Skip to main content

President Obama is in my state, the state of Texas, fund-raising and meeting people. He went to Dallas where he met with local elected officials and faith leaders. Governor Rick Perry got the elevation he needed to meet face to face with the president. The president called the meeting constructive.

Dallas officials, and specifically Democratic county judge Clay Jenkins, have stepped up to help the refugees on the Texas-Mexico border in a rather bipartisan fashion. “For the most part,” Jenkins said. “we put aside those partisan arguments, and we discussed a way to get this problem resolved.”

The overarching rhetoric against immigrants, and specifically Latinos, does not play well in most of the population centers in Texas. Even Republican candidate for lieutenant governor Dan Patrick has moderated his anti-immigrant anti-Latino rhetoric.

Mostly Republicans wanted President Obama to visit the border while he was in Texas. He wisely did not. Elevating the border issue above and beyond the pain and suffering inflicted by a non-functional Congress on Americans would have deferred the narrative of a fickle press to concentrate on this one issue. While the border situation is important from a humanitarian standpoint, Republican intransigence and inaction is inflicting much pain on millions of Americans.

What was very ironic about the meeting with Rick Perry is that the governor wanted the president to act unilaterally to attempt to bring the refugee problem at the border under control. He wanted him to activate the National Guard now. President Obama reminded many in Texas that the same folks wanting him to act unilaterally on the immigration issue are the ones that are suing him for issuing ‘too many’ executive orders.

The cable networks abandoned President Obama’s speech in Austin on Thursday when they realized he was not going to make the border issue its centerpiece. It was an economic speech. He, however, used a small segment to excoriate Republicans to illustrate their hypocrisy and lack of governing acumen.

“There are number of Republicans in Congress including a number of them in the Texas delegations who are mad at me for taking these actions,” President Obama said. “They actually plan to sue me. [...] The truth is with all the actions I have taken this year, I am issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than a hundred years.

"So it’s not clear how the Republicans didn't seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did. Maybe it is just me they don’t like. I don’t know. Maybe there is some principle out there that I haven’t discerned. That I haven’t figured out. You hear some of them. ‘Sue him. Impeach him.’ Really? For what? You are going to sue me for doing my job? Okay.

"Think about that. You are going to use taxpayer money to sue me for doing my job while you don’t do your job. There is a movie called The Departed. … There is a scene in the movie where Mark Wahlberg, they are on a stakeout and somehow the guy loses the guy they are tracking. And Wahlberg is all upset, yelling at the guy. The guy looks up and says, ‘Well who are you?’ And Wahlberg says, ‘I am the guy doing my job. You must be the other guy.’ Sometimes I feel like saying to these guys, I am the guy doing my job. You must be the other guy.”

The President is right  that he has issued the lowest number of executive orders than any president in more than 100 years. The president is correct that the charlatans disguised as GOP Congressmen are not doing their jobs. They are the least productive Congress in modern history. That is a verifiable fact.

These politicians are not serious. Marching National Guardsmen to the border is not the help needed for the onslaught of refugees. They need humanitarian aid. Turning Central American refugees away is a simplistic answer that will not work, especially for a country that touts its humanity. After all, many of the problems in Central America have their genesis in U.S. policy. Let us as well not forget that America’s insatiable hunger for drugs makes these countries producers and financial depots for that black market.

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

  •  The really hard part about getting Congress (11+ / 0-)

    to do there job is getting them to do it and having what they do actually be of any benefit to someone who is not in the 1%.

    Dogs and Philosophers do the greatest good and get the fewest rewards (Diogenes)

    by Out There on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 02:08:34 PM PDT

  •  reced nt (7+ / 0-)

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 02:09:04 PM PDT

  •  Recced and tipped. (7+ / 0-)

    We need to make about 300 copies of this diary and distribute them to the Republican members of Congress.

    A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon. -Bill Clinton

    by PSzymeczek on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 02:14:06 PM PDT

  •  He's figured a way to beat this: (18+ / 0-)
    The cable networks abandoned President Obama’s speech in Austin on Thursday when they realized he was not going to make the border issue its centerpiece. It was an economic speech.
    Humor!
    His comedic timing is excellent!
    This set of comments are viral so even though Cable News ignored it initially, it's getting eyeballs all over the place!

