Few Americans consider themselves bigger than the presidency but Obama might be one of them. The man in the Oval Office, argues Toby Harnden, may already be preparing for a role as a post-president in a post-American world.
When David Plouffe, President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign manager, wrote recently that his former boss was "not concerned with his re-election", there was predictable scepticism.
After all, it has long been a truism that every politician wants to cling to power and a reality that presidential campaigns are planned years in advance. Pronouncements about not looking at polls and concentrating on getting things done are, moreover, standard fare from poll-driven, election-obsessed politicians and their apparatchiks.
In this case, however, Plouffe may inadvertently be onto something. Almost everything Obama does these days suggests that he doesn't care much about being re-elected. Strange as it might seem, perhaps he wants to be a one-term president.
Obama was elected in 2008 at an extraordinary moment in American politics. Suddenly, this charismatic figure, elected to the Senate without serious opposition in 2004 and without any executive experience, was catapulted into the White House.
His presidential bid had been based on the power of his life story and his ability with the spoken word. Doubtless he was as surprised as anyone else that he pulled it off. Governing has been altogether more difficult for him and there are signs he is already tiring of it.
Obama's intervention on the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" issue is a case in point. There was no need for him to get involved - the Islamic community centre two blocks from the 9/11 site is unlikely to get built and there was no political advantage in his making a statement.
What he said about religious freedom was typically Obama - high-minded, principled and legalistic. He is, after all, a former constitutional law professor. What his words lacked were any real empathy with what Americans felt and practical considerations about resolving the issue - never mind the political downside for him.
Doubtless he has been advised to prove he is "connected" to ordinary Americans by doing things like be seen attending church and taking "regular" holidays. But Obama seems happy to act as a European-style secularist, vacation in Martha's Vineyard and send his daughters to one of America's most exclusive private schools.
Obama does not suffer for self doubt. He has long seemed so convinced of his own virtue that to question his motives is illogical. Increasingly, his pronouncements carry the tone of one who believes those who disagree are stupid or bigoted.
Before departing for Martha's Vineyard last week, Obama spent three days on the campaign trail raising money and support for Democratic mid-term election candidates. Don't give in to fear," he said in Milwaukee. "Let's reach for hope."
It was a message that worked once but is unlikely to appeal this time, with America in the grip of a recession, unemployment still stubbornly close to 10 percent and blame-it-on-Bush rhetoric wearing very thin.
Obama is, however, at his best in these settings. He has the crowd hanging on his every word and he is not dealing with grubby political realities or objectionable opponents. Perhaps they are a reminder for him of simpler times.
They might also be a glimpse of the future. For Obama, the crowning moment of his presidency have been speeches abroad - the statement in Strasbourg that America had been "dismissive and arrogant", the address to the Muslim world from Cairo, the acceptance in Oslo of the Nobel Peace Prize.
In Berlin in 2008, Obama cast himself as a "citizen of the world". He has dismissed the bedrock notion of American exceptionalism by describing it, also in Strasbourg, as little more than narrow patriotism. Elite opinion among liberal Ivy League types - of which Obama is the embodiment - holds that we are already living in a post-American world.
There are few Americans who see themselves as bigger than the presidency but Obama could well be one of them. In 2008, Obama showed little appetite for the down-and-dirty aspects of political campaigning.
When things got tough against Hillary Clinton, he all but conceded the final Democratic primaries and let the clock run out. Against John McCain, he developed a campaign plan and refused to deviate from it. McCain was level in the polls when the US economy imploded, handing Obama a relatively comfortable victory.
Obama is the first black American president, an established author, multi-millionaire and acclaimed figure beyond American shores.
It seems highly unlikely that Obama will decide not to run in 2012. But he might well be calculating that a embarking post-presidential role as the leading global thinker in the post-American world as a Republican successor enters office is more attractive than being sullied by the political compromises and manoeuvrings necessary to win.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7958031/Does-Barack-Obama-want-to-be-re-elected-in-2012.html
That explains the arrogance.
Quote from: unreliablesource on August 22, 2010, 05:32:38 PM
That explains the arrogance.
Nah, couldn't be...not coming from the 'ToryGraph'.
