel led by Joe Biden that only served to further alienate gun owners, rather than gather them in to help work towards a solution.  His actions would have been great during a campaign, not so much when he has to lead a nation and solve a problem.  Later, he will try to further divide the country by placing the blame on Republicans, but the fact is, about half the country view gun control very differently than the large eastern cities and a few other large metro areas.

To heck with it, I will give another example, he is going to attempt another divide, Gay Rights.  So far, this has been a States issue, now he is going to involve the Feds in it, or attempt to.  After all the rhetoric, will the Federal government become involved?  What congressman wants to touch that hot potato?  But after the dust settles, Obama will be pointing fingers again.

You say it is "rallying the country", really?  It looks more like carving the country up like a Xmas turkey.

Obama knows how to take his case to the people.   The tea baggers will be rejected at every turn until they fade out or learn to be adults.

Didn’t Peter Diamond receive his Nobel Prize after he withdrew his name from consideration for the Federal Reserve Board?  This op-ed makes it sound like Dr. Diamond already had the award when Sen. Shelby opposed his nomination.

It is unlikely that the 'bully pulpit' will help bring public pressure to bear on Republicans. Those from districts with comfortable majorities will still feel as though they have a mandate to oppose the President even to the point of haranguing him over whether he puts his right leg or his left leg into his trousers first. Those whose re-election in 2014 is less certain still have no incentive to legislate, given the challenges from the fringe. I would be far more interested in whether the President can sway Congressional Democrats who are on the fence. Tsynchronous below gleefully insinuates that Sen. Reid is to blame for Senate gridlock, even though Senate Democrats never had a filibuster-proof bloc; they were never sufficiently united, and now they enjoy only a thin majority. T is correct, however, that it is high time that Sen. Reid focus on legislating rather than counter-gamesmanship with Sen. McConnell.

Obama should leverage his "popularity"? According to Gallup he has the lowest approval rating since WWII. Gun control? The NRA is more popular. "Climate Change"? Is that the same or different than "Global Warming"? Either way the public has little interest in bankrupting the country based on a theory that is so feeble its authors won't publish all their data. Around the world there's growing skepticism of "Climate Change/Global Warming" with the public (if one would care to look). Worse, no countries are signing up for any treaties relating to this theory. Immigration policy? Again, there's little interest in sweeping changes among the public and more support harder border security than another amnesty. By all means, Obama shouldn't negotiate, shouldn't offer any spending reductions (much less freeze any spending) as everyone knows NOTHING can be slowed or reduced in government spending at any level, at any time. Of course, somehow individuals, families, business and other non-government organizations manage to reduce spending without the world ending but, nah, every cent spent on every government program is......yeah, an "investment" now so we can't possibly cut "investments", can we? Apparently, when you win an election with 1% more than half the voters one now has a mandate so unequivocal that you can do anything you please with no consideration of negotiating. Surely there are even more delusional ideas one can fabricate to support Obama but this piece is an excellent start. 

In american politics what we have seen is that with few exceptions those candidates with the largest war chest usually win.  As a result most politicians spend too much time raising money instead of raising awareness.  As americans it is our responsibility to cut through the lies "as seen on tv".  These groups sometimes claim non-partisanship.  They have great sounding names like the Heritage Foundation, the Pioneer Institute, American Crossroads, and Americans for Prosperity.  The only prosperity their interested in is their own.  So Mr. President please take your case to the american people.  Hopefully you can convince a few more people to stop voting against their best interests.

I would like to point out that the Democrats and Republicans need each other.  Either one with an overwhelming majority is dangerous and takes the country down slippery paths.  We all know that Dems love to spend, spend, SPEND.  So they need some Reps to say "hold it, back off with the spending!"  The Reps can be a pain with the "Business is good for the country" routine.  Uh huh, sure, as corporate types figure out how to move businesses offshore and still reap huge profits as unemployment soars.  But then we are told, "It is trickle down economics".