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 02:17:47 PM PDT

    •  What he should do is take a page out of... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dcnblues

      ...the media's own playbook.

      At the beginning of the speech, say "I'm going to talk about the border issue, but first, let me talk about the economy."

      Further down, "coming up, the border issue you want to hear about, but next, let's talk about health care..."

      Then at the end, spend 30 seconds in an anti-climactic mention of the border issue.

      That'll keep them on the hook for the whole thing.

  •  Quarterfinals, Pura vida! (5+ / 0-)

    Not many people are moving here from Costa Rica, Nicaragua or Panama.  Any of these places would make good drug transshipment points.  

    We funded the Contras and we ran a big chunk of Panama as a colony for several decades.

    Costa Rica, Nicaragua and even the country that Manuel Noriega used to run have kinda sorta more or less graded on the curve honest governments.

    Sure, let's hand out citizenship out to all these kids.

    But how will we prevent this from happening in the future?  How do we prevent the Catholic Church from telling them to have a bunch of kids they can't afford?  How do we prevent the crooks that run Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras from stealing everything not nailed down?

    Do we send in the Marines?

    "states like VT and ID are not 'real america'" -icemilkcoffee

    by Utahrd on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 02:19:20 PM PDT

  •  The reason thousands of children (7+ / 0-)

    are fleeing the Latin countries is the policies of the U.S. Because of the corn subsidies and the war on drugs we have destroyed these places. as soon as one of them elects a new leader, the CIA goes down and wipes him out and install a puppet. Over add over. The CIA is directly responsible for this major child refugee problem.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 02:20:39 PM PDT

  •  "The Other Guy(s)" (7+ / 0-)

    actually had their own movie, interestingly, also with Mark Wahlberg.  

  •  I don't think the President is being candid when (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OuijaForestCat, Mayfly, askew

    he says this:  

    “There are number of Republicans in Congress including a number of them in the Texas delegations who are mad at me for taking these actions,” President Obama said. “They actually plan to sue me. [...] The truth is with all the actions I have taken this year, I am issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than a hundred years.
    "So it’s not clear how the Republicans didn't seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did. Maybe it is just me they don’t like. I don’t know. Maybe there is some principle out there that I haven’t discerned. That I haven’t figured out. You hear some of them. ‘Sue him. Impeach him.’ Really? For what? You are going to sue me for doing my job? Okay.
    This is a clear message that "I'm being criticized for the number of executive orders I issued."  And the President knows that's NOT what the criticism is.  No one on the Republican side of Congress is criticizing the number of executive orders, and they are not talking about suing over the number of executive orders.  The President well knows that. He knows that it's NOT the number of executive orders that is at issue; it's the CONTENT of several specific executive orders and whether those specific orders did things that the executive branch was not authorized to do under the statute.  In other words, the complaint is that the President is using certain executive orders to change laws, and the Constitution does not authorize the President to do that.  

    Now, I'm not saying the Republican lawsuit is going to stand up in Court.  I can't say, without studying the specific laws and executive orders at issue, whether the complaint has any merit.  And the lawsuit may fail even if the complaint has merit, for two reasons: (1) I'm not sure House has legal standing; and (2) a Court may well decide that the Constitution provides the only remedy to Congress if Congress believes the President has exceeded his authority.  

    But the fact that the lawsuit to be filed by the House Republicans may not have merit does not, in my view, excuse the President's misrepresentation of what the complaint actually is. The complaint actually raises a legitimate constitutional issue:  how much can a President -- any president -- use executive orders to change aspects of laws he does not like?  Suppose President Bush had issued an executive order raising the age for full Social Security benefits, because Congress did not act?  The question would be -- would that have been a constitutional use of executive power?  

    •  Could you be specific? (18+ / 0-)

      What specific orders allegedly exceeded his authority?  

      Certainly not a minimum wage for employees of government contractors.  The President clearly has the authority to write any clause in standardized federal government contracts he pleases.  If a prospective contractor doesn't want to pay minimum wage, then don't submit a bid.

      "Corporations exist not for themselves, but for the people." Ida Tarbell 1908.

      by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 02:57:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think what they are complaining about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mayfly

        is the changes to effective dates in the ACA and decisions not to enforce certain immigration laws. The question they are raising is not whether it's good policy, but whether it's an action that the President has constitutional authority to do, or whether it's a change in the law that requires Congress to act.  