::)
If the teabaggers drag the Republicans ever farther to the right, and they put up another dream team like that cranky old guy and Miss Frozen Tundra, well, there's a good chance that I could be our next president!
Nothing proves anything better than quoting a newspaper article published by a British publishing company owned by Rupert Murdock's News Corporation. Ya got nothing from an American source? Nothing from Australia for instance? After all that is where Murdock holds his citizenship.
Quote from: joiei on August 22, 2010, 06:35:27 PM
Nothing proves anything better than quoting a newspaper article published by a British publishing company owned by Rupert Murdock's News Corporation. Ya got nothing from an American source? Nothing from Australia for instance? After all that is where Murdock holds his citizenship.
If you don't like the source of the opinion then "just ignore it".
I just thought it was interesting to read and may explain some of his actions.
After all, it is just an opinion nothing more.
Is that your tactic, if you don't like what is said, you attack the source, instead of what was actually said in the opinion?
Quote from: unreliablesource on August 22, 2010, 07:08:31 PM
Is that your tactic, if you don't like what is said, you attack the source, instead of what was actually said in the opinion?
If you don't consider the source, you end up considering unreliable sources.
Like the one that donated a million bucks to the Republican Governor's Association.
Not that I consider anything in that piece to be a bad thing. I wish more politicians were interested in doing what they saw as the right thing rather than getting reelected.
Quote from: nathanm on August 22, 2010, 07:30:08 PM
If you don't consider the source, you end up considering unreliable sources.
Like the one that donated a million bucks to the Republican Governor's Association.
Not that I consider anything in that piece to be a bad thing. I wish more politicians were interested in doing what they saw as the right thing rather than getting reelected.
You do make a valid point, more politicians should be interested in doing what they see as the right thing to do rather than what will get them elected. And if President Obama is playing that strategy, I may not agree with what he is doing, but I can respect the man for doing it that way.
Quote from: Ed W on August 22, 2010, 06:22:47 PM
If the teabaggers drag the Republicans ever farther to the right, and they put up another dream team like that cranky old guy and Miss Frozen Tundra, well, there's a good chance that I could be our next president!
Are you running?
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 22, 2010, 07:40:00 PM
Are you running?
Why not? I hereby declare my candidacy for the office of President of these United States! First thing, though, is I'm taking us back to a monarchy - and I'm gonna be the king! It's
good to be king!
Quote from: Ed W on August 22, 2010, 08:21:05 PM
Why not? I hereby declare my candidacy for the office of President of these United States! First thing, though, is I'm taking us back to a monarchy - and I'm gonna be the king! It's good to be king!
As disturbing as it is to think about it, you would probably get some votes.
The Daily Torygraph strikes again.... ::)
Quote from: unreliablesource on August 22, 2010, 07:38:08 PM
You do make a valid point, more politicians should be interested in doing what they see as the right thing to do rather than what will get them elected. And if President Obama is playing that strategy, I may not agree with what he is doing, but I can respect the man for doing it that way.
Which was pretty much the style of the two Bushes, they didn't seem to take much of a populist approach to the way they ran things much to the chagrin of a lot of Republicans.
As far as your source, when the London dailies were all over President Bush they were valid sources for these guys, now that the Brits are being critical of "their guy" they are no longer good sources and quoting foreign sources is out of bounds. ;)
I don't care so much about the source as much as I do the argument, and this one is sadly lacking. The whole argument is based on existing right wing memes -- Obama is elitist, out of touch, too professorial, more Euro/Muslim/Indonesian/black than American -- none of which will resonate with anyone who doesn't already believe the existing right wing memes.
It's an argument, essentially, that exists under glass. In isolation, and to the right ears, it makes perfect sense.
All of which just goes to prove that we're a country divided less by ideology than by what facts we believe.
Quote from: we vs us on August 23, 2010, 09:18:59 AM
I don't care so much about the source as much as I do the argument, and this one is sadly lacking. The whole argument is based on existing right wing memes -- Obama is elitist, out of touch, too professorial, more Euro/Muslim/Indonesian/black than American -- none of which will resonate with anyone who doesn't already believe the existing right wing memes.
It's an argument, essentially, that exists under glass. In isolation, and to the right ears, it makes perfect sense.
