What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Obama: "Lame duck? Hell nah" (1 Viewer)

cstu

Footballguy
Obama’s Moves Defying Label of Lame DuckWASHINGTON — President Obama emerged from last week’s midterm election rejected by voters, hobbled politically and doomed to a final two years in office suffering from early lame-duck syndrome. That, at least, was the consensus in both parties. No one seems to have told Mr. Obama.

In the 10 days since “we got beat,” as he put it, by Republicans who captured the Senate and bolstered control over the House, Mr. Obama has flexed his muscles on immigration, climate change and the Internet, demonstrating that he still aspires to enact sweeping policies that could help define his legacy.

The timing of the three different decisions was to some extent a function of separate policy clocks, not simply a White House political strategy. Mr. Obama, for example, had been scheduled to travel to China for a summit meeting in mid-November, and American officials have been trying for most of the year to negotiate a climate agreement for him to announce while in Beijing.

Still, even if by happenstance, the back-to-back moves have reinforced Mr. Obama’s desire to assert himself in a period when his poll numbers and political capital are at their lowest ebbs. While losing Congress was a grievous blow that will further challenge his capacity to govern, advisers said that he feels liberated. He can now pursue his long-term agenda, they said, without being tethered to the short-term electoral concerns of his party’s leadership in Congress.

In the process, though, Mr. Obama has angered Republicans who accuse him of essentially defying the message sent by the electorate. All of the talk by the White House in recent days of working together with the new Congress seems belied by a president who has wasted little time advancing some of the same policies that were renounced just a week ago, Republicans said.

“The president is completely ignoring the will of the American voters, who turned out on Election Day and overwhelmingly elected people who wanted to change the direction of the country,” Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, said in an interview. “Even today, the new polls show Americans would rather have Republicans make the agenda changes than the president.”

But aides said Mr. Obama has concluded that he cannot let opposition from the other party stop him from advancing his priorities, and in his postelection comments, Mr. Obama predicted he would take actions that Republicans would not like. While White House advisers interpreted the election results as a mandate to work across the aisle, they said that cannot simply be a prescription for more gridlock where the president does nothing without Republican approval.

“Our bottom line is we think people want results,” said Jennifer Palmieri, the White House communications director. “They want things to improve. They want you to take action. They’re more focused on outcomes than process.”

Although they do not present it this way, in some ways Mr. Obama and his aides are taking a page from President George W. Bush’s playbook after his own “thumping” in his final midterm elections. Instead of pulling out of the deteriorating war in Iraq, as Democrats interpreted Mr. Bush’s election mandate, he sent more troops. Democrats like Mr. Obama, then a senator, accused the president of defying the voters. In the end, the reinforcements and a strategy change helped turn around the war.

Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

Like Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama will continue to have a relatively free hand on foreign policy, although he has asked Congress to fashion a new authorization for his own air war in Iraq and next-door Syria against the Islamic State militant group. But it remains less clear how far he can go toward other goals without Congress.

His agreement with China to reduce carbon emissions over the next decade is not binding and ultimately will depend on his successor enacting policies to achieve those goals. Likewise, his planned immigration executive order providing work permits to millions of people in the country illegally will remain in force only as long as he is in office.

Still, aides said Mr. Obama seems energized by the postelection actions. As early as the day after the voting, senior officials described him as impatient to reclaim the presidential megaphone and argue for policy initiatives after a year of hanging back in deference to Democratic operatives worried about the backlash for vulnerable candidates.

It is a change in tone that has been apparent to liberal activists who have often criticized Mr. Obama for being too timid and willing to compromise. Public interest groups and technology start-up executives said they saw the new dynamic at work on Monday, when they got a heads-up to watch the White House website for an announcement that would please them.

Mr. Obama’s videotaped call for a free and open Internet “completely upended the debate, and it was the kind of clear, bold statement we had been waiting for, reconnecting to that language you heard in 2008, where he came out in very stark terms in a pro-public interest way,” said Craig Aaron, the president of Free Press, an advocacy group.

While there is still considerable concern among some White House allies that Mr. Obama will allow Republicans to set the terms of debate over trade, taxes and infrastructure spending, many argue that the devastating scale of the election losses may have raised pressure on the president to go big in other areas, if only to prove his relevance and agenda-setting authority.

“The president has seen what happens when he doesn’t step forward and Democrats don’t inspire the public or their base — we win on the issues, but lose at the polls — so we can’t do worse,” said Anna Galland, the executive director of MoveOn.org, the progressive advocacy group. “Let’s try being bold.”