        I don't know whether the claims are valid or not.  But I do know it's substance, not number, they are complaining about.

        •  Dubya did the same thing with Part D. The Presi... (11+ / 0-)

          Dubya did the same thing with Part D.

          The President is right. This isn't about what he's done. It's about him. It's personal. And it has been from the start.

          The only thing that's new here is the President is calling them out.

          •  Executive discretion is not limitless. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nextstep

            President Obama used an executive order to cancel a core component(the employer mandate) of the ACA for two years.  At what point has the President gone too far?   If two years is okay, why not three?  Or five?  Or ten?  Where do you draw the line?  If executive discretion is a limitless grant of authority then we no longer have a functioning constitutional democracy.

            •  Presidential terms are limited to 8 years. (0+ / 0-)

              President Obama has 3 left.

              Child forgotten in car? -- Use open source E-Z Baby Saver -- Andrew Pelham, 11yo inventor E-Z Baby Saver

              by 88kathy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 04:54:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  why have a President at all? (0+ / 0-)

              slippery slope arguments tend towards fallacy. This one particularly. The United States Constitution establishes a powerful executive, but even still his power is not boundless.

              It is bounded, specifically, by the powers of the other two branches of government.

              Congress especially has an incredibly simple and straight-forward method to deal with executive overreach: they can pass legislation.

              And, if the President fails to comply, the Congress can impeach and convict him, removing him from office.

              I would note that Speaker Boehner is doing neither of those things. Notably, Boehner does not need cooperation from the Democrats to impeach the President for the high crime and/or misdemeanor of delaying the employer mandate.

              •  Boehner can't do it alone, tho'. (0+ / 0-)

                The President must have committed acts that are in and of themselves heinous enough to warrant impeachment.

                There is a specific Congressional committee that determines this.  Boehner is not on this committee.  

                You can't just say "Impeach, because I don't like what he's doing or has done."  Otherwise he'd have been gone on his first day in office, like the juror with his hair in dreads. "Sorry Your Honor, but that man doesn't appear impartial enough."  End of discussion, collect your twenty bucks and begone.

                Consider that Bush the Younger delayed the Medicare Part D mandate for, what, 2 years? And not a PEEP from Congress, from the press, from anyone.  How is the employer mandate for the ACA any different? Oh, the Prez is a Democrat.  Riiiiight. That makes everything different.

                Most (if not all) of the anti-Obama rhetoric in this country is being fanned up by a very vocal and ultimately incorrect minority in the Conservative ranks.  Also keep in mind that that very same rhetoric, if uttered in any other country but ours, would be considered sedition, and would likely result in fines, jail times, or other "we'll teach you to badmouth our leader" punishment (gulag, anyone? Wasn't too long ago that a rock band got sent to Siberia for messing with Putin.)  If Obama were HALF the dictator the teahadists accuse him of being, they themselves would be in P.R.I.S.O.N.  

                But he's not.  So they're not.  Which in some cases is a shame, because they ARE advocating sedition, and tearing this country apart for the benefit of a select few, UNELECTED yet very-much-in-charge industrialists.

                The Rich and Spoiled 1%'ers are making the Biker Gang 1%'ers look a lot better than they used to.

                by dcnblues on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 03:57:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  That is crap (9+ / 0-)

      they just criticize, never state what the objection is.  We know they have vowed not to do anything for the President. Now that he has won a second term it is criticism and investigate non stop.  I am sick of it.  Remember when they were all up in arms about the Czars...till someone pointed out they weren't like the Russian Czars but that Reagan and the Bushes had Czars.  

      Someone needs to remind Republicans that being President while black is not an impeachable offense.

      by regis on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 03:09:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well he probably should have mentioned (7+ / 0-)

      Day Labor in Texas, which the state invests in. As a matter of fact I have a day labor center less than a mile from my house,

      http://www.austintexas.gov/...

      Instead of mentioning a movie. This is fake outrage from republicans who encourage undocumented workers coming here and using a cash economy. Not a single road (or NTTA Toll Road) would be built in Texas without undocumented immigrants from south America.  

