I was going to try to address this logically but I just got confused so here goes.
1) I don't recall offhand saying that Obama will rope in the Senate and the House (although I dont' think DH is lying or mistaken, I just mention it because I'm uncertain about the context) but I assume I was talking about his popularity having the propensity (through no extra effort of his own) to pressure other legislators to go along with him. If that's the case, the stimulus bill was a great example of that. The rotten republican stump in the house (highly partisan districts that have no chance of coging for Obama, save a few) felt no pressure and wanted to make a "strategic statement." So they voted against him. But moderate, blue state Senators, voted with him. The fact that it was a house bill was not Obama rolling over to Congressional pressure, it was his conscious choice to let them be a part of the solution. He could have if he wanted to (unless there's something we're missing), driven the bill from the White House but didn't. Was this a calculation so that he can drive Health Care and entitlements? Maybe who knows. But I get the feeling that he actually does want Republican support, he actually does want Congressional involvment, this is not a new Caesar.
2) Obama is a pragmatist, we're seeing it every day. Republicans, even Ann Coulter, are discovering it with amazing swiftness. Obama is NOT a raging liberal trying to foment communsim? I'm shocked. And they are. Although given that lead up I shouldn't quote a communist. But Obama could very easily be said to fit in the Deng Xiapang box of, "What difference does it make what color the cat is as long as it catches the mice?" And, he's fairly boring. He's an eloquent and inspirational version of Bobby Jindal. I don't know for a fact but DH's assertion that Obama didn't raise a stink in the IL GA is probably right. He's a pragmatist. He's more concerned with doing actual work. Video taped confessions etc. I don't think he was "building his power base" because he still doesn't have one. What's his power base? The American people, but he doesn't have some secret alliance of lawmakers. The establishment was for Clinton. He has a few friends here and there, and now he has lots of people who want to ride his c**k because he's president. People who build grass roots movements don't have power bases, otherwise they wouldn't have built the grassroots effort. It's really hard to build a grass roots movement. Anyway, that's a tangent.
3) DH, I don't think you or BHO rollover. BHO hear's the viewpoints but once he's made his decision, he's not against kneecapping you. Albeit nicely in a way only BHO can. Once the stimulus was set Obama basically said, "These guys are douchebags. they're not even speaking English. No shit it's a spending bill!" Or ala Bill Maher, "We are ready to lead AGAIN! Since Bush was a major douche and I am not."
When we have discussions, you concede quite a bit, sometimes too much. But I've always viewed it as honest, as in, I said something that 1) you hadn't thought of in that way so you'll think it over but concede for now or 2) I actually dropped some enlightneing shit on you, new information or something and it immediately becomes apparent that (at least in the narrow sense I may be framing my argument) I'm right. But that buys you respect and consideration. The difference between you and me is that in 1 I usually don't concede but I will say, "Ahhh, I've not heard A before. Let me get back to you on that." And we move on. In 2 I also concede. But I argue and debate with you effortlessly and without prejudice because I know you're an honest broker. I admi t when I'm wrong, but I wouldn't say I roll over. And I wouldn't say you do either, especially if we're discussing more philosophical stuff, like the existence of god. You always like to bring up the science is another religion....blach.
Anyway, that's enough for now. I should get back to work. If this was rambling and incoherent, sorry.