Republicans did not see it as bold so much as defiant and said it may cost Mr. Obama the opportunity to make more progress collaboratively.

“I’ve been very disturbed about the way the president has proceeded in the wake of the election,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the incoming Republican majority leader.

“I had maybe naïvely hoped the president would look at the results of the election and decide to come to the political center and do some business with us,” he added. “I still hope he does at some point but the early signs are not good.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
These are base issues. The majority isn't going to support him in this. If he saddles Hillary with all of this baggage he runs the risk of her losing.

The new Congress has an incentive to work with him. Seems like he should at least give it a shot before he goes rogue. Taking this path before the new Congress even convenes is going to be awful for the country. They are never going to fund these things.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are two historical precedents for this.

The one that Obama probably hopes for is Harry Truman. After a Republican sweep in 1946, Truman defied conservatives who wanted to reverse the New Deal, thumbed his nose at them and "gave 'em hell". Though vilified at the time, Truman ended up being respected for his stance both by the electorate and, eventually, by history.

The other precedent is Woodrow Wilson. In 1918, Republicans swept the midterm elections. Wilson acted like they didn't exist, he went to Versailles to negotiate the peace treaty without bringing along a single Republican. When he came home with an agreement that included the League of Nations, he arrogantly declared that it was not subject to negotiation. Wilson was repudiated, first by the Senate, and then by history.

Unfortunately for President Obama, the second example might be much closer to what's going to happen this time around. We'll see.

 
As someone who loathes Obama and thinks the GOP is led by a bunch of inept morons, this is going to be a fascinating couple of weeks.

Regardless of one's political affiliation or leanings, Obama's temper tantrum is appalling and completely undermining the checks and balances of our republic. Nobody believes there is any authenticity or sincerity behind his threatened actions. His six week ultimatum to a Congress that won't even be seated until January is comical. Go ahead, Barry. Do what you are going to do. Enjoy the next two years.

 
These are base issues. The majority isn't going to support him in this.
:lol:

Polls consistently show that the general public supports action on climate change, immigration reform (also supported by Republicans such as John McCain, for which he will almost certainly be primaried by his own party in 2016), and net neutrality (about which Republican Facebook "friends" and supporters of Cruz deluged his page with negative comments after he derisively compared it to the ACA). So in fact, on two of these three issues at least, not only does the majority of the American public support the president, but so do many Republicans.

"Base issues" - :lmao:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
These are base issues. The majority isn't going to support him in this.
:lol:

Polls consistently show that the general public supports action on climate change, immigration reform (also supported by Republicans such as John McCain, for which he will almost certainly be primaried by his own party in 2016), and net neutrality (about which Republican Facebook "friends" and supporters of Cruz deluged his page with negative comments after he derisively compared it to the ACA). So in fact, on two of these three issues at least, not only does the majority of the American public support the president, but so do many Republicans.

"Base issues" - :lmao:
We all support immigration reform. That's very different than amnesty. The polling is clear with regard to amnesty.Global Warming is low priority. I don't know what Obama actually plans to do but I doubt it matters much unless it impacts job growth. Obviously the economy is going to trump a reduction in carbon emissions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Obama sits back and waits for Congress to pass legislation - Republicans call Obama weak and assert that the country is suffering from a "lack of leadership".

Obama declares he's going to take executive action to help solve a problem both sides acknowledge is an issue - Republicans suggest he's poisoning the well and vow to fight him tooth and nail.

 
Obama sits back and waits for Congress to pass legislation - Republicans call Obama weak and assert that the country is suffering from a "lack of leadership".

Obama declares he's going to take executive action to help solve a problem both sides acknowledge is an issue - Republicans suggest he's poisoning the well and vow to fight him tooth and nail.
You have an interesting perspective on these things. I am curious to know why Obama decided not to do anything about this issue when the Dems controlled the house and the senate and any other time in the last four years when it was split. But now, the day after the election it is a matter that requires immediate action and attention?

 
Obama sits back and waits for Congress to pass legislation - Republicans call Obama weak and assert that the country is suffering from a "lack of leadership".

Obama declares he's going to take executive action to help solve a problem both sides acknowledge is an issue - Republicans suggest he's poisoning the well and vow to fight him tooth and nail.
You have an interesting perspective on these things. I am curious to know why Obama decided not to do anything about this issue when the Dems controlled the house and the senate and any other time in the last four years when it was split. But now, the day after the election it is a matter that requires immediate action and attention?
this is absolutely a fair and valid question, one I have raised several times.
 
