Skip to main content

If a person refuses a bowl of chocolate ice cream, does that mean they hate ice cream, or that they just don't like chocolate?  The two alternatives are both perfectly possible, given the facts.  What you might assume, might depend on what you already thought

Or, could it just be that they had a big bowl earlier, and don't feel they could eat another?  Or maybe they simply want to lose weight?  Or what if you approach them with annoyance because you were treating them for some other reason?

Why am I getting tied in logical knots over ice cream?  Well, the answer might have something to do with Platinum Coins, 14th Amendment remedies and similar such ideas for extraordinary use of executive power, and why it may just be the case that we're fatally overextending our idea of executive power in the case of Barack Obama.

Partisans like us want results, and we want them now!  We're often not content to let bureaucratic process move its way through.  That said, for the system to have a certain level of fairness, stability, and predictability, the process does have to jump through some hoops.

The Constitution wasn't written to create a weak executive, by any means.  The whole point of a Constitution like ours was to strengthen the ability of executive powers to carry out the laws.  But at basis, that is what the Executive Branch is supposed to do, and Congress's powers are specifically designed to where the Executive Branch doesn't have a choice.

James Madison designed much of what went into the constitution so that if people couldn't agree on a particular change, or a particular policy on a certain matter, that you just wouldn't see any change.  He specifically suggested many mechanisms so that factions in Congress would clash, and until compromise was made, things wouldn't get done.

The Framers didn't come up with the Debt Limit.  That would be a product of the Twentieth Century.  Before that, every time the US issued debt,  Congress would be behind that issuance.  It was a Congressional prerogative from the start, and all the Debt Limit did was delegate that power.

As the course of the Debt Limit Crisis unfolded, the desperation of Democrats here on Daily Kos grew, as they came to understand that the Congress and the President were negotiation some rather crappy deals.  Well, we can't have that, can we?  So, all kinds of ideas were floated here, and around the blogosphere, and folks talked about these rather unusual and unprecedented exercises of executive power.

The question would be, how would we react if the precedent we set meant a Republican President could do these same thing things, take these same reckless measures?  Could you fund a war a Democratic Congress was unwilling to okay the funds for this way?  For years we fought the reckless expansion of executive powers.  We still resent their use in the hands of Barack Obama.  But it seems when the flavor of the extraordinary power grab is vanilla rather than chocolate, some of us like it.

Over time, I've begun to realize that the generalizations about freedom and constraint concerning each of the parties are misleading.  Conservatives and liberals aren't respectively the parties of liberty and bondage, or vice versa.  Each political group wants different rights and different obligations given to Americans.  It is the mix of those freedoms and constraints, those bindings and those liberties, the rights we value and the obligations we impose that make us who we are as political actors.

Years of strengthening of executive power, in part a result of our party and movement's emphasis on government constraint of the rich and powerful, in part a result of a long term military build up and defense establishment growth, have left us with a very different notion of the Presidency than we once had, and I think, in part, that's a mistake, and it's an error that gets in the way of true change.

The issue here is that Congress still functions to make the laws under our Constitution.  When we become enamored of the President overstepping his bounds to do what we deem to be expedient at the time, we end up putting our hopes and dreams on the back of one person who Congress can force to bend to their will by the very nature of our constitutional democratic republic.  Obama's charge in his oath is to faithfully execute the laws of this nation, which means that if he happens to disagree with a law that was passed, he's still legally bound to enforce it, and there are limitations to what he can do to circumvent them, and still remain on the right side of the law.

There are limits to what power he can grab, without setting the political precedent for the contempt of constitutional law in a certain area.

What am I saying here?  That those who focus, even obsess over what President Barack Obama is doing may have their focus in the wrong place.  It may not be popular to say this, or to express this sentiment, it may not fit with the preconceptions that generations of children brought up under the strong executive model of government had, but we may be wasting our time trying to force Obama to take out the Elder Wand and set the world to right.

I'm saying Obama probably realizes better than most what his constitutional constraints are, which is one reason he prefers ot "lead from behind" developing legislation behind the scenes, rather than taking a more aggressive stance.

