Of course President Obama is not making definite statements about the Arizona Law. That's the job of another branch of government. He's not a private citizen, and as head of the Administrative branch he is obligated to be somewhat circumspect.
I see. Obama is part of the branch that just makes innuendos and paints doomsday scenarios based on suppositions.
Perhaps you might point out to me where I said that, Mike.
It seems that you are making statements and trying to attribute them to me. Had I wished to make those statements, you'd be able to find them and put quotation marks around them, wouldn't you? Should the Justice Department wish to make allegations of that sort, the situation might be different because they would be rendering a legal opinion. Had the courts rendered an opinion, they would have the right to make a more definitive statement still. For you to criticize The President for NOT having made a statement beyond his purview seems a bit silly to me. What would that be, Over-reaching his authority if he does what you want and wimpy if he doesn't. Gee Mike, you've really constructed a really fine set of choices there.
Which choice would you advise him to take? Which would a really smart Republican President take in that situation, would he over-reach or be seen as weak? Hmm, I do wonder about that. And how would you then defend him?
No, Bob, he should be part of the administration that turns over things like that to departments that deal with it and not make statements until he has something to say based on fact.
Iraq has weapons of Mass destruction. Statements of fact like that one? Statements saying that the CIA confirms it when the opinion in the CIA was at best mixed? Statements like Iraq is responsible for 9/11, and then statements like saying he never said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
Seems to me that The President, that would be Mr. Obama in this case, was very clear not to pretend he was making statements of fact unlike the lies that President Bush pretended were statements of fact. President Obama was clear he was offering qualified statements of opinion. I'm very sorry that you can't tolerate nuance and that you'd apparently rather hear lies phrased as certainties as was the habit of Mr. Bush. You didn't complain about his statements in the same way, at least.
He is not in the popularity contest branch of government.
Tell him that!!! He's still campaigning a year and a half after being elected.
Tsk, task, Mike. You seem to want it both ways. Either he's not paying enough attention to the polls for you or he's still campaigning (and apparently paying too much attention to what people want, if I understand you point correctly). Your overall dislike for the man doesn't seem to care which position he takes, there's something you'll find to dislike in anything he does.
You keep suggesting the whole government should be run by polls and popularity.
No, Bob, but I think that they should carry some weight. Obama has shown that he could care less. He only likes polls in his favor and disregards the others. There is a paper fairly important in our history that begins with WE THE PEOPLE... yes, we elect them to do represent our will. Many of them are now finding out the price of not doing so...and thee will be more.
The President is elected to a four year term precisely to insulate him or her from quick turnings of public opinion and from the sort of quick burning rages and enthusiasms that are apt to sway The House, which is elected every two years. The Senate is elected on a rotating basis, so that at least a third of the folks there are up for election every two years, so they must keep some weather eye out for the politics of the situation, but on the whole they can remain insulated from the sort of passions you speak about as the sort of thing you think the government out to respond to.
Yeah, We the People was important, but you forget exactly how nervous the framers were about the people as well. They were by and large a fairly well educated bunch of folks, and the understood Roman history and its lessons better than you do. They understood the true horror of the phrase Vox Populii, Vox Dei, and they knew enough to want to put a lot of distance between themselves and the mob. This is one of the reasons why the qualifications for voting were so restrictive in the constitution. Only male property owners of a certain age. The founders may have been willing to do away with the nobility, but they wanted the power concentrated in the hands of people they felt would use it wisely. This did not include most of the folks that we now think of as "We the people." This is why there was no direct election of the President and why there were electors and an electoral college who did the actual for real voting, and why, even today, it's a bit of a struggle to shift from an electoral college to a system of direct elections instead of the voters electing electors who even today are sometimes free to vote the way they see fit (at least in some cases).
It's nice to pay lip service to We The People, but it's better to understand that the way we think of it now and the way it started out may well have been two different brands of animal. Especially for those of us who claim we're conservatives and claim to be strict constructionists.