All of which just goes to prove that we're a country divided less by ideology than by what facts we believe.
You are thinking that all of President Obama's supporters are still intact and fully approve of the job he is doing? It's starting to resonate amongst people who supported him in the '08 election. His approval rating keeps dropping. I fully understand that many if not all President's approval ratings are lower after 18 months in office than they are three or six months in. However, people from all walks are starting to see an idealogue oddly detached from the most pressing issues of the day while he consumes himself with his populist agenda items. People existing on a $400 per week unemployment check (or whose benefits have played out) don't identify well with a President who vacations with the rich and famous while the job picture isn't getting better.
I say this all the time: the image is more important than the reality. The President could be doing a better job inspiring the economy by showing some confidence in it and having more to say about it other than he inherited a huge mess from his predecessor. He alone cannot create jobs, but he's played up the idea that his his predecessor took away jobs and I'm sure he will have no problem taking credit for job growth if that happens under his watch. When everyone else is having to make do with less, I think a better public image would be scaling back the trips or at least not going to wealthy playgrounds for vacations.
The slipping poll numbers seem to indicate it's more than just people who were predisposed to dislike him who are beginning to feel this way.
I don't see the worship any more. Even those that still claim to support President Obama, don't lavish complete obedience to his philosophy of leadership. I think this is a good thing, even if he is re-elected.
In 2007-2008 he was a rising star with unknown and untested powers. His victory was based on a Cult of Personality developed by, arguably, the best political consultant in the world. Cult of Personality requires a certain degree of mystery. Everything developed for him, from his campaign slogans and tag lines to his political philosophy was designed around maintaining a degree of mystery. Hope & Change was brilliant and entirely nebulous in real meaning.
Almost two years later his supporters finally understand him. There is no mystery left, so he must now run on reality. In many cases people are defined by the representatives they choose. The leaders they admire are an indication of the intellectual and cultural attributes they themselves aspire to. I don't see this same identification among my friends who voted for him. I believe that if a new democrat candidate were to emerge, many would flock to the alternative out of principal. Democrats, like anyone else, desire success and President Obama has offered them little success.
President Obama has a very different campaign in front of him now. He has a choice, as does any politician making a second term run. He can campaign against his own record, attributing blame for any failures on others, or he can run on his successes. Unfortunately his successes may not be enough to build a strong platform, so I believe he will most likely shift blame from Bush, his original turn-key, to Congress. The "We" will become the "They".
President Obama is definitely going to have a much tougher campaign in 2012. He's going to have four years of his own record to either answer to or brag about. I suspect with extended economic problems there won't be a whole lot of bragging. I think he's going to have to be on the defensive most of the campaign cycle and I don't think his temperament will handle it very well at all. When he's been pressed to defend himself he comes off as testy and petulant.
If there is a major turning out of Congressional Democrats in November, he's going to have a very hard time running on his own record as that will be an indicator that Americans are not happy with the slate of legislation his supporters are calling milestone victories right now.
If the economy stages a great turn around and unemployment has dropped back under 7.5% or less he rightfully gets to claim victory on that as any sitting President would. However, he will still have to answer to four years of massive deficits. If they are foolish enough to blame that on his predecessor or a Republican-led Congress (should they get a majority in either house) I think he will get slaughtered.
He can run on improvements to healthcare, however most provisions still don't take effect until two years after the '12 election. It's going to be difficult to point to specifically how it's managed to improve the life of average Americans with this legislation when any benefits have yet to be seen. A really good Republican strategist will find all the negatives in the program and point out to the electorate that President Obama didn't want to have to run with that on his record and that's why it's not kicked in yet.
I am pretty sure that President Obama will run for another term as President. He wants to get some things accomplished and needs two terms to do that.
The voters won't remember 2010 in 2012. As long as the economy has shown signs of being healthy again, it will be a strength of his re-election bid.
He needs to get the troops out of Iraq to win my vote again. I will support another democrat in the primary if he doesn't bring soldiers home from Iraq soon.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 23, 2010, 02:40:14 PM
I am pretty sure that President Obama will run for another term as President. He wants to get some things accomplished and needs two terms to do that.
The voters won't remember 2010 in 2012. As long as the economy has shown signs of being healthy again, it will be a strength of his re-election bid.