I'm saying that if we're truly keen on seeing change, it's never going to be good enough to just get a President we like in there.  If the President is right, but the Congress is not, the Constitution's bindings will limit that leader's options, and our ability to get results in a manner that doesn't disrupt our constitutional system will be curtailed.

Folks, we have to change Congress.  Be a little picky, but not too picky, because this election, it's about getting the numbers to reverse the last election.  The Election that delivered the House of Representatives back in the hands of the folks whose brinksmanship, whose abuse of constitutional power just resulted in a ratings agency downgrade of our debt that will have unpredictable results.

At the very least, we need to get power back into the hands of Nancy Pelosi, Rather than Mister Sad Citrus.  That power, in his hands, has meant that a lot in this country didn't get done this past year, and a lot of things that shouldn't have come out of Congress did.  That power mean that Obama didn't have so many choices in terms of fulfilling what our ambitions for him were.  

As a person who had civics drilled into me in high school, who understands how the ability to set up the committees, the hearings, the debates,  the votes, and the basic agendas of the Legislative sessions amplifies the power of the majority, let me appeal to you not to underestimate the necessity of regaining full control over our nation's legislature.

Originally posted to First Amendment Remedies on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 07:48 AM PDT.

Also republished by J Town.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip- Easier, simpler, and more expedient... (29+ / 0-)

    ...doesn't necessarily mean that a solution gets things done quicker, better, or right.

    We need to recognize that sometimes the process to get things done right is torturous in the near term, even when the need to get those things done is urgent and overwhelming.

    Simple question: In the years since Republicans successfully urged the disempowering of workers and unions in the Midwest, what has happened to those states economies?

    by Stephen Daugherty on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 07:47:52 AM PDT

    •  Your writings as usual, standing O. (7+ / 0-)

      I'm officially marking you as someone to follow because I enjoy your writings and you have been on point, although there are many here who don't want to acknowledge it.  Money paragraph:

      The issue here is that Congress still functions to make the laws under our Constitution.  When we become enamored of the President overstepping his bounds to do what we deem to be expedient at the time, we end up putting our hopes and dreams on the back of one person who Congress can force to bend to their will by the very nature of our constitutional democratic republic.  Obama's charge in his oath is to faithfully execute the laws of this nation, which means that if he happens to disagree with a law that was passed, he's still legally bound to enforce it, and there are limitations to what he can do to circumvent them, and still remain on the right side of the law.

      There is something that perhaps some people don't get about the President that a few of those who generally support the President has already known about him:

      He generally tries to work within the rule of law and he doesn't have the luxury of re-interpretating the law for the sake of expendiency or for a higher purpose -- even if that purpose would be for the larger good.

      The moment he does that is the moment that he truly loses because he would never be able to get away with it.

      "The bottom line is, we've got to wake up. We can't allow our disappointment in Obama to lull us into allowing a truly dangerous strain of conservative philosophy to gain any more traction than it already has." --ObamOcala 4/5/11

      by smoothnmellow on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 08:08:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You have become a must-read for me, T&R n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Onomastic, jan4insight
  •  Exactly. Many here wanted a "Liberal Bush", with (11+ / 0-)

    the executive power grabs.

    But only the power grabs WE wanted.

    War and rendition?  Get rid of that.

    Bypassing Congress for Liberal goals?

    Gimme more of that.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 07:54:30 AM PDT

    •  How about a Liberal Clinton? (0+ / 0-)

      People mischaracterize the problem as "Obama doesn't have enough power to do more", when the problem isn't that at all.

      Clinton routinely kicked his Congress' ass. He won several tactical victories against Republicans, which is why they fought so hard to oust him from office.

      So what's the difference?

      Obama's "adult in the room, above the fray" approach means his negotiating position starts from a place between Democrats and Republicans. Take the debt ceiling: he quickly accepted Republican framing that spending cuts had to be part of a debt ceiling. Rather than negotiate his way to a recognition of that, this is the place he started!

      Don't get me wrong - it is highly admirable in some ways that he wants to see the best in people. The only problem is that it isn't getting him the results, at the moment.