It is dangerous when it comes to social ideas too.   Metropolitan areas may be more open to certain liberal ideas, not so much in the country.  But given a bit of time, the rural folk usually come to accept the ideas. (they are not all knuckle dragging, confederate flag, teeth missing, idiots)  In fact, having lived in rural areas, quite often they are MORE tolerant than city folk.  The point being, that is why it is best to leave some social changes as "States Rights" rather than "Federal Law".  If one looks at a map, it quickly becomes apparent, many states are very rural in makeup.  But here in the Northeast, different story.

What worries me about Obama is that it appears he is trying to crush the Republicans and get an overwhelming majority to push his social ideas on an entire country.  We have had some of that in the past, most of those social ideas have not worked.

When the President "goes to the people" he is often talking to a more reasonable audience than when his audience is only on Capitol Hill.  Most people would agree that in order for individuals to succeed there are things that we need to do as a community. Most people would agree that arming people with AK-47s for "hunting" is absurd.  Even Mr. Scalia has hinted as much.  And with good leadership, in the not too distant future, gay or straight, black or white, will be simply attributes (like Democrat or Republican) rather than stimulents for bile.  For now, though, a combination of FDR and pre-Vietnam LBJ would be ideal...but I'll take what I can get.

Scot: have you not noticed that our country increases its debt without actually having a budget?  I'd be interested to know why you don't mention the Senate refusal to pass one, when attacking Republicans for their resistance to raising the debt ceiling. Also, you don't find it odd that the president didn't mention the national debt in his address? Oh well, as long as he's a "reasonable man", willing to "work out sensible compromises" -- after having a news conference to attack those with whom he need to work, in the middle of negotiations. Don't you think you've proven you're not a racist, and can now note real flaws in our president?

To an earlier psot - we are not Europe, but you can't look at the yield curve as prrof. The market has been wildly manipulated by the Fed to prop it up.

Gay rights, climatre and immigration are just point he knows he can score points with his base and demonize the right. How about talking about, debt, unemployment, LT disability rates, food stamp rolls, etc. THAT is what matters. It's the economy stupid and he owns it now.

Guys,

Some of these last post are moving into silliness. Probably no one has written more often about the deficit than I have. That said, every column needn't be deficit focused.

No, it's silly when, say, people act as though I never say anything about the debt and deficit. I've written about it on a regular basis for at least a decade.

The trouble is, who is to pay to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. GOP supporters love to demonize the welfare people, disability people, TARP money etc. while totally ignoring corporate tax fraud, evasion, giveaways etc. which adds up to lots of money. Google--1 billion in tax dodges. I sense a lot of predjudice as i burrow down to the causes of vehemence in political arguments. Condemnation of the black president still exists, and a willingness to penalize those considered socially inferior still fuels much of the shrieking on the right. Obama is determined to set the record straight on who has been stiffing the resposibility of paying your fair share. It's so easy to blame the poor, the mentally ill, the sick, the unemployed for the nation's trouble and this is a card always played by the right. It's akin to bullying, picking on those who have no voice, no campaign money to send . As for those who love to blame "liberals" for the debt, it shouild be remebered that every Democratic administration since and including Truman produced a balanced budget, not so for the Republican.

Scot,

I see this column as one about the politics of the moment.  You seem to believe that chastising the opposition, and refusing to negotiate is consistent with the legacy or President Reagan.  You may not recall, but Reagan and Tip O'Neill were buddies who liked each other very much.  Reagan went out of his way to work with both sides-from agreeing to a tax increase on the (false) promise of future spending cuts, to appointing Anthony Kennedy after the Democrats destroyed Robert Bork.  Reagan was a statesman, and one from whom our current president could learn a great deal.

I am just tired of the fawning of the left:

SuperBrain

Most important memoir since Grant

Washington like speech

Lincolnesque.

Please

Richmond: On the tax stuff, you are once again trying to slip the surly bonds of fiscal gravity.

BushKept: What do you see that you consider such a dramatic break with American tradition? Specifics, please. Also, please realize that much of the projected deficit is entitlements, which are spiking because of the retirement of the baby-boomers.

Richmond: Would that Congressional Republicans were as respectful of this president as Tip was of the Gipper.

Scot it would be great if the president tried to fix problems and build concensus rather than start from points where americans are most divided. Its even sadder that those in the media dont call him out for it.