He needs to get the troops out of Iraq to win my vote again. I will support another democrat in the primary if he doesn't bring soldiers home from Iraq soon.
So far so good. The last of the "combat" troops are out of there now it's just "advisors" and barring any massive uptick in insurgent activity, they will be out in 2011. It's entirely realistic though that we may have a troop presence there for many years to come much like post-war Germany and post-war Japan.
What kind of time-frame is acceptible on Afghanistan?
I think virtually all of the current madness in the electorate is due to the economy. It's magnifying everything to the point of low-boil (and high-boil) hysteria. Not that some of the crazy and some of the opposition isn't honest, but I think it's all turned up to 11 because economic concerns undergird everything.
If the economy hasn't improved by 2012, then Obama is almost certainly gone. But if the economy still hasn't improved by 2012, I wouldn't want to be the guy taking power. That would indicate a much steeper slope than anyone is willing to predict right now in 2010.
The other wild card, of course, is the degree to which the GOP will have been swallowed by the Tea Party borg in 2012. We're in a pretty unique time for Independents in that the place they might normally turn is getting sucked farther and farther to the right. I'm not sure this automatically translates into Independents being pulled to the right, too. It might very well turn into a situation that, regardless of where Independents poll, actual Independent turnout will be low.
Also: in the end, Obama isn't running. He's part of the calculus but not all of it. And while Congress as a whole has low approval ratings, each race is going to be individual. This is the reason, IMO, you're seeing the GOP try every trick in the book to turn this 1) national and 2) a referendum on Obama. (cf. "Ground Zero Mosque," immigration battles, etc)
Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2010, 02:53:24 PM
So far so good. The last of the "combat" troops are out of there now it's just "advisors" and barring any massive uptick in insurgent activity, they will be out in 2011. It's entirely realistic though that we may have a troop presence there for many years to come much like post-war Germany and post-war Japan.
What kind of time-frame is acceptible on Afghanistan?
One of my wife's best friends has a husband stationed in a combat brigade in Iraq. They changed his group's designation to "Advise and Assist Brigade" last month, but he says they have the same responsibilities.
His time is up in September and he expects they will be re-deployed to Afghanistan. Our presence will remain at around 50K troops in Iraq but they will share this new designation as Advise and Assist Brigades.
Even though the administration is changing the vocabulary, it will be very important that we maintain peace in the region. I think it's a smart move on the part of the President and his generals to maintain a large troop count. The lexicon adjustment will be viewed positively by the american public, and will have little bearing on the established peace. I think the President has made a good move.
We will be approaching 70,000 troops in Afghanistan this month as the surge swells. As we shift troops from Iraq we are planned to reach 96,000 troops total in Afghanistan. Hopefully this will be the magic number necessary to root out terrorist forces.
July 2011 is our scheduled "Pull-Out" date for Afghanistan. We will bring some heavy forces home and simply change what we call the forces that remain. I think this is a brilliant stratage for sustaining peace in volatile regions and waging the domestic PR war. Surge (combat strike) followed by Pull-Out (re-designation of combat troops).
Like the Hockaday School the Bush twins attended isn't an elitist private school...
Yep, there's that Murdochian again.
Answer; no, he doesn't care about being re-elected. I would be mildly surprised if he runs. I'm betting it will come down to a slug-fest between Hillary and Jed (like we need another Clinton OR Bush...)
This is pretty funny, although clearly off topic:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/4921383047_6e33b35d4e_b.jpg)
President Barack Obama jokingly puts his toe on the scale as Trip Director Marvin Nicholson, unaware to the President's action, weighs himself as the presidential entourage passed through the volleyball locker room at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas, Aug. 9, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
That's okay, he's had his fingers on the scale counting all those jobs saved and created...
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 01:00:38 PM
That's okay, he's had his fingers on the scale counting all those jobs saved and created...
"Lives Touched" Conan.
In this case it's counted for every pound on the scale.
For example, I represent around 187 lives touched.
There were 94,000 US troops there in May. Plus the 30,000 or so other country troops. Supposed to be up to 100,000 in the next few weeks.
And Iraq is now at peace!! Blech!
We removed 1 "Saddam Hussein" and bred 100 to replace him. Yeah, that's gonna turn out well...