      If apes evolved from humans, why are there still humans?

      by Bobs Telecaster on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 08:06:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clinton did not do any such thing. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SoCalSal, snackdoodle, elmo, Onomastic

        If anything, he got his own ass kicked because of his indiscretions and it was Clinton who surgically alienated specific factions of his base, while basically agreeing to eliminate Welfare as we once knew it, as well as starting the deregulation of the FCC which is now why any other viewpoint other than corporate-conservative memes is put down.  Clinton is not a person for Obama to emulate, either.

        We need to get back to basic civics here.  It may all sound good politically to have the persona of being a 'kick ass' President.  But Obama can't be that person for a couple of reasons.

        First, he's not built that way.  Second, he starts acting like that and then people would say he's out of line.  He can't win.

        It is not Obama's job to start to behave as badly as his opposition.  It is not his job to necessarily out game them if it is not within the power of his office to do so.  It is not Presidential to start waging the figure, calling out the bad boys and girls and issuing time outs for them.  Nor can he preach them away by giving what amounts to a 'race speech - like' speech every other week.

        The bottom line is that the economy is bad and was bad when Obama took office.  Incredibly bad.  Generationally bad.  

        If the economy was bad during Clinton's time in office, he would not have ever survived his sex scandal.

        If the economy was good during GHWBush's second run for the WH, he would have won re-election in a landslide.

        His son 'won' 're'-election because the country had been scared out of its wits because of 9/11 and Iraq and that was the only thing that overrode sentiments about the economy.

        Perhaps President Obama will lose next year because of the economy.  The economy is one of those things that has a mind of its own and will work itself out over time.  The government can tweek things to help or hurt that effort, but this day has been coming for a long time now and it's here.  Why Obama even wanted to be the President during these times is beyond my understanding, but I can tell you it's exactly why the more serious GOP candidates are sitting out 2012.

        They don't want this headache, either.

        Obama is dealing with a bad economy, inherited 'wars' and folk in Congress who isn't fiscally responsible and who doesn't want to govern.  

        These are the cards he has to deal with and he chose to work within that framework, even if it's not to progressive's liking.

        If you want better results, then work to elect more and better folk to Congress who better reflects your point of view and the President will work within that framework, too.

        "The bottom line is, we've got to wake up. We can't allow our disappointment in Obama to lull us into allowing a truly dangerous strain of conservative philosophy to gain any more traction than it already has." --ObamOcala 4/5/11

        by smoothnmellow on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 08:34:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Who wants a Liberal Bush? (0+ / 0-)

      More and Better Democrats

      by SJerseyIndy on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 08:54:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Democrats could put public focus on this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stephen Daugherty

    issue by calling for a union between the appropriations process and raising the debt ceiling.  In other words, when Congress approves the appropriation, they have raised the debt ceiling.

    "Because I am a river to my people."

    by lordcopper on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 08:18:34 AM PDT

  •  Nice primer on the basics (8+ / 0-)

    I never found the 14th a viable route.  The translation from the wording to the intent advocated here on DKos was nebulous at best.  invoking it seemed certain to spark a Constitutional crisis and that would have not been benficial to the bond rating.

    As for the platinum coin thing, I still have no idea what that is supposed to accomplish.  

    But the larger question surrounding both is the matter of inflating the Presidential power, just as you outlined here.  That is a basic concern that for some reason did not matter this time around, to the hyper-partisan FPers who set the tone here.  The past month or more Dailykos seems more like Hillaryis44.

    I think it is more about page hits than anything else at this point.  Its certainly not about sophisticated commentary. If it were, there'd be no need for this primer demonstrates.

    Don't panic. Demonstrate.

    by Quicklund on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 08:20:12 AM PDT

    •  The idea about the Platinum coin... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Onomastic

      ...is that there are no limits set on how much a platinum coin could be worth, under the law.  Gold, Silver and other metals have legal limits.

      The mint would stamp three of these coins, the treasury would assign them each a value of a trillion dollars apiece, and they'd be put in the federal reserve, and that's where we would get the money to pay for everything.

      Of course, there are still all kinds of uncertainties tied to that idea.