Obama sits back and waits for Congress to pass legislation - Republicans call Obama weak and assert that the country is suffering from a "lack of leadership".

Obama declares he's going to take executive action to help solve a problem both sides acknowledge is an issue - Republicans suggest he's poisoning the well and vow to fight him tooth and nail.
You have an interesting perspective on these things. I am curious to know why Obama decided not to do anything about this issue when the Dems controlled the house and the senate and any other time in the last four years when it was split. But now, the day after the election it is a matter that requires immediate action and attention?
this is absolutely a fair and valid question, one I have raised several times.
Wasn't it called the "chicken#### gambit" by none other than Jon Stewart?

 
Obama sits back and waits for Congress to pass legislation - Republicans call Obama weak and assert that the country is suffering from a "lack of leadership".

Obama declares he's going to take executive action to help solve a problem both sides acknowledge is an issue - Republicans suggest he's poisoning the well and vow to fight him tooth and nail.
You have an interesting perspective on these things. I am curious to know why Obama decided not to do anything about this issue when the Dems controlled the house and the senate and any other time in the last four years when it was split. But now, the day after the election it is a matter that requires immediate action and attention?
Because D's got beat by R's and this is a great way to divide the country, forcing R's to come out "against" immigration reform and securing the Hispanic/Latino vote for the dems. The media will cover this in a way that makes the president win the PR battle while his base is happy and energized. It's a smart strategy.

 
Obama sits back and waits for Congress to pass legislation - Republicans call Obama weak and assert that the country is suffering from a "lack of leadership".

Obama declares he's going to take executive action to help solve a problem both sides acknowledge is an issue - Republicans suggest he's poisoning the well and vow to fight him tooth and nail.
You have an interesting perspective on these things. I am curious to know why Obama decided not to do anything about this issue when the Dems controlled the house and the senate and any other time in the last four years when it was split. But now, the day after the election it is a matter that requires immediate action and attention?
Dems in more conservative states - especially those with the nascent Tea Party events - were a little more unruly than expected.

 
They've erroneously called him king Obama for 6 years. I hope he becomes it.
Obama sits back and waits for Congress to pass legislation - Republicans call Obama weak and assert that the country is suffering from a "lack of leadership".

Obama declares he's going to take executive action to help solve a problem both sides acknowledge is an issue - Republicans suggest he's poisoning the well and vow to fight him tooth and nail.
You have an interesting perspective on these things. I am curious to know why Obama decided not to do anything about this issue when the Dems controlled the house and the senate and any other time in the last four years when it was split. But now, the day after the election it is a matter that requires immediate action and attention?
He can now pursue his long-term agenda, they said, without being tethered to the short-term electoral concerns of his party’s leadership in Congress.
 
They've erroneously called him king Obama for 6 years. I hope he becomes it.
Obama sits back and waits for Congress to pass legislation - Republicans call Obama weak and assert that the country is suffering from a "lack of leadership".

Obama declares he's going to take executive action to help solve a problem both sides acknowledge is an issue - Republicans suggest he's poisoning the well and vow to fight him tooth and nail.
You have an interesting perspective on these things. I am curious to know why Obama decided not to do anything about this issue when the Dems controlled the house and the senate and any other time in the last four years when it was split. But now, the day after the election it is a matter that requires immediate action and attention?
He can now pursue his long-term agenda, they said, without being tethered to the short-term electoral concerns of his party’s leadership in Congress.
So it's a good thing that he wants to pursue things that the people don't want?

 
They've erroneously called him king Obama for 6 years. I hope he becomes it.
Obama sits back and waits for Congress to pass legislation - Republicans call Obama weak and assert that the country is suffering from a "lack of leadership".

Obama declares he's going to take executive action to help solve a problem both sides acknowledge is an issue - Republicans suggest he's poisoning the well and vow to fight him tooth and nail.
You have an interesting perspective on these things. I am curious to know why Obama decided not to do anything about this issue when the Dems controlled the house and the senate and any other time in the last four years when it was split. But now, the day after the election it is a matter that requires immediate action and attention?
He can now pursue his long-term agenda, they said, without being tethered to the short-term electoral concerns of his party’s leadership in Congress.
So it's a good thing that he wants to pursue things that the people don't want?
"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche",

 
Some of you guys have an amazingly simplistic view of how this works.

Read virtually any 2014 midterm postmortem out there, and it will tell you that the Democrats made a huge mistake when they deliberately refrained from taking action on immigration - after many, many futile attempts to work with the do-absolutely-nothing Republican House to so do first - in order to protect certain senators running in "red" states. This hurt Udall in Colorado, possibly fatally (although he also turned out to be a horrible candidate all on his own) and the senators this was designed to "protect" got trounced anyway or, as seems likely, will soon lose (Landrieu, although she can't be entirely written off yet).