      Day Labor Center do more to encourage crossing the border than any federal plan.

    •  The President made his remarks (6+ / 0-)

      before the subject of the lawsuit had been disclosed, coffeetalk, but please, proceed.

      The President doesn't have a magic wand.

      by CJB2012 on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 03:41:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The complaint has been around for a couple (0+ / 0-)

        of weeks now.  I'm not saying it's VALID -- I wouldn't know that without looking more critically at the laws to see if executive orders exceed the scope of the laws.  And as I said elsewhere, I have questions about whether a lawsuit is proper -- even if the criticism were valid.

        But I think that it's not candid to imply that what Republicans are complaining about is the NUMBER of executive orders.  That's not what they are complaining about.  

        •  Repubs are disingenuous about the employer mand... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hoghead99

          Repubs are disingenuous about the employer mandate issue because they'd be complaining about what a burden it supposedly is on employers and how it's destroying the economy if Obama hadn't delayed it. They are not serious about this, Boner is only doing it because impeachment would be an even bigger disaster but he has to do something for the baggers.

          Stop making excuses for these clowns for once in your life.

        •  It may not be the subject (0+ / 0-)

          of the lawsuit, but it IS what they've been complaining about.  That was my point.  He made this speech shortly before the actual complaint in the threatened lawsuit was made public.

          The President doesn't have a magic wand.

          by CJB2012 on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:41:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Indeed, the number of EOs is not the issue. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pi Li

      Suppose the 2012 elections had gone differently and President Mitt Romney ordered the ACA's employer mandate suspended for two years. Suppose that ended up being the only executive order he issued in his first term.   You wouldn't hear any Democrats saying "Well, I guess I'm okay with it because President Romney issued executive orders at record low rate."   Nobody on DKos would buy that excuse.  Everybody here would want Romney impeached.  But it's okay if President Obama does it because he has the magic (D) by his name.  Democrats have fully embraced the unitary executive, provided it's their guy.

    •  I love it when the Prez (4+ / 0-)

      gets angry. :)

      Obama is the most progressive president in my lifetime.

      by freakofsociety on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 06:40:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Your point about the number not being the issue (5+ / 0-)

      is well-taken, but as I read it, President Obama's real point is this:  "Maybe it is just me they don’t like. I don’t know. Maybe there is some principle out there that I haven’t discerned. That I haven’t figured out."
      Because when the President made his speech, Boehner hadn't even stated what he planned to sue him for.  
      Right now, the President is at war with republicans in Congress.  And his speech was exactly how one should speak to and about the enemy.  
      The number of Executive orders is not the issue, but the President's mention of it underlines the fact that the republicans have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.  In that way, I think it was brilliant strategy for him to bring it up.

      "Soylent Green is people too, my friend!" Guess Who

      by oldmaestro on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 08:05:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  " I don't think the President is being candid..." (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raspberryberet

      Your apparent ability to identify "the finer points" of an argument completely misses the CRUX of our current governmental (and UNNECESSARY) problem!

      The Constitution (remember, constructed in an earlier time when men could have honest differences but always returned to compromise, did NOT and could NOT envision a time when two CO-EQUAL branches of government would find themselves in a situation where one of these branches had degenerated into a congress of street-fighters intentionally DEVOID of a civil tongue and resorting to stealth and actions more representative of street-gangs.

      Thus, when one CO-EQUAL branch fails to live up to its individual, congressional oaths of office and DOES NOT GOVERN, that in itself is NO REASON for the other CO-EQUAL branch to shirk its responsibilities. Using every constitutional means - including EXECUTIVE ORDERS - to ensure some form of public order and constitutional presence, to me, is evidence more of a sense of responsibility than an example of "HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS'!.......

      The color of a man's, or woman's skin should have NO
      BEARING on that man's or woman's ability to compromise!  

  •  I am mystified that people continue to (13+ / 0-)

    Vote for these worthless GOP Congresspeople.  Not only have they failed to pass any legislation that solves problems or benefits Americans, they have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars investigating trumped up scandals and shutting down the government, while at the very same time declaring that we can't afford to spend any money fixing things, feeding people, supporting veterans, or, yes, solving the refugee crisis at the border.  They are rewarded for this perverse state of affairs by being offered a platform on teevee talk shows, where they continue to lie and make false accusations un-impeded.  