      Simple question: In the years since Republicans successfully urged the disempowering of workers and unions in the Midwest, what has happened to those states economies?

      by Stephen Daugherty on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 08:33:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No thanks. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    justmy2

    You've made a great case, but I just can't go for the idea that the Presidency isn't that big a deal.  If the President used the de facto power inherent to the office, in terms of going out and persuading people, this constitutional stuff wouldn't be as critical.

    I'll Rochambeau you for it.

    by Rich in PA on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 08:30:56 AM PDT

    •  Actually, if you think the case through... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      churchylafemme, badger

      it falls to pieces in the matter of minutes.

      What about killing Americans overseas on his say so without review says he understands restraint and limits on powers?

      What about his failures with a Dem Congress for two years before 2010 says all he needs is Dems in control of Congress?

      None of it.

      It seems like it's just another ploy at and shot at taking another angle to make excuses in some way.

      More and Better Democrats

      by SJerseyIndy on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 08:37:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Democrats were in control of Congress (0+ / 0-)

        for only a couple of months, at most. And that included counting on Lieberman (not a Democrat anymore) to go along with the Democrats to bust filibusters. Considering that Republicans were filibustering everything and pulling every trick in the rule book to slow down the Senate, I think the amount of significant legislation that actually got through is fairly amazing.

      •  If you think it through your way. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mallyroyal

        If you think it through my way, unless Obama's idea was to fail to pass much of anything at all, he had to get sixty votes for damn near everything, rather than just fifty.  That meant for much of those two years, he actually had to get Republicans on board for things, if he wanted something to sign.

        So, our problems in Congress have made Obama, in practice, a much more rightward of a figure policywise.  But that's pretty much because that's all you can get out of Congress these days.

        You can't get very progressive policy out of a President who doesn't have a progressive legislature to back him up.

        Simple question: In the years since Republicans successfully urged the disempowering of workers and unions in the Midwest, what has happened to those states economies?

        by Stephen Daugherty on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 06:03:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  First, get people to listen. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snackdoodle, elmo, Onomastic

      All the calls for Obama to use the "bully pulpit" ignore that Obama has more information outreach and made more public speeches and tv interviews than any previous president.

      How many weekly presidential messages and public speeches have you listened to or read?

      The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. -FDR

      by SoCalSal on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 08:47:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The contitutional stuff is ALWAYS that (5+ / 0-)

      critical, its how the country works. The President asked us to tell Congress what we wanted and the place was crushed with responses. The best and only hope we have is to elect as many Dems as possible.

    •  Sorry, but I think the idea of the bully pulpit (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Onomastic, Stephen Daugherty

      as some magic bullet is dramatically over rated.

  •  The president seems to have no trouble (4+ / 0-)

    pushing the constitutional constraints when he wants to. Libya comes to mind off the top of my head.

    •  But he didn't exceed them. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snackdoodle, elmo

      "The bottom line is, we've got to wake up. We can't allow our disappointment in Obama to lull us into allowing a truly dangerous strain of conservative philosophy to gain any more traction than it already has." --ObamOcala 4/5/11

      by smoothnmellow on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 08:36:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He just ignored them. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        justmy2, badger

        More and Better Democrats

        by SJerseyIndy on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 08:40:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Know how we know? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Onomastic, badger

        Because Congress approved money to fund the operation. There was the balance.

        The point is that the President is perfectly within his right to push the boundaries of the constitution. This is why we have separation of powers. He has every right to use them to further his policy and political goals. It is the duty of the other two branches to check this power. And it is also the duty of the public to render verdict via elections.

        So, if the president had used the 14th amendment, for example (a move i opposed for other reasons), it is the duty of Congress and the Supreme Court to check him. And it is the duty of the electorate to render verdict at the election. What President Obama should NOT do, however, is check and balance himself into inaction.

        While I oppose the use of the 14th the way some of my friends advocate, had he done it, I'd fully support him on it. If the Congress chose to impeach him or the Supreme Court issued an injunction against him, I'd welcome that too. That's the way the system is designed to work.

        We can then render verdict over all of it November after next.

  •  This argument makes no sense in consideration (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger

    of 2008-2010.

    He failed just as miserably to get shit done when the numbers and control you speak of was handed to him on a silver platter.

    How soon some forget the failures of 2008-2010 simply because the complete and utters failures of 2010-present.