That's what the article above means when it talks about Obama being able to act - on an issue that the public supports - without being hamstrung by the middling little concerns of conservaDems in the Senate and the House who were terrified of having to explain that policy to their red-state constituents.

 
There are two historical precedents for this.

The one that Obama probably hopes for is Harry Truman. After a Republican sweep in 1946, Truman defied conservatives who wanted to reverse the New Deal, thumbed his nose at them and "gave 'em hell". Though vilified at the time, Truman ended up being respected for his stance both by the electorate and, eventually, by history.

The other precedent is Woodrow Wilson. In 1918, Republicans swept the midterm elections. Wilson acted like they didn't exist, he went to Versailles to negotiate the peace treaty without bringing along a single Republican. When he came home with an agreement that included the League of Nations, he arrogantly declared that it was not subject to negotiation. Wilson was repudiated, first by the Senate, and then by history.

Unfortunately for President Obama, the second example might be much closer to what's going to happen this time around. We'll see.
You're looking at the wrong Truman precedent.

In 1952 Truman - by executive order - nationalized the steel mills in the putative interest of protecting the Korean War effort.

He was facing a Congress controlled by the opposing party so like Obama he stated he felt he had no option but to action his own. This was a disaster for him. The USSC blocked his move in a landmark case that remains the standard for stating when the President has overstepped his constitutional bounds via executive order.

The GOP of course swept into the White House the following November and kept control of both houses of Congress.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some of you guys have an amazingly simplistic view of how this works.

Read virtually any 2014 midterm postmortem out there, and it will tell you that the Democrats made a huge mistake when they deliberately refrained from taking action on immigration - after many, many futile attempts to work with the do-absolutely-nothing Republican House to so do first - in order to protect certain senators running in "red" states. This hurt Udall in Colorado, possibly fatally (although he also turned out to be a horrible candidate all on his own) and the senators this was designed to "protect" got trounced anyway or, as seems likely, will soon lose (Landrieu, although she can't be entirely written off yet).

That's what the article above means when it talks about Obama being able to act - on an issue that the public supports - without being hamstrung by the middling little concerns of conservaDems in the Senate and the House who were terrified of having to explain that policy to their red-state constituents.
Are you saying the Democrats lost because Obama didn't act on amnesty sooner?

 
There are two historical precedents for this.

The one that Obama probably hopes for is Harry Truman. After a Republican sweep in 1946, Truman defied conservatives who wanted to reverse the New Deal, thumbed his nose at them and "gave 'em hell". Though vilified at the time, Truman ended up being respected for his stance both by the electorate and, eventually, by history.

The other precedent is Woodrow Wilson. In 1918, Republicans swept the midterm elections. Wilson acted like they didn't exist, he went to Versailles to negotiate the peace treaty without bringing along a single Republican. When he came home with an agreement that included the League of Nations, he arrogantly declared that it was not subject to negotiation. Wilson was repudiated, first by the Senate, and then by history.

Unfortunately for President Obama, the second example might be much closer to what's going to happen this time around. We'll see.
You're looking at the wrong Truman precedent.

In 1952 Truman - by executive order - nationalized the steel mills in the putative interest of protecting the Korean War effort.

He was facing a Congress controlled by the opposing party so like Obama he stated he felt he had no option but to action his own. This was a disaster for him. The USSC blocked his move in a landmark case that remains the standard for stating when the President has overstepped his constitutional bounds via executive order.

The GOP of course swept into the White House the following November and kept control of both houses of Congress.
The 1952 election was 100% about the unpopular Korean War among an American public tired of foreign entanglements. It had absolutely nothing to do with Truman nationalizing the steel mills. That's an incredible claim. And yes, a retired general won the presidency for the Republicans because the people wanted a military man at the helm.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube was effectively a plurality decision that has been repudiated at times by the SCOTUS, most recently (surprise!) in 2006 and 2008 when Bush II was president. Not quite the sweeping landmark that you indicate.

 
Some of you guys have an amazingly simplistic view of how this works.

Read virtually any 2014 midterm postmortem out there, and it will tell you that the Democrats made a huge mistake when they deliberately refrained from taking action on immigration - after many, many futile attempts to work with the do-absolutely-nothing Republican House to so do first - in order to protect certain senators running in "red" states. This hurt Udall in Colorado, possibly fatally (although he also turned out to be a horrible candidate all on his own) and the senators this was designed to "protect" got trounced anyway or, as seems likely, will soon lose (Landrieu, although she can't be entirely written off yet).

