How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 New Year....Same Obama   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

New Year....Same Obama

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


0 posted 01-04-2012 09:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/04/obama-makes-four-recess-appointments-of-dubious-legality/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


1 posted 01-04-2012 10:28 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them," Obama said "I have an obligation to act on behalf of the American people." http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obama-recess-appointment-is-his-obligation/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Usat odaycomWashington-TopStories+%28News+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo


Oh, ok. That explains it.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


2 posted 01-05-2012 03:10 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     The problem is that the appointment to the directorship of the consumer agency, will not really help that agency.  The way the empowering legiuslation is written, the director must specifically be appointed with the consent of the Senate; and, as I understand it, a recess appointment simply isn't good enough. NPR ran a program about the issue this afternoon out here in LA.   The President will probably get some feel great political points, which are always nice, but tend to evaporate quickly under close examination.  

     Even the protests by the Republicans have a sort of pro forma outrage to them.  Since it's clear that the recess appointment to the consumer agency is not a legal one, any policy enacted will likely be heavily encumbered by litigation.  The appointment really needs whole Senate confirmation; and the Republicans are unlikely to grant any such thing.  The Democrats might look useful, the Government might look as though it’s working, or something might go terribly awry and cut into corporate profits.   The country might start to look like it's recovering, too, and we all know how bad that can look for business.  Somebody might want a raise.  

     The question for me is why the difficulty in allowing regulation of some of these non-bank credit agencies.  They've been charging really terrible rates forever.  The consumer agency in question really ought to be up and functioning, with an actual Senate-approved director.  The Republicans seem to have forgotten the parts of the Bible that have to do with usury and interest; or they've developed selective amnesia about them.  This is legislation that is supposed to help regulation of interest to protect people against usury and other such predatory practices.  Mysteriously the Christian Right seems to have no particular interest in this.

     No redistribution of wealth — the Republican motto — except upwards.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


3 posted 01-05-2012 10:14 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
New Year....Same Obama

Yep. The same man the majority voted into office. One would hope he wouldn't change any more than necessary?

quote:
This is legislation that is supposed to help regulation of interest to protect people against usury and other such predatory practices.

Yep. Because everyone knows American citizens are stupid and can't survive unless we, the smart few, protect them from their own bad decisions.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


4 posted 01-05-2012 04:35 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:


Yep. Because everyone knows American citizens are stupid and can't survive unless we, the smart few, protect them from their own bad decisions.



     Would you please clarify that logic for me?  Following that line of reasoning, there should me no laws for Americans because Americans are smart enough to know what they should and should not be doing, and anybody who suggests otherwise is some sort of epicene elite twit with pretensions of grandeur.

     The sarcasm sounds elegant, but the thinking seems entirely hole and no cheese.

     Were this the case, the prisons would be empty.

      The fact that the rich can and often do their stealing more slickly and at greater remove than the poor and the otherwise less scrupulous does not mean the damages of the thefts are less.  It means only that they are better accomplished, and that the fruits of the crime may never be recovered.  The criminals may even be granted indulgences and honors.  

     You bet I think the American people need protection.  The founders thought so, too, which is why they made provision for laws.  The founders thought Americans needed protections from their own impulses, too, which is why they didn't stick with only a congress or a congress with term limits.  They tried the congress only and found it just didn't work.    It needed a policy rudder in terms of an executive, and it needed a deliberative body to give it ballast.  

     The sarcastic comment of yours I quote at the beginning is in fact pretty much the attitude I understand the founders had.  The general election is something we moved toward.  We started out with the Electoral College, remember?  The franchise started out as a pretty limited thing; only gradually has it expanded.  You're talking modern American politics as though it's always been this way, and it's a given.  I beg to disagree.

     Protections are very much a part of the American process.  I believe your sarcasm is unwarranted.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


5 posted 01-05-2012 05:02 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Bob, you're confusing laws designed to protect one person from outside influences, which we would all agree are necessary, with laws that serve only to protect a person from himself.