"As long-time political observer Michael Barone put it, "Barack Obama begins his second term with a strategy to defeat and humiliate Republicans rather than a strategy to govern.""

I think the conservatives here have to come to grasp with a central reality. Obama won in 2008 -- and yet, Republicans spent much of his first term trying to thwart him at nearly every turn. He won again last year, despite their strong belief that voters disagreed with him. It turned out that voters disagreed with them. The GOP, after all, presented a starkly different list of priorities, and lost.
That being the case, is it really unrealistic for a newly re-elected president to expect to push forward with his priorities?

Scot,

You have some pretty serious tunnel vision in your discussion of the ills of Washington politics...you mention Boehner and McConnell, both Republicans, as key players in the dysfunction of Washington.  You pontificate on them as the source of the evil and manage to finish your story without even mentioning the name of the Senate leader, the head of one third of the government.  HARRY REED, know him??? That you can write an article like this without mentioning Reed, and the fact that his Senate has not passed a budget in four years, or pretty much passed anything at all, is conculive evidence you have a one-sided perspective.  I guess as a progressive yourself, how could you see a good progressive like Harry Reed be part of the problem?  Right.

I took a class with Richard Neustadt in 1998 - unbelievable teacher and his book remains the classic work on Presidential Power

Life:

Is that what I wrote Boehner? Hmm, it must have gotten changed on the copy desk. I thought I said he had shown some adult inclinations, but couldn't act on them because he was astride a Tea Party Tiger and have the young ideological guns eager to replace him.

Scot

Obama did take his case to the people: you can vote for me and prove you're not racist, then together we can spend on stuff for you while not paying for it and letting future generations carry the burden. A slight majority of voters liked the case.

Well I had to hit the golf course using my disabled veterans money, you know that "welfare" check I get.  I return to a conversation that has once again broken down into almost downright silliness.  I note the "libertarians' once again are unwilling to admit that what they propose what they desire is rejected by the American people.  Not rejected narrowly but rejected soundly.  The question that the Republican Party faces is not whether Pres. Obama is a "liberal" or a "pragmatic".  It is not whether SS, Medicare, Veterans Benefits etc. should or should not exist, the question surrounding these issues has been settled, probably settled for generations. The American public has made it very clear they want these programs and want them as they are currently established.  The issue for the Republican Party is how does it conserve these programs in a fashion that is congruent with their beliefs and at the same time convince the public that they the Republicans are on the side of the average American.

From my perspective the answer for the Republican Party is to one remove this T-Party nonsense from dictating their legislative agenda, these folks do not want to govern nor to legislate.  If the Party will return to its own legislative roots and if the Dems. in the Senate allow the legislative process of the past to return, Republicans then make constructive amendments, propose constructive ideas towards reducing the deficit.  However, to attempt to zero in on entitlements as the single driver of the deficit is to pursue a losing effort.  Not because the belief is wrong but because the American people reject that proposal.  The best hope for deficit reduction is a serious negotiation by both sides and unless they can rise above the silliness I have seen here they have very little hope in accomplishing that goal.

I have to say, conservatives, I think attaturk's fact-based presentation has carried the day today. He cerainly has deflated lots of hyperbole ...

What is all this "the voters have spoken" nonsense?  The man won by what, 3% ???  To expect everyone who did not vote for him to just say "Game over, the country has now completely changed, and I must change with it", is pure nonsense.  Many conservative voters were not thrilled with Mittens, they voted for a libertarian or did not vote at all.

3%, and announcing the country has now changed its course, give me a break!  That is like saying "Captain, Captain, we are 3 degrees off course, are we still going to miss North America?"

As for Mr. AttaTurk, my learned friend:  Why is it that we always have to talk about SS, VA Bennies, etc?  There are MANY other areas in gov that could be cut.  Hmmmm?

History: Scot isn't interested is any data from us.  If Obama wants to fund a study of the sex life of earthworms, that's fine with those who blindly worship he who created them and all of us.

Scotty Taxes loves him some taxes!

yea, lets concentrate on gay marriage

now the worst in US history, having just dipped below the heretofore lowest on record.

source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-24/its-official-worst-recovery-ever