That's what the article above means when it talks about Obama being able to act - on an issue that the public supports - without being hamstrung by the middling little concerns of conservaDems in the Senate and the House who were terrified of having to explain that policy to their red-state constituents.
Are you saying the Democrats lost because Obama didn't act on amnesty sooner?
No.

 
You have to Love Obama.. He gets full control and pushes through the ACA with "Elections have consequences"

Then a couple years later, when the Republicans win back control of the House, he complains that those same Republicans he told "go away I have control" won't work with him..

Now we enter 2014 where you'd think "Elections have consequences" would resonate.. Instead he is going to push through his agenda through Executive order and then sometime next year complain that the Republicans won't work with him and the media will join with him..

Well played Obama.. Well played.. :mellow:

 
You have to Love Obama.. He gets full control and pushes through the ACA with "Elections have consequences"

Then a couple years later, when the Republicans win back control of the House, he complains that those same Republicans he told "go away I have control" won't work with him..

Now we enter 2014 where you'd think "Elections have consequences" would resonate.. Instead he is going to push through his agenda through Executive order and then sometime next year complain that the Republicans won't work with him and the media will join with him..

Well played Obama.. Well played.. :mellow:
it's mind boggling
 
He can now pursue his long-term agenda, they said, without being tethered to the short-term electoral concerns of his party’s leadership in Congress.
So it's a good thing that he wants to pursue things that the people don't want?
Most people want illegal immigrants to stay and it's 50/50 on whether they should be allowed to work legally.
Why would doing what the people want hurt their short-term electoral concerns? I know, it's more nuanced than that, but I think you get the point- it's a typical lame political excuse.

 
There are two historical precedents for this.

The one that Obama probably hopes for is Harry Truman. After a Republican sweep in 1946, Truman defied conservatives who wanted to reverse the New Deal, thumbed his nose at them and "gave 'em hell". Though vilified at the time, Truman ended up being respected for his stance both by the electorate and, eventually, by history.

The other precedent is Woodrow Wilson. In 1918, Republicans swept the midterm elections. Wilson acted like they didn't exist, he went to Versailles to negotiate the peace treaty without bringing along a single Republican. When he came home with an agreement that included the League of Nations, he arrogantly declared that it was not subject to negotiation. Wilson was repudiated, first by the Senate, and then by history.

Unfortunately for President Obama, the second example might be much closer to what's going to happen this time around. We'll see.
You're looking at the wrong Truman precedent.

In 1952 Truman - by executive order - nationalized the steel mills in the putative interest of protecting the Korean War effort.

He was facing a Congress controlled by the opposing party so like Obama he stated he felt he had no option but to action his own. This was a disaster for him. The USSC blocked his move in a landmark case that remains the standard for stating when the President has overstepped his constitutional bounds via executive order.

The GOP of course swept into the White House the following November and kept control of both houses of Congress.
The 1952 election was 100% about the unpopular Korean War among an American public tired of foreign entanglements. It had absolutely nothing to do with Truman nationalizing the steel mills. That's an incredible claim. And yes, a retired general won the presidency for the Republicans because the people wanted a military man at the helm.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube was effectively a plurality decision that has been repudiated at times by the SCOTUS, most recently (surprise!) in 2006 and 2008 when Bush II was president. Not quite the sweeping landmark that you indicate.
not only that, but if Ike had chosen to run as a Democrat ( which was considered a possibility at the time) he still would have won. Truman's seizing of the mills was not on the minds of the electorate at all.
 
There are two historical precedents for this.

The one that Obama probably hopes for is Harry Truman. After a Republican sweep in 1946, Truman defied conservatives who wanted to reverse the New Deal, thumbed his nose at them and "gave 'em hell". Though vilified at the time, Truman ended up being respected for his stance both by the electorate and, eventually, by history.

The other precedent is Woodrow Wilson. In 1918, Republicans swept the midterm elections. Wilson acted like they didn't exist, he went to Versailles to negotiate the peace treaty without bringing along a single Republican. When he came home with an agreement that included the League of Nations, he arrogantly declared that it was not subject to negotiation. Wilson was repudiated, first by the Senate, and then by history.

Unfortunately for President Obama, the second example might be much closer to what's going to happen this time around. We'll see.
You're looking at the wrong Truman precedent.