    And how silly to do so.

    Yes, this POTUS well understand his limits of power.

    That's why his predecessor only theorized of extra-judical killings on Americans overseas.

    And this POTUS put it to practice.

    Spare me with his understanding of restraint and limits and this revisionist history that conveniently forgets that he failed even with the make-up of 2008-2010 Congress you propose.

    And his oath?

    He failed that years ago.

    More and Better Democrats

    by SJerseyIndy on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 08:35:10 AM PDT

  •  Very Well Written (3+ / 0-)

    A pleasure to read.

    Readers & Book Lovers Pull up a chair! You're never too old to be a Meta Groupie

    by Limelite on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 08:43:10 AM PDT

  •  I think the issue with the platinum coins (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elmo, Onomastic

    idea is much more severe than simply an overextension of presidential prerogative. The fact that some in this community thought it a good idea highlights a growing strain of anti-intellectualism and anti-realism here. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a more idiotic idea coming from the left, that violated the laws of basic economics as well as the laws of arithmetic. And, together with ideas I read here about the issuance of gold certificates, the distribution to social security recipients of actual gold nuggets (supposedly held at Fort Knox), and that of President Obama declaring martial law and taking over the three branches of government, I am left with the uncomfortable knowledge that there is indeed a version of the Tea Party of the left - a group of know-nothings who take pride in arguing for ideas dismissed as impossible by the "intellectuals" and who speak more from their angry hearts than their minds.

    I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

    by doc2 on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 08:57:19 AM PDT

  •  The President is powerless...simply (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger

    a figurehead with a pen waiting to sign things shipped to him by Congress providing a little prodding here and there when the hit a roadblock.  A arbitrator...

    I'm saying Obama probably realizes better than most what his constitutional constraints are, which is one reason he prefers ot "lead from behind" developing legislation behind the scenes, rather than taking a more aggressive stance.

    I'm saying that if we're truly keen on seeing change, it's never going to be good enough to just get a President we like in there.  If the President is right, but the Congress is not, the Constitution's bindings will limit that leader's options, and our ability to get results in a manner that doesn't disrupt our constitutional system will be curtailed.

    I guess it is the position of those that agree with the message in this diary that we should throw away the Accomplishment List™.

    Me, I tend to have a more nuanced view.  The President has significant power to amplify, change, and move the narrative forward through the bully pulpit (polling shift raising the debt ceiling), executive orders (Libya, Wars), agency directives (DADT), and the veto pen.

    Once someone realizes that the current plan isn't working, I submit the many of the concerns you listed would not be as pressing.

    That does not mean rely on the President.  But it also doesn't mean when the $#!+ hits the fan, start identifying every reason in the world for the buck to stop somewhere else (the Professional Left, lazy liberals, DFH's, Senate Minority, Tea Party, Fox News, Spongebob Squarepants).

    I would submit the President would be much better served by a better group of advisers that told him the truth, and didn't misread polls and send the President off after Moby Dick independents at every pass instead of simply doing the right thing.  Stand for something, even if it means losing a battle.  

    All of the big issues, that were intended to grab independents have hurt the President.

    Stimulus compromise - destroyed public faith in Keynesian Economics

    Health Insurance Reform - Lack of immediate impact and elongated discussion (heavily influenced by approval of Baucus Gang of Six) creates opportunity for 2010 demagougery.

    Dec Tax Cuts - Increase Deficit and Removes Future Leverage with no substantial jobs impact

    Debt Ceiling - Creates intraparty distrust, creates concession fatigue, and poor early strategy boxes President in to accept a process that results in the first credit downgrade in US History.

    Each decision creating less capital for the President to work with.

    Maybe we should be discussing how the President can utilize the movement he created in 2008 to regain that capital instead of discussing why the movement should not make a go of it on their own...again.

    "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

    by justmy2 on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 09:08:15 AM PDT

    •  No, not a figurehead. (0+ / 0-)

      Your problem is that you've made yourself a prisoner to ideal circumstance.

      In short, Obama has to fulfill the ideal in every respect, or else, he's DESTROYING the Public's trust or belief in something.