You think someone's interest rates are too high? Then don't borrow money from them. And, if you feel strongly about it, urge others to do the same. We should try persuasion and education for a change instead of force. (And make no mistake, "protection" in any guise, if it is to be enforceable, is tantamount to force.)

I agree with you about the founding fathers, by the way. They didn't trust the uneducated masses. For that matter, I don't either. The provisions our founding fathers instituted, however, were designed to protect themselves, not the uneducated masses they didn't trust. They didn't force people into their own mold, but rather tried to limit the damage those people could inflict on everyone.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 01-05-2012 06:08 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'm sure that your conversation must have something to do with Obama's flip-flop and the possibility of yet another disregard for the constitution but I don't know what it is.

Perhaps the mainstream media will shed some light on it for me.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


7 posted 01-05-2012 06:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The same man the majority voted into office. One would hope he wouldn't change any more than necessary?

That would be true if he were the man people voted into office, the one saying he would do the things he didn't do. You are saying that we should hope the man who sneaked into the oval office with lies and promises, never changes. Quite a statement from you....

Let's hope the Bernie Madoffs never change, too, I must assume?

Obama told everybody what they wanted to hear and gave false hope to those searching for hope, with no intention of following through, once in office. Now he has decided he alone knows what's best for the American people and will disregard Congress any time they don't agree with him. Omnipotent or impotent? Perhaps he should go ahead and disband congress? My guess is he would like to....
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


8 posted 01-05-2012 06:48 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Now he has decided he alone knows what's best for the American people and will disregard Congress any time they don't agree with him.


Is Obama the first President to bypass Congress and make a recess appointment Mike?

By the way, do you think Obama's recess appointment is in the same league as Gingrich's plan to bypass the Supreme Court if he becomes President and ignore any decision they make that he doesn't agree with?

.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


9 posted 01-05-2012 06:52 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I'm sure that your conversation must have something to do with Obama's flip-flop ...

Since one of the appointments you've referenced was for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, yea, Bob's comments about consumer "protection" are at least marginally pertinent. If you want to guide the conversation in a particular direction, Mike, you might want to start with more than two links, one quote, and your own five-word comment?

quote:
That would be true if he were the man people voted into office ...

Obama was voted into office, Mike. Without any help from the Supreme Court even.

quote:
You are saying that we should hope the man who sneaked into the oval office with lies and promises, never changes.

The amount of money both parties spend on elections makes any hint of "sneaking into office" a little silly, Mike. I think most of us knew he was running. I haven't noticed any lies coming from Obama either, quite unlike the two previous residents of the office.

As to change, I would expect a person to change commensurate with changing situations, but certainly nothing of any great consequence. If Obama suddenly started advocating tax breaks for the wealthy or reduced regulation on business, I think the people who voted for him in 2008 would be understandably upset. THAT would constitute false promises and lies.

quote:
Now he has decided he alone knows what's best for the American people and will disregard Congress any time they don't agree with him.

That's his job, Mike. He's supposed to do what he thinks is best for the country. The relationship between the three branches of our government is adversarial by design. Each tries to get away with what it can, and each in turn is blocked or stymied by the other two. That's precisely the way "checks and balances" is supposed to work.

quote:
Perhaps he should go ahead and disband congress? My guess is he would like to ...

I don't put a lot of stock in polls, Mike, but there seems to be some speculation that almost everyone would like to see Congress disbanded. There approval ratings are, what, in the single digits?

Personally, I wouldn't go quite that far. On the other hand, hey, it's not like they're doing anything any way. LOL.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


10 posted 01-05-2012 08:10 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Always wondered about those checks and balances. That means then that the prez ignoring congress and doing what ever he wants ...is that the check or the balance? Seems to me Obama is showing that there's no such animal.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


11 posted 01-05-2012 09:04 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

BTW, Ron, I doubt anyone else wants to see congress disbanded, and be stuck with a dictatorship or monarchy. They WOULD like to see one that actually functions. Every child must have his dream....
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


12 posted 01-05-2012 11:02 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



      Perhaps you forget President Bush, Minimus' comment about wishing he could be Dictator, Mike?  It's your fantasy that The current President thinks that way.  The last one was actually silly enough to push that wish into words.