In 1952 Truman - by executive order - nationalized the steel mills in the putative interest of protecting the Korean War effort.

He was facing a Congress controlled by the opposing party so like Obama he stated he felt he had no option but to action his own. This was a disaster for him. The USSC blocked his move in a landmark case that remains the standard for stating when the President has overstepped his constitutional bounds via executive order.

The GOP of course swept into the White House the following November and kept control of both houses of Congress.
The 1952 election was 100% about the unpopular Korean War among an American public tired of foreign entanglements. It had absolutely nothing to do with Truman nationalizing the steel mills. That's an incredible claim. And yes, a retired general won the presidency for the Republicans because the people wanted a military man at the helm.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube was effectively a plurality decision that has been repudiated at times by the SCOTUS, most recently (surprise!) in 2006 and 2008 when Bush II was president. Not quite the sweeping landmark that you indicate.
Ok good points, thanks.

 
Some of you guys have an amazingly simplistic view of how this works.

Read virtually any 2014 midterm postmortem out there, and it will tell you that the Democrats made a huge mistake when they deliberately refrained from taking action on immigration - after many, many futile attempts to work with the do-absolutely-nothing Republican House to so do first - in order to protect certain senators running in "red" states. This hurt Udall in Colorado, possibly fatally (although he also turned out to be a horrible candidate all on his own) and the senators this was designed to "protect" got trounced anyway or, as seems likely, will soon lose (Landrieu, although she can't be entirely written off yet).

That's what the article above means when it talks about Obama being able to act - on an issue that the public supports - without being hamstrung by the middling little concerns of conservaDems in the Senate and the House who were terrified of having to explain that policy to their red-state constituents.
You realize the most simplistic assertion is the one you are making right? The one that somehow suggests that had Obama and the Dems done something on immigration that it would have been done in an absolute vacuum and not resulted in any other person or group behaving differently...as if all things being equal we can throw amnesty up on the board and everyone else is going to vote the same way...except the hispanics will come out and put us over the top.

Yeah...yeah...that's the ticket.

 
There are two historical precedents for this.

The one that Obama probably hopes for is Harry Truman. After a Republican sweep in 1946, Truman defied conservatives who wanted to reverse the New Deal, thumbed his nose at them and "gave 'em hell". Though vilified at the time, Truman ended up being respected for his stance both by the electorate and, eventually, by history.

The other precedent is Woodrow Wilson. In 1918, Republicans swept the midterm elections. Wilson acted like they didn't exist, he went to Versailles to negotiate the peace treaty without bringing along a single Republican. When he came home with an agreement that included the League of Nations, he arrogantly declared that it was not subject to negotiation. Wilson was repudiated, first by the Senate, and then by history.

Unfortunately for President Obama, the second example might be much closer to what's going to happen this time around. We'll see.
You're looking at the wrong Truman precedent.

In 1952 Truman - by executive order - nationalized the steel mills in the putative interest of protecting the Korean War effort.

He was facing a Congress controlled by the opposing party so like Obama he stated he felt he had no option but to action his own. This was a disaster for him. The USSC blocked his move in a landmark case that remains the standard for stating when the President has overstepped his constitutional bounds via executive order.

The GOP of course swept into the White House the following November and kept control of both houses of Congress.
The 1952 election was 100% about the unpopular Korean War among an American public tired of foreign entanglements. It had absolutely nothing to do with Truman nationalizing the steel mills. That's an incredible claim. And yes, a retired general won the presidency for the Republicans because the people wanted a military man at the helm.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube was effectively a plurality decision that has been repudiated at times by the SCOTUS, most recently (surprise!) in 2006 and 2008 when Bush II was president. Not quite the sweeping landmark that you indicate.
Ok good points, thanks.
Really? Because hasn't Jackson's concurrence gone down as the test for that sort of thing (where the powers aren't well-defined between branches?). All we learned in school was that concurrence, over and over, right? You practice, I don't.

 
But let's get back to the main question at hand besides debating the action itself: how much impact would Obama's unilateral act have on the next election: I say not much. It would shore up Latino support, but that's already there for Hillary. I doubt there's ever been a Democrat Latinos like more than her, based on the 2008 race when they pretty much singlehandedly kept her alive. This could very well solidify Latino support for Democrats long term, which would be disastrous to the GOP, but in the short term that's already there.

On the negative side, you would have people who will be very angry over what Obama is doing, and people who will be very angry over the way he is doing it. The problem is, these will mostly be the same people, and most of them are not the sort that would be voting for a Democrat anyhow: in other words, the conservative base.