      But with Republicans literally filibustering from the start, you weren't going to get ideal.  Republicans didn't start holding things hostage once they got a whiff of fear from Obama.  No, they started filibustering the moment Democrats won Congress in 2006, and continued this behavior, even after their historic loss.

      You mourn Obama's lack of achievements, call him weak, regard him as in over his head, but you don't look at the constitution and ask yourself "was their a reasonable way out of this that doesn't involve some unpredictable psychological effect?"

      The question is not one of Obama's political capital, rather it's a matter of ours.  If we're focused mainly on the President coming to our rescue, or making some sort of symbolic stance like the Debt Ceiling vote, where it wasn't material to any final outcome, much less a progressive one, we won't get much.

      If we truly want political capital, the Progressive caucus has to become more clever in it's politics, and more broad in its base.  The way our government is constructed, numbers matter, so if we want greater sway, we need greater numbers.

      And if we want Obama to pass more liberal legislation?  Well, damn, it is an impediment to have a Republican majority in the way.  What I'm saying is quit fantasizing about fixing everything through the Presidency, and start focusing on the other branch of government.

      Simple question: In the years since Republicans successfully urged the disempowering of workers and unions in the Midwest, what has happened to those states economies?

      by Stephen Daugherty on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 06:29:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Stephen - Throwing up strawmen only (0+ / 0-)

        makes me stop reading...

        Your problem is that you've made yourself a prisoner to ideal circumstance.

        In short, Obama has to fulfill the ideal in every respect, or else, he's DESTROYING the Public's trust or belief in something.

        I didn't even read the rest.  If you would like to have a discussion on the merits, I would be more that willing to have a discussion.  But nonsense like this is simply annoying.  Your definition of ideal seems to be anything the President doesn't do.  

        I won't apologize for being consitent and being right time after time.  I am skeptical about people who seem to change their proposed strategy after earlier failed proposals only to then tell those who have been proven consistently right stubborn.

        If you would like to persuade people, I would suggest stop strawmen to start almost every rebuttal.  FWIW.

        "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

        by justmy2 on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 07:51:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Your crowd denounces "unitary executive" actions (0+ / 0-)

      as one of the "true progressive" tenets, even while demanding such action ALL THE TIME.

      •  I don't know what my crowd is (0+ / 0-)

        but I still denounce it...find somewhere that you have seen me call for unilateral action by the President.  You won't.  Just because you think in appear to live in a binary world, does not mean others do.

        I assume by your response that "your crowd" is for a unitary executive.  Sounds hypocritical to me...but feel free to prove me wrong.  Your track record is not especialy stellar anyway...but it is what it is.

        "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

        by justmy2 on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 07:45:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for this thoughtful analysis. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight

    You've been Republished in the J Town Babbling Brook

    burble burble

    Love is the lasting legacy of our lives

    by princesspat on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 09:10:45 AM PDT

  •  Check your premises. (0+ / 0-)
    There are limits to what power he can grab, without setting the political precedent for the contempt of constitutional law in a certain area.

    Not using the 14th will likely lead to a country that need not worry about precedent because there will be no government left to cite precedent in.

    I didn't care for math, but when I first understood the concept of finding the slope of a curve at a point, I wanted to grab the first girl I saw and kiss her with wild abandon, just like in that WW II photo.

    by dov12348 on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 09:21:07 AM PDT

    •  You say the words (0+ / 0-)

      "not using the 14th" as if it is used every day. In fact, this interpretation of the 14th is novel, and Obama's own DOJ doesn't believe it gives him the ability to "use" it as you think. There has to be a LOT more debate (and testing in the courts) before it can be determined whether or not the 14th can be helpful to presidents in this situation or not.

      I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

      by doc2 on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 09:55:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you have a link to the DOJ's... (0+ / 0-)

        ...opinion on this?  Is it public?  I would LOVE to see that.

        I didn't care for math, but when I first understood the concept of finding the slope of a curve at a point, I wanted to grab the first girl I saw and kiss her with wild abandon, just like in that WW II photo.

        by dov12348 on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 10:01:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for this (0+ / 0-)

    we have got to back off this tendency to load every thing  on the president, it just isn't that simple

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site