It isn't surprising that congressional democrats have caved to White House demands on legislation. The House, and Senate, have long abdicated their role as an independent branch of the government. And it is the Democratic Party that historically paved the way for their own subservience. There is nothing new here. It goes way back to many former Democratic Presidents. The most important example, in my opinion, is how Congress has completely abdicated its constitutionally mandated responsibility regarding Declarations of War. Only Congress has the authority to commit American troops to foreign conflicts. Yet that provision has been brushed aside numerous times and the precedent for this were established by Democratic Presidents and Democratic congresses.

there are so many issues with this column. But here goes:

1. The "anonymous" quote didn't concentrate on the congressman not fulfilling the wishes of the President but of his constituents and his country. The artificial emphasis on the President thing is an all too transparent attempt to support the underlying thesis of the column. I though the whole idea behind the progressive movement was that politicians should bear the wishes of their constituencies and country in mind?

2. the use of the word "creepy" to desribe what I would consider to be absolutely normal political give and take is utterly disingenuous. One suspects that Glenn wasn't born yesterday and knows this which makes it all the worse.

3. It characterises the speech by the congressman as follows: "he gave arguing that the bill was so industry-friendly that it would do more harm than good". this seems basically to copy type from the Hamsher article but I couldn't see, in the excerpt provided of the speech, that that was indeed what he was arguing. As in, he may well have objected to legislation but I didn't see anywhere where he said it would be worse than nothing. Correct me if I'm wrong please (no snark intended there).

4. There is no consideration at all that if Obama and the Democrats were forced to go to the Repubs for votes, the bill would have been even worse (same goes for the war supplemental)

5. No recognition at all of the fact that showing that Dems can corral votes will have a positive impact on health care, immigration and countless other matters.

6. The last sentence's rhetorical question - of course the answer expected is a disappointed, put-upon, no - is also utterly deceptive. Sounds like my wife, being disappointed and angry about things that are yet to happen...

Glenn, you write many fine columns and do sterling work in the realm of state secrecy, constitutional issues etc, but I do wish you would grow up about politics.

What's even more disturbing than the imperial presidency of Barack H. Obama flexing its authoritarian muscle to try and bully non-cooperative members of the ceremonial U.S. Congress to do its bidding is that the U.S. government is one of the worst polluters in the world [article below]. Yet so-called left-liberals, and other assorted proselytes who have put their faith in the fake left-right paradigm of the War Party and its articles of faith, believe that the U.S. government can be some kind of benevolent steward of the environment. Can you say Agent Orange, boys and girls? Can you say Depleted Uranium (DU)?

While I know that this cry will not penetrate some thick skulls, why doesn't the government clean up its own act first (and demonstrate its success doing so) before they tell everybody else how to live?

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0327-21.htm

Why does it matter whether Glenn describes something as "creepy"?

So let me get this straight. President lobbies Congressman hard to vote for a signature piece of legislatation. President and his staff point out that Congressman's constituients support bill. Congressman very publically and loudly votes against bill. This pisses off the President and some of his staffers grouse about in in an off the record comment.

Ohmigod! You're totally right! This is completely unprecedented in the history of presidential-congressional relations! Totally creepy! Like Kim Jong Il creepy! Why, the only other president in history who ever, ever got mad at a member of his own party who conspiciously thwarted his wishes on an important piece of legislation was George W. Bush! That means Obama is just like Bush!

Clinton? Totally not furious at Boren for screwing him on his budget package. Carter? Not the least bit annoyed by regularly being screwed by his own party in Congress and why should he have been given that it did him absolutly no harm politically. In fact, it was a major contributing factor to his brilliant second term. Let's not forget Richard Nixon Never an angry moment from Dick. And how about that LBJ? He was, and still is, justly famous for taking it in stride when members of Congress didn't back his policies. Went with his famous hands-off, low-pressure policy when Congress was considering major legislative inititives from his administration.

Kennedy? Hey, everyone knows JFK wasn't the least bit frustrated by his inability to get southern Democrats to move on civil rights and there was no reason he should be. It's not like there's any proof he ever even called any of them and leaned on them to change their votes. Then there's good old Eisenhower. Never once got even a little peeved with people like McCarthy and Taft. Truman? Total milktoast. That's why they called him "Give 'em Milktoast." And why not? He learned to be mild and forgiving at the knees of the master: FDR, whose motto was never once known, in his entire 12 years in office, to have extracted an ounce of payback from a member of his own party who obstructed his agenda.

Yes, truly, this is a unique, and uniquely creepy, moment in hour history. Good thing you flagged it, Glenn. One of your best, most insightful, blog posts ever.

Glenn,

He almost never looks at us. It's a nod to the left teleprompter, a glance at the right. Back to the left and again to the right for long minutes. But does the President ever look at the camera and connect with us? No.

Since he is fantastic in person walking around a gym with a remote microphone answering impromptu questions from people, it can't be that he's afraid to think on his feet. The same is true in the Q&A part of press conferences; he never mis-speaks and always responds intelligently. But he's always looking at the reporter, never at us.

Even in the presidential debates where there were certainly no teleprompters, he always looked at the people in the room, except for one brief instant in one of his closing comments.

So why does he never look at the camera? Maybe he's shy but that just does not ring true to the friendly guy at those meet and greets. The only thing left is "He's lying and he doesn't want us to see it in his eyes." That is a terrible thing to contemplate.

McCain may be a hotheaded ignoramus who can be spectacularly wrong, but I don't think he lies. At least not often.