Finally there will likely be plenty of independents and blue collar Democrats who share conservative views on illegal immigration, and this is the greatest risk for Obama and Hillary- that they will sit out the next election or swing their vote behind a more moderate Republican . But in the past, these groups have never prioritized this issue high enough to make it a decisive factor in their voting, and I don't expect they will this time either.

 
But let's get back to the main question at hand besides debating the action itself: how much impact would Obama's unilateral act have on the next election: I say not much. It would shore up Latino support, but that's already there for Hillary. I doubt there's ever been a Democrat Latinos like more than her, based on the 2008 race when they pretty much singlehandedly kept her alive. This could very well solidify Latino support for Democrats long term, which would be disastrous to the GOP, but in the short term that's already there.

On the negative side, you would have people who will be very angry over what Obama is doing, and people who will be very angry over the way he is doing it. The problem is, these will mostly be the same people, and most of them are not the sort that would be voting for a Democrat anyhow: in other words, the conservative base.

Finally there will likely be plenty of independents and blue collar Democrats who share conservative views on illegal immigration, and this is the greatest risk for Obama and Hillary- that they will sit out the next election or swing their vote behind a more moderate Republican . But in the past, these groups have never prioritized this issue high enough to make it a decisive factor in their voting, and I don't expect they will this time either.
let me know when that happens.

 
If Obama goes through with this...anyone who seriously thinks the Latino voting increases will offset the defections of whites from the Democratic party is naive.

 
But let's get back to the main question at hand besides debating the action itself: how much impact would Obama's unilateral act have on the next election: I say not much. It would shore up Latino support, but that's already there for Hillary. I doubt there's ever been a Democrat Latinos like more than her, based on the 2008 race when they pretty much singlehandedly kept her alive. This could very well solidify Latino support for Democrats long term, which would be disastrous to the GOP, but in the short term that's already there.

On the negative side, you would have people who will be very angry over what Obama is doing, and people who will be very angry over the way he is doing it. The problem is, these will mostly be the same people, and most of them are not the sort that would be voting for a Democrat anyhow: in other words, the conservative base.

Finally there will likely be plenty of independents and blue collar Democrats who share conservative views on illegal immigration, and this is the greatest risk for Obama and Hillary- that they will sit out the next election or swing their vote behind a more moderate Republican . But in the past, these groups have never prioritized this issue high enough to make it a decisive factor in their voting, and I don't expect they will this time either.
I think something like a unilateral amnesty and the resulting budget fight will make this a prominent issue for 2016.

 
If Obama goes through with this...anyone who seriously thinks the Latino voting increases will offset the defections of whites from the Democratic party is naive.
What about the blacks? They're likely to be more impacted. And if amnesty is implemented, wouldn't you expect a surge in boarder crossings? Would they plan on bussing people around the country again? That didn't work well last time.

 
This just further proves that Obama is out of touch. He has his vision and does not care what anyone else wants or thinks.

 
I hope Obama goes berserk and keeps doing this for 2 more years.
Why? You support his policies that much? Or are you just so eager to see your team win the next election that you're okay with losing out on policy matters?

Edit: In my particular case, I think I'm being rational in wanting Obama to declare amnesty by executive action. By doing so, he accomplishes a policy goal that I strongly support (dramatically liberalized immigration) and he simultaneously poisons the well and destroys any chance of getting any of his other policies through Congress, which is good since I disagree with him on most other things. Basically he would be doing something that I like and them setting himself on fire.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope Obama goes berserk and keeps doing this for 2 more years.
Why? You support his policies that much? Or are you just so eager to see your team win the next election that you're okay with losing out on policy matters?
he can't do too much damage as the R's control the purse to pay for much or all of it. So, go ahead and go nuts using executive actions to push your agenda onto a populace that just rejected your agenda, we'll see how that works out for the party of old white baby boomers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyboy said:
I hope Obama goes berserk and keeps doing this for 2 more years.
I suspect you will get your wish. I've had the guy pegged as a militant ideologue since 2008 and his true colors are starting to show. If he spent half as much energy addressing international concerns as he does hammering the citizens of the United States the world would be a much safer place but it's not in his nature to cooperate with those he considers irredeemable mercenaries, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. He's going to give Congress and anybody else who doesn't agree with him the middle finger in the hopes of generating a crisis. It's Rules 8-10 straight out of Saul Alinsky's "12 Rules for Radicals" playbook.

 
tommyboy said:
I hope Obama goes berserk and keeps doing this for 2 more years.
I suspect you will get your wish. I've had the guy pegged as a militant ideologue since 2008 and his true colors are starting to show. If he spent half as much energy addressing international concerns as he does hammering the citizens of the United States the world would be a much safer place but it's not in his nature to cooperate with those he considers irredeemable mercenaries, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. He's going to give Congress and anybody else who doesn't agree with him the middle finger in the hopes of generating a crisis. It's Rules 8-10 straight out of Saul Alinsky's "12 Rules for Radicals" playbook.
You mean Obama isn't the bipartisan savior?

Like you, I can't understand why anyone is shocked by the actions/philosophies of Obama. He telegraphed them plainly and clearly.

I just hope that in my lifetime we get to see the tree of liberty watered with the blood of tyrants.

 
Good for him. Seems while my policy idea wasn't in the room, my purpose for such was. Do your job and lead. History will judge accordingly.

 
tommyboy said:
I hope Obama goes berserk and keeps doing this for 2 more years.
I suspect you will get your wish. I've had the guy pegged as a militant ideologue since 2008 and his true colors are starting to show. If he spent half as much energy addressing international concerns as he does hammering the citizens of the United States the world would be a much safer place but it's not in his nature to cooperate with those he considers irredeemable mercenaries, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. He's going to give Congress and anybody else who doesn't agree with him the middle finger in the hopes of generating a crisis. It's Rules 8-10 straight out of Saul Alinsky's "12 Rules for Radicals" playbook.
You mean Obama isn't the bipartisan savior?Like you, I can't understand why anyone is shocked by the actions/philosophies of Obama. He telegraphed them plainly and clearly.

I just hope that in my lifetime we get to see the tree of liberty watered with the blood of tyrants.
Lol you guys are awesome.
 
tommyboy said:
I hope Obama goes berserk and keeps doing this for 2 more years.
I suspect you will get your wish. I've had the guy pegged as a militant ideologue since 2008 and his true colors are starting to show. If he spent half as much energy addressing international concerns as he does hammering the citizens of the United States the world would be a much safer place but it's not in his nature to cooperate with those he considers irredeemable mercenaries, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. He's going to give Congress and anybody else who doesn't agree with him the middle finger in the hopes of generating a crisis. It's Rules 8-10 straight out of Saul Alinsky's "12 Rules for Radicals" playbook.
You mean Obama isn't the bipartisan savior?

Like you, I can't understand why anyone is shocked by the actions/philosophies of Obama. He telegraphed them plainly and clearly.

I just hope that in my lifetime we get to see the tree of liberty watered with the blood of tyrants.
That is some awesome hyperbole.

 
Aerial Assault said:
jonessed said:
These are base issues. The majority isn't going to support him in this.
:lol:

Polls consistently show that the general public supports action on climate change, immigration reform (also supported by Republicans such as John McCain, for which he will almost certainly be primaried by his own party in 2016), and net neutrality (about which Republican Facebook "friends" and supporters of Cruz deluged his page with negative comments after he derisively compared it to the ACA). So in fact, on two of these three issues at least, not only does the majority of the American public support the president, but so do many Republicans.

"Base issues" - :lmao:
80% of the public is supportive of net neutrality too: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/12/wonkbook-polling-shows-even-republicans-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality/

 
tommyboy said:
I hope Obama goes berserk and keeps doing this for 2 more years.
I suspect you will get your wish. I've had the guy pegged as a militant ideologue since 2008 and his true colors are starting to show. If he spent half as much energy addressing international concerns as he does hammering the citizens of the United States the world would be a much safer place but it's not in his nature to cooperate with those he considers irredeemable mercenaries, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. He's going to give Congress and anybody else who doesn't agree with him the middle finger in the hopes of generating a crisis. It's Rules 8-10 straight out of Saul Alinsky's "12 Rules for Radicals" playbook.
You mean Obama isn't the bipartisan savior?

Like you, I can't understand why anyone is shocked by the actions/philosophies of Obama. He telegraphed them plainly and clearly.

I just hope that in my lifetime we get to see the tree of liberty watered with the blood of tyrants.
That is some awesome hyperbole.
What specifically was hyperbolic?

 
tommyGunZ said:
Obama sits back and waits for Congress to pass legislation - Republicans call Obama weak and assert that the country is suffering from a "lack of leadership".

Obama declares he's going to take executive action to help solve a problem both sides acknowledge is an issue - Republicans suggest he's poisoning the well and vow to fight him tooth and nail.
Too little, too late on a lot of these. Net neutrality is a nice win, but why did he appoint Wheeler in the first place?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top