Here's a very plausible scenario: The GOP will nominate a more moderate candidate like say a Mitt Romney. This will enrage the tea party crowd, who would never vote for a godless Mormon, and they will convince Sarah Palin to run as a third party candidate. The conservative vote will split, leading to an easy victory for President Obama.
Quote from: bugo on August 25, 2010, 03:04:26 AM
Here's a very plausible scenario: The GOP will nominate a more moderate candidate like say a Mitt Romney. This will enrage the tea party crowd, who would never vote for a godless Mormon, and they will convince Sarah Palin to run as a third party candidate. The conservative vote will split, leading to an easy victory for President Obama.
There's certainly historical precedent...
Quote from: bugo on August 25, 2010, 03:04:26 AM
Here's a very plausible scenario: The GOP will nominate a more moderate candidate like say a Mitt Romney. This will enrage the tea party crowd, who would never vote for a godless Mormon, and they will convince Sarah Palin to run as a third party candidate. The conservative vote will split, leading to an easy victory for President Obama.
Except that Tea Partiers seem to be more anti-tax, anti-big gubmint, than worried about Romney being a Mormon. If they are dumb enough to get former Gov. Palin to run as an IND and fracture the vote then they deserve another four years of President Obama. They'd be really stupid to try and field a "Tea Party" candidate rather than an IND as they could not get on the ballot in some states. 2012 is not a good time for symbolic votes.
You are so right about that, Conan. But just watch - I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it happen.
BTW, I saw Fred Thompson on a commercial last night. He does not look well. Shame. I like the guy and even though we do have some big differences, I think he would be a good President.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 25, 2010, 02:55:18 PM
You are so right about that, Conan. But just watch - I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it happen.
BTW, I saw Fred Thompson on a commercial last night. He does not look well. Shame. I like the guy and even though we do have some big differences, I think he would be a good President.
I don't think he's healthy enough to make a run. He looked bad two years ago.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 25, 2010, 03:22:21 PM
I don't think he's healthy enough to make a run. He looked bad two years ago.
Oh yeah, I can top that, he looked bad in "Days Of Thunder"
A bit o/t, but I just saw the infamous "Voted Obama? Embarrassed Yet?" billboard while traveling north from Branson near Ozark, Mo.
Quote from: guido911 on September 05, 2010, 02:41:33 PM
A bit o/t, but I just saw the infamous "Voted Obama? Embarrassed Yet?" billboard while traveling north from Branson near Ozark, Mo.
There's an offensive anti-Obama billboard just south of Poteau with the Obama symbol on fire. They want to burn the President alive?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 25, 2010, 02:55:18 PM
BTW, I saw Fred Thompson on a commercial last night. He does not look well. Shame. I like the guy and even though we do have some big differences, I think he would be a good President.
Fred Thompson isn't eloquent enough to be President. He speaks like his mouth is full of marbles. He is a worse speaker than Bush (either one) was.
Quote from: bugo on September 05, 2010, 11:12:08 PM
There's an offensive anti-Obama billboard just south of Poteau with the Obama symbol on fire. They want to burn the President alive?
Yeah, that's a reasonable assumption. /s
Quote from: guido911 on September 06, 2010, 11:14:50 AM
Yeah, that's a reasonable assumption. /s
You know, part of me wants to go ahead and get our next civil war out of the way so we can start with the healing and reinvigoration of our Democracy already.
I'm really starting to believe that that's the only logical endgame to all the rhetoric out there. At some point, enough people will believe it strongly enough to act on it.
Quote from: we vs us on September 06, 2010, 12:18:02 PM
You know, part of me wants to go ahead and get our next civil war out of the way so we can start with the healing and reinvigoration of our Democracy already.
I'm really starting to believe that that's the only logical endgame to all the rhetoric out there. At some point, enough people will believe it strongly enough to act on it.
Come on, you cannot be serious. Where was this "civil war" crap when Bush was getting burned in effigy?
Quote from: guido911 on September 06, 2010, 12:47:58 PM
Come on, you cannot be serious. Where was this "civil war" crap when Bush was getting burned in effigy?
That's what I'm talking about. And yes I'm serious.