     Not that it matters at this point, beyond correcting a minor point of fact.

     I believe the rule tends to be that Presidents run to their base in the Primaries, and then run to the center in the General election.  This means that there will always be changes in position to point out later.  Some of them will look like or be out and out contradictions and lies, and this generally means that successful high level politicians in our system are successful liars as well as other things we like to talks about in public with more affection.

     In one of Yeats' poems he seems more than a little wry when he talks of himself — then an Irish Senator — as "A sixty-year old smiling Public man."  I think it may be interesting to ask one's self what it may mean to put yourself out there in public service, and if it's an actual good thing or not.  And if it is, in what way is it a good thing?

     As a poet, this should be a difficult question, should the question be dealt with honestly.  Not, I mean as a left or right wing stooge, or as a stooge for the ethereal party or the esthetic party or the long haired party or the people's party or the party of civic virtue or any or the other traditional poetry parties, but maybe for the party of clear thinking and real facts and decent dealing with other people.

     I'm open for proposals, of course.  My suggestion is the last one listed above.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


13 posted 01-06-2012 01:08 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Proposals on what, Bob? I see nothing in your comment having anything to do with Obama disregarding Congress, doing exactly what he, Reid and cronies condemned when they were not in power. If you would care to point out something in your reply dealing with the subject, I'll be happy to propose.

Is disregarding congress a good thing or not?
Is a president who decides on his own what is best for the American people and acts on it good or not?
Is his action against the constitution or not?

A list of what Obama declares to be best for the American people would be a scary list indeed. I think what he declares is what he considers best for Obama. He has shown little regard for the wishes of the majority of Americans.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


14 posted 01-06-2012 01:15 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

President Obama yesterday played a violent game of kickball with the US Constitution, making a number of high-level “recess” appointments — even though the Senate isn’t actually in recess.
He named former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Board, a nomination Republicans have been fighting.
And then he named three new members of the pro-union activist National Labor Relations Board.
Presidents have the right to make temporary appointments when Congress is away from Washington, of course, and both parties have used that power.
But Obama is the first president to declare that he, and he alone, can decide whether the Senate — which must confirm his appointments — is actually meeting.
In order to block recess appointments, the Senate intentionally has been holding pro forma sessions every few days, each of which lasts only a few seconds.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — with then-Sen. Obama’s support — did the same thing in 2007 to block any recess appointments by President George W. Bush.
But now Obama, with Reid’s concurrence, contends that such sessions are actually “gimmicks” — and that the Senate actually is in recess.
So much for the separation of powers and the carefully calibrated system of checks and balances that are hallmarks of the US constitutional system.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/king_barack_power_grab_FQVJqAlOM3eplEuV7fNxDN#ixzz1iej8OSmo

SO the actions Reid and Obama took to block Bush recess appointments are now flip-flopped since Obama is in power...what a surprise. That is the hallmark of this administration.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


15 posted 01-06-2012 01:21 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

President Obama’s flagrant violation of the Constitution not only will damage relations with Congress for years to come but will ultimately weaken the office of the presidency. There eventually may be litigation over the illegal appointments, but it will be a failure of government if the political branches do not resolve this injustice before a court rules. The White House has refused to admit or deny whether it received advice from the Justice Department (or overruled its advice), which is telling enough, but its campaign-style announcements about the propriety of its actions are not legally credible. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are-unconstitutional/2012/01/05/gIQAnWRfdP_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


16 posted 01-06-2012 10:04 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     My position was that President Obama was making a political decision with the recess appointments that would ultