President Undercut

BS44325

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

In some cases I don't see that he has a choice. There are so many Republicans who are against him no matter what he does. It could be the greatest idea in the world, or the most necessary thing in the world, and best for Americans, yet Congress will still oppose it because it's Obama. That is, as far as I can tell, the MAIN problem in American government right now. I don't think executive orders are a sign of weakness in that atmosphere. I think they are a sign of strength.

I disagree and you should be careful what you wish for. Should the next President be a Republican Obama will have paved the way for governance by executive order. There are many people on the left who understand this and are rightfully quite concerned.

Not that it has any consequence with the next president, but laying it at Obama's feet is either ignorant or willfully deceptive.
Edit: I suppose maybe you mean he will have paved the way among liberals...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/

Yes. I meant he paved the way among liberals. He is not the first to use executive orders but he's continued a trend that has gradually eroded congressional power. This has resulted in the unchecked abuse of federal agencies across the board and it is why so many people are disillusioned with their governement. The average citizen no longer feels like they have a say which leads to the popularity of individuals like Trump.

PJ_Soul

Halifax2TheMax said:

"Our number one priority is to see this President fail." Mitch McConnell Inauguration Day 2009.

Yep. Nice governing there, idiots.

josevolution

Halifax2TheMax said:

"Our number one priority is to see this President fail." Mitch McConnell Inauguration Day 2009.

Yep pretty much their mission from day one oppose everything the man has tried to do ........talk about being undone ...

eddiec

Halifax2TheMax said:

"Our number one priority is to see this President fail." Mitch McConnell Inauguration Day 2009.

Every Republican I know.

Gern Blansten

BS44325 said:

mickeyrat said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Obama's being undercut because nobody in DC had any faith in him anymore. This is bipartisan. He's stopped leading and plans on just riding out the rest of his term. Clint Eastwood's empty chair is now running the show.

yeah right...if he issues an executive order on guns will you change your mind?

Executive order's in a system of checks and balances is not leading.

Disagree...if the majority of the country supports it and Congress is unable to do anything then a leader makes it happen any way he can.

Well a majority keeps voting for a republican congress, governors and state houses...how do you explain that?

Single issue voters or at a minimum other issues are more important . People also tend to like their particular congressman/woman better than congress as a whole.

Maybe but this idea of what "a majority" supports can only be determined at the ballot box. Executive actions are a sign of weakness where the President cannot move the electorate to his/her position and it only reduces good faith between the parties.

The weakness is Congress...they legislate (or are supposed to)

BS44325

Nobody on here cared when post-W reelection Nancy Pelosi announced that the democrats have to be the "party of no".

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

Nobody on here cared when post-W reelection Nancy Pelosi announced that the democrats have to be the "party of no".

Probably because that's not what happened.

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Nobody on here cared when post-W reelection Nancy Pelosi announced that the democrats have to be the "party of no".

Probably because that's not what happened.

Time Magazine 2006. Copied from Free Republic due to paywall:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1690694/posts

Here's the key take away:

".... Pelosi has embraced hard-knuckle partisanship, even if it means standing still. When Bush announced his Social Security plan last year, Pelosi told House Democrats they could never beat him in a straight-ahead, policy-against-policy debate because he had the megaphone of the presidency and was just coming off re-election. So the Democrats would thunderously attack Bush and argue there was no Social Security crisis and therefore no need for them to put out their own proposal. Some members were leery, concerned that Pelosi would make the Democrats look like the Party of No. As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan. "Never. Is never good enough for you?" Pelosi defiantly said to one member. When Florida Democrat Robert Wexler publicly suggested raising Social Security taxes as the solution, Pelosi immediately chewed him out over the phone. Only one other Democrat signed on to his plan.

The Democrats won the Social Security battle Pelosi's way. That earned her credit with her colleagues, who have embraced her overall strategy. Throughout the past year, Pelosi has demanded that Democrats unanimously oppose g.o.p. bills."

Hopefully that will refresh your partisan memory.

PJ_Soul

I don't have a partisan memory. That is one instance you're talking about. I definitely don't remember, though, the Democrats literally opposing whatever bit of legislation that came along simply because Bush proposed it, no matter what that article might say. They absolutely did not do what the Republicans have been doing with Obama.

eddiec

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Nobody on here cared when post-W reelection Nancy Pelosi announced that the democrats have to be the "party of no".

Probably because that's not what happened.

Time Magazine 2006. Copied from Free Republic due to paywall:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1690694/posts

Here's the key take away:

".... Pelosi has embraced hard-knuckle partisanship, even if it means standing still. When Bush announced his Social Security plan last year, Pelosi told House Democrats they could never beat him in a straight-ahead, policy-against-policy debate because he had the megaphone of the presidency and was just coming off re-election. So the Democrats would thunderously attack Bush and argue there was no Social Security crisis and therefore no need for them to put out their own proposal. Some members were leery, concerned that Pelosi would make the Democrats look like the Party of No. As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan. "Never. Is never good enough for you?" Pelosi defiantly said to one member. When Florida Democrat Robert Wexler publicly suggested raising Social Security taxes as the solution, Pelosi immediately chewed him out over the phone. Only one other Democrat signed on to his plan.

The Democrats won the Social Security battle Pelosi's way. That earned her credit with her colleagues, who have embraced her overall strategy. Throughout the past year, Pelosi has demanded that Democrats unanimously oppose g.o.p. bills."

Hopefully that will refresh your partisan memory.

'Welcome to Free Republic!
Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!'

Republicans hate Obama. Not because they really hate him. But because they have told it to each other so often that it has become true in their minds. The hatred and vitriol has become so excessive that it almost borders on being traitorous.

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

I don't have a partisan memory. That is one instance you're talking about. I definitely don't remember, though, the Democrats literally opposing whatever bit of legislation that came along simply because Bush proposed it, no matter what that article might say. They absolutely did not do what the Republicans have been doing with Obama.

Yes they did. Through W's entire second term. Your memory is partisan.

BS44325

eddiec said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Nobody on here cared when post-W reelection Nancy Pelosi announced that the democrats have to be the "party of no".

Probably because that's not what happened.

Time Magazine 2006. Copied from Free Republic due to paywall:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1690694/posts

Here's the key take away:

".... Pelosi has embraced hard-knuckle partisanship, even if it means standing still. When Bush announced his Social Security plan last year, Pelosi told House Democrats they could never beat him in a straight-ahead, policy-against-policy debate because he had the megaphone of the presidency and was just coming off re-election. So the Democrats would thunderously attack Bush and argue there was no Social Security crisis and therefore no need for them to put out their own proposal. Some members were leery, concerned that Pelosi would make the Democrats look like the Party of No. As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan. "Never. Is never good enough for you?" Pelosi defiantly said to one member. When Florida Democrat Robert Wexler publicly suggested raising Social Security taxes as the solution, Pelosi immediately chewed him out over the phone. Only one other Democrat signed on to his plan.

The Democrats won the Social Security battle Pelosi's way. That earned her credit with her colleagues, who have embraced her overall strategy. Throughout the past year, Pelosi has demanded that Democrats unanimously oppose g.o.p. bills."

Hopefully that will refresh your partisan memory.

'Welcome to Free Republic!
Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!'

Republicans hate Obama. Not because they really hate him. But because they have told it to each other so often that it has become true in their minds. The hatred and vitriol has become so excessive that it almost borders on being traitorous.

Like I said...I tried to post the article from Time but it was behind a paywall. Google steered me toward the full article at the Freerepublic. Time is the source and they are the furthest thing from conservative. Your memories are all partisan.

mickeyrat

Hmm, one might be able to argue that after the lies told to invade iraq were exposed it was right , to some degree, to oppose him.

But it absolutely worse to have the obstruction happen at the outset of a first term rather than a second term.

callen

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I don't have a partisan memory. That is one instance you're talking about. I definitely don't remember, though, the Democrats literally opposing whatever bit of legislation that came along simply because Bush proposed it, no matter what that article might say. They absolutely did not do what the Republicans have been doing with Obama.

Yes they did. Through W's entire second term. Your memory is partisan.

No caparison of democrats working with bush and Republicans number one strategy of complete partisanship to downright paralyzingly country. You provided an example of Democrats taking their traditional stance on SSN. Woopty fkn Doo. I do keep up with politics and was very in tune during Dubya's terms.

eddiec

BS44325 said:

eddiec said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Nobody on here cared when post-W reelection Nancy Pelosi announced that the democrats have to be the "party of no".

Probably because that's not what happened.

Time Magazine 2006. Copied from Free Republic due to paywall:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1690694/posts

Here's the key take away:

".... Pelosi has embraced hard-knuckle partisanship, even if it means standing still. When Bush announced his Social Security plan last year, Pelosi told House Democrats they could never beat him in a straight-ahead, policy-against-policy debate because he had the megaphone of the presidency and was just coming off re-election. So the Democrats would thunderously attack Bush and argue there was no Social Security crisis and therefore no need for them to put out their own proposal. Some members were leery, concerned that Pelosi would make the Democrats look like the Party of No. As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan. "Never. Is never good enough for you?" Pelosi defiantly said to one member. When Florida Democrat Robert Wexler publicly suggested raising Social Security taxes as the solution, Pelosi immediately chewed him out over the phone. Only one other Democrat signed on to his plan.

The Democrats won the Social Security battle Pelosi's way. That earned her credit with her colleagues, who have embraced her overall strategy. Throughout the past year, Pelosi has demanded that Democrats unanimously oppose g.o.p. bills."

Hopefully that will refresh your partisan memory.

'Welcome to Free Republic!
Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!'

Republicans hate Obama. Not because they really hate him. But because they have told it to each other so often that it has become true in their minds. The hatred and vitriol has become so excessive that it almost borders on being traitorous.

Like I said...I tried to post the article from Time but it was behind a paywall. Google steered me toward the full article at the Freerepublic. Time is the source and they are the furthest thing from conservative. Your memories are all partisan.

My brother and I were both living abroad when we invaded Iraq. I remember my brother calling me and saying 'I hope we find these WMD's. I really do.' But there were no WMD's. It was made up to garner public support through fear to start a war. People had a right to be angry with Bush. It is completely different. That was a real reason.

rr165892

Very good Doc on Showtime about CIA and all past directors are interviewed.Great insight into the WWMD nonsense and the interrogation stuff. A must watch with good data.

BS44325

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Obama's being undercut because nobody in DC had any faith in him anymore. This is bipartisan. He's stopped leading and plans on just riding out the rest of his term. Clint Eastwood's empty chair is now running the show.

yeah right...if he issues an executive order on guns will you change your mind?

Executive order's in a system of checks and balances is not leading.

Disagree...if the majority of the country supports it and Congress is unable to do anything then a leader makes it happen any way he can.

Here's your majority...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/now-oppose-assault-weapons-ban-doubts-stopping-lone/story?id=35778846

BS44325

I get it...obstruction is horrible unless the guy you support is getting obstructed. Obama had a democratic super-majority for the first two years of his presidency and never even attempted to get a 61st vote in the senate. Stimulus, health care, you name it...you can't govern like a total partisan and expect to reach compromise later. Chickens coming home to roost.

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I don't have a partisan memory. That is one instance you're talking about. I definitely don't remember, though, the Democrats literally opposing whatever bit of legislation that came along simply because Bush proposed it, no matter what that article might say. They absolutely did not do what the Republicans have been doing with Obama.

Yes they did. Through W's entire second term. Your memory is partisan.

No. I would say that your interpretation of the situation is what's partisan.

Gern Blansten

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Obama's being undercut because nobody in DC had any faith in him anymore. This is bipartisan. He's stopped leading and plans on just riding out the rest of his term. Clint Eastwood's empty chair is now running the show.

yeah right...if he issues an executive order on guns will you change your mind?

Executive order's in a system of checks and balances is not leading.

Disagree...if the majority of the country supports it and Congress is unable to do anything then a leader makes it happen any way he can.

Here's your majority...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/now-oppose-assault-weapons-ban-doubts-stopping-lone/story?id=35778846

We weren't talking about a gun ban. I wasn't at least. I was referring to increased back ground checks, regulation on gun show sales, etc. that the majority of the NRA members support.