Quote from: we vs us on September 06, 2010, 02:09:53 PM
That's what I'm talking about. And yes I'm serious.
Well, if that's the case, are you going to take up arms and fight in that war? Oh, and who's side are taking?
Quote from: guido911 on September 06, 2010, 02:43:21 PM
Well, if that's the case, are you going to take up arms and fight in that war? Oh, and who's side are taking?
Isn't it obvious which side I'd be on? And who's to say about the arms part. It depends on whether I feel my way of life is threatened, or to what degree the things that make my country my country are being dismantled. I'm not a naturally violent or revolutionary fellow, but everyone has a limit.
But I'm more interested in encouraging the "don't tread on me" folks to go ahead and blow all that revolutionary zeal out of their systems now. All this rhetoric, all this tension is obviously building towards something. I really just want to get it over with so we can get on with fixing the country.
Quote from: guido911 on September 06, 2010, 02:43:21 PM
Well, if that's the case, are you going to take up arms and fight in that war? Oh, and who's side are taking?
We will let the Pioneer's take the arrow's..... ;)
Quote from: we vs us on September 06, 2010, 04:36:10 PM
I really just want to get it over with so we can get on with fixing the country.
1st order of business is determining how we want to fix it. Someone will be disappointed, starting the cycle all over again.
We have always been split pretty much down the middle, clear back to the founding. (40% Tory, 40% revolutionary, 20% don't care) Same as during the Civil War. (How could war ever be considered civil?)
Ain't nothing gonna change in the things that people disagree on, either here or around the world.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 06, 2010, 08:20:05 PM
1st order of business is determining how we want to fix it. Someone will be disappointed, starting the cycle all over again.
I love that... well put.
I don't want us to all sit by the campfire and sing kumbaya. I absolutely want and expect disagreement. But I'm not cool with people being ginned up into minor-league hysteria over lies, damn lies, and falsehoods.
Which is absolutely where we're at.
So, yeah, I want the furious-beyond-all-logic types to go ahead and have their time in the sun so that after they're gone, the thinking people of the nation, right and left, can sit down, have a discussion, and hash out our differences.
We need to plan how to fix the country, but the ignoramuses are keeping us from it, and they're making me impatient and worried.
Quote from: we vs us on September 07, 2010, 03:38:54 PM
I don't want us to all sit by the campfire and sing kumbaya. I absolutely want and expect disagreement. But I'm not cool with people being ginned up into minor-league hysteria over lies, damn lies, and falsehoods.
Which is absolutely where we're at.
So, yeah, I want the furious-beyond-all-logic types to go ahead and have their time in the sun so that after they're gone, the thinking people of the nation, right and left, can sit down, have a discussion, and hash out our differences.
We need to plan how to fix the country, but the ignoramuses are keeping us from it, and they're making me impatient and worried.
Let me guess, the Glen Beck's, Sara Palins, and Rush Limbaughs are the furious beyond all logic types or the ignoramouses keeping us from planning?
They seem to be getting all the blame from libs for nothing moving forward, yet the Democrats have had a majority in the House, Senate, and control of the Exec. Branch for 18 months. Either that or it's still Rove, Cheney, and that little puppet of theirs still screwing it up.
Quote from: we vs us on September 07, 2010, 03:38:54 PM
I don't want us to all sit by the campfire and sing kumbaya. I absolutely want and expect disagreement. But I'm not cool with people being ginned up into minor-league hysteria over lies, damn lies, and falsehoods.
Which is absolutely where we're at.
So, yeah, I want the furious-beyond-all-logic types to go ahead and have their time in the sun so that after they're gone, the thinking people of the nation, right and left, can sit down, have a discussion, and hash out our differences.
We need to plan how to fix the country, but the ignoramuses are keeping us from it, and they're making me impatient and worried.
So, by saying after they're gone, are you proposing a selective thinning of the herd? Or do you mean like friends and relatives that stay too long?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2010, 04:23:03 PM
They seem to be getting all the blame from libs for nothing moving forward, yet the Democrats have had a majority in the House, Senate, and control of the Exec. Branch for 18 months.
And for most of that they've either had an uncooperative President or constantly-filibustering Senate Republicans, who have already filibustered more bills than in any Congressional session in history.