    They want to use, and probably impeach, President Obama for taking executive action to help Americans in need, but they have no problem with Dick Cheney, who essentially ran the government via executive action, selective budgeting, secret commissions, writing secret justifications for torture, creating a private army of military contractors who were not subject to any laws, and signing statements nullifying any portions of laws he and his puppet GWB didn't like.

    What is wrong with the American voter?  Is the President's race sufficient reason for them to put these losers in power and keep them there once they've proven their worthlessness, disregard for the public welfare, and blatant dishonesty?  Have we come to that as a nation--that every day I read articles that say the GOP will not only keep the House but have a good chance of taking the Senate too--are people volunteering to have their economic and reproductive  freedom, their education system privatized, their land and water and air poisoned by the very rich, their very earth made uninhabitable by humans--just to stick it to the black guy in the White House?

    I just don't get it!

    "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

    by SottoVoce on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 02:31:52 PM PDT

    •  Race will soon not be an issue (0+ / 0-)

      I predict that race will not be even mentioned as why there is any kind of failure that happened within the Obama administration.   I also think that Bush will no longer be shown to be the cause of some of those failure as well.  

      Why do I say that?  It's because race is becoming a "go-to" reason for anything negative about Obama and it's getting a Ho-Hum response even from the more pro-liberal media sources.  In addition, I have seen too many cartoons lately in the likes of the NYT and other notable liberal media sources that joke about Bush being the cause of everything and anything that goes wrong in the Obama administration.  

      It seems that Obama has reached the point where he's going to have to stand on his own as an individual president and the country is going to want to see some forthright presentations with regard to his works.  

      HR's expected.  Thanks, guys.

      •  Your comment gives no answer (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RightHeaded, a2nite, silverfoxcruiser, rmb

        If the President's race is not the reason people keep re-electing worthless GOP congressmen and women when they don't do any work for the voters, I'm happy to entertain alternative explanations.  You'll notice I asked a question rather than making a statement.  Frankly, I don't understand why there isn't a backlash against these obstructionist liars, behind the very narrow minority of die hard extremist GOP "base" voters.  I look forward to hearing an alternative explanation.

        "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

        by SottoVoce on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 03:10:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Alternative explantion" ? (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not arguing here...not supporting any kind of right-wing legitimacy.  Sheesh, SottoVoce.

          Read my post.  It's not about legislation and so forth.  Just read it again.

          And, on another note, trust me, my friend....those that aren't all about the "race card" being played aren't "narrow minority die hard extemist GOP "base" voter types.  There are a bunch and I mean BUNCH of voters in this country that aren't buying everything and anything against Obama being because he's black.  That includes a huge number of independents and "non-affiliated" voters.  

          Careful to think that because we have a large number of minorities and entitlement receivers that will vote in mass for democrats that the right doesn't have just as many that aren't in that mix that will vote republican.

          Hopefully I've answered your question...because, you didn't make a statement. ........ Really?

        •  Some like nothing as long as the negro has less; (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          silverfoxcruiser

          that's why Reagan won.

          I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

          by a2nite on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 03:55:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's the social issues... (0+ / 0-)

          that people keep voting for. They think the Republicans are actually going to do something about the social issues that the base cares about: abortion, gay marriage, etc. They know the republicans suck on everything else, but they feel that they are the last refuge of common decency. As fucked up as that is.

      •  Typical passive-agressive white victimism.... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RightHeaded, a2nite, askew

        ... "the media isn't being mean enough to Obama!!!!"

      •  Re: Obama standing on his own... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SottoVoce

        It's really damned if you do, damned if you don't.  Congress has done nothing of any use for virtually his entire presidency (a little bit got done the first two years, because the Dems controlled it, and not much since).  But if he does anything without Congress's blessing, he gets attacked for overstepping his bounds.

    •  mystified ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Schneewolfe, silverfoxcruiser

      You and me both -- I just don't get it. And, I guess I never will.

    •  I don't think the President's race is the main ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      silverfoxcruiser

      I don't think the President's race is the main issue. Republicans are simply being Republicans. Remember, they impeached Bill Clinton, who was white. They treat all Democrats horribly. They demand absolute power when in the majority, and obstruct everything when they are not. And there's their local politics, which do not involve the President. And their War on Women--and on the non-wealthy in general. If there were a white Democratic president, they would be just as bad. Of course there are many racists who are enraged because we elected a half-black president--twice! Republicans in power use this. But race is not their motivation. This is important, because focusing too much on one factor--such as the President's race--can be distracting and antiproductive.

      •  The obstruction is unprecedented, and more to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite

        the point, the deliberate failure of Congress to accomplish anything at all has never been seen before.  True, the GOP gave Clinton a terrible, terrible time of it, but Congress still continued to function as a legislative body.  No more.  In my original comment, I asked why the public continues to re-elect the GOP anyway, when it is clear that these Congressmen are deliberately doing nothing to meet the needs of their constituents.  I ask if the President's race is the reason; perhaps it's not.  One cannot deny that the public accepts some pretty awful policies at the state level--limiting voting rights, allowing guns everywhere, deliberately making health care unavailable to the working poor--because such policies are sold as protections against "those people."  Certainly since Obama's election, there's been an uptick in the cynical use of racist language--barely coded--to get votes.  Once in office, the War on Woman, on the elderly, on labor, and on the non-wealthy in general can proceed apace.  If, as you say, Republicans are just being Republicans, then I am mystified why the public continues to vote for them.  

        "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

        by SottoVoce on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 11:52:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  May want to clarify your link... (0+ / 0-)

    it's lowest rate, not number.

  •  WTF is it with 170 second ads in front of Videos? (0+ / 0-)

    This crap sucks.

  •  Gotta disagree here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bailey2001, bluenick

    The GOP and their press sources and some of the mainstream media presentations are making a lot of negative "noise" about Obama not going to the boarder to see the crisis going on there with the massive influx of children coming in from other than Mexico.  Yes, this is legitimate for these kids to come here because of a Bush-signed law allowing it, but it's still a big issue (especially for the states affected by the numbers coming in) and it's all about children which is something Ms. Obama is adamant about and has, in many ways, taken on has her "cause".

    I think the president should have visited the boarder and should have had a marvelous speech there and should have explained what we, as a country, are doing about this crisis.

    Just me, I guess.

  •  Calvin Coolidge issued 1,203 executive orders? (2+ / 0-)

    I'm in awe.  Never knew he had it in him.  

    "Corporations exist not for themselves, but for the people." Ida Tarbell 1908.

    by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 02:54:15 PM PDT

  •  Deadbeat Congress. nt (5+ / 0-)

    Dick Cheney 2/14/10: "I was a big supporter of waterboarding"

    by Bob Love on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 03:00:46 PM PDT

  •  I have come to believe (3+ / 0-)

    Congress has designed US drug policy as requested by cartel lobbyists, assisted by the prison-industrial complex.

    "the northern lights have seen queer sights, but the queerest they ever did see. Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge, I cremated Sam McGee". - Robert Service, Bard of the Yukon

    by Joe Jackson on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 03:18:10 PM PDT

  •  #GOPocrisy by definition (0+ / 0-)

    Join us at 8PM ET for #GOPocrisy

    Proud to be part of the 21st Century Democratic Majority Party of the 3M's.. Multiracial, Multigender and MiddleClass

    by LOrion on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 03:23:07 PM PDT

  •  Seriously, Please raise Perry up higher (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    silverfoxcruiser

    I could think of little that would be any better than to raise Rick Perry up right now.  

    I can't imagine anyone else could be any worse in terms of presidential runs.

    Streichholzschächtelchen

    by otto on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 03:29:20 PM PDT

  •  Is this us? (5+ / 0-)

    Egberto, you state that America is

    "a country that touts its humanity".
    Do we? I sure hope we're still a majority. There is a large portion of the US population that keep voting for right-wingers who over and over exhibit a full lack of humanity (among being wanting for other basic scruples). If half the people keep voting for these guys, no doubt those voters care little about humanity, especially non-white and non-American humans.

    "Inequality is the root of social evil." ― Pope Francis

    by GoodGod on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 03:35:12 PM PDT

  •  Correct me if I'm wrong (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jillf, dbcoe

    but doesn't Perry have the authority to bring in the National Guard?

    •  No correction necessary (3+ / 0-)

      Here is the complete scoop.  
      Sorry - but it is rather verbose.  It also shows that Perry is setting Obama up for an Unconstitutional Trap if Obama "sends in the National Guard".
      Here goes:

      The president may only deploy National Guard troops in federal missions, by design, but never unilaterally within the U.S. borders, by design. It is actually Gov. Perry who may deploy the Texas troops of the National Guard within his state whenever there is local or statewide emergency, such as this invasion. The same holds for every governor of the southern Border States–each may call their National Guard troops into action and provide the manpower and support necessary to the Border Patrol to secure those States and our nation from further distress.

      Each governor may call upon the National Guard troops of his own State but he may not “loan” them to another State for assistance. If the situation is such that more troops are necessary, then the Congress must pass legislation to federalize the National Guard, by design, thus now putting them under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief.

      Nuff Said

      Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a Bricklayer!

      by dbcoe on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 03:47:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Post Script (to my own comment) (3+ / 0-)

        Due to the 100+ year history of Posse Comitatus and the Sovereign Citizen movement in our country, Rick Perry will not DARE to call in his National Guard.  

        As it stands, about 10% of Texas citizens believe the Federal Government "does.not.exist" and have no authority to send in troops.  This is exactly what just happened in the Bundy Ranch Standoff.  Sovereign Citizens from all over the country believe that their local county Sheriffs are the only officials in charge.

        If Perry called in the National Guard, he would then be seen as colluding with the Federal Government.  He would be hooted out of office in a heartbeat!

        Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a Bricklayer!

        by dbcoe on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 04:09:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •   There is one word I'll use for the so-called (0+ / 0-)

          "Sovereign' types. TRAITORS. IF you dont believe in the legitimacy of the government of the US, then frankly you should not be here. that same government you despise protects you with the worlds strongest military, has protected about a third of its territory so you can go walking in the woods and glimpse the Grand Canyon, and many many other things, that a county level person could never do.

  •  Proof that no matter what President Obama did (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluenick, Mayfly, silverfoxcruiser

    the GOP would always oppose him to the hilt.

    Which is why President Obama should have been the most progressive president in history, and he should have issued 1,000 executive orders and done absolutely nothing to be conciliatory toward these whackadoos.

    There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

    by upstate NY on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 04:49:54 PM PDT

  •  I think national borders are a good thing--in case (3+ / 0-)

    some distressed citizen might have to slip across one to avoid injustice.

    But some of these border disputes are best put into perspective with a look from space:

    we're all on this big blue/green marble and need to think about respecting/saving all our habitat.

    As we careen faster and faster toward catastrophe, let's consider that (and our grandchildren).

    In Georgia, acting the fool with a gun is not only legal, it is encouraged by the governor and the state legislature.

    by Mayfly on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 05:53:42 PM PDT

  •  Just like War on Drugs didn't work, neither will a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, raspberryberet

    War on Immigrants. Bribery, corruption, fake focuments: There are a million ways for cartels to smuggle people, drugs, or whatever they want across the border. The idea of militarizing every inch of the vast southern border is crazy. Even if it could be done, at great expense, it wouldn't work. If there is a strong enough demand for something, people will find a way to bring it to that market. Money would be better spent on cracking down on illegal employers who exploit migrant labor than building thousands of miles of fortifications.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:03:42 AM PDT

  •  Is anyone discussing... (0+ / 0-)

    the possibility that people may be more upset about all the problems in the US right now, and concerned that if we don't simplify the immigration process, people will continue to cross illegally?

    I'm not saying just to turn them away, or let them continue to "jump" the border, but we should be working on an easier way for them to enter the US legally, as well as making sure that when they do go through the immigration process, like most all of our relatives did, they have a stable economy, and government programs that will work for them to succeed and build their dreams in America.

    “It has been more profitable for us to bind together in the wrong direction than to be alone in the right one.”
    ― Nassim Nicholas Taleb

  •  A question I don't hear being asked... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raspberryberet

    in terms of this crisis and in others for the past 12 years...how many of these children will remember how we Americans treated them? How many despots and terrorists of the future have we made and are making? What price can this country put on all of these children and families the price of their anger and hatred? To all of the Bend Over Party morons...are you willing to accept the cost for future generations of this hatred because they weren't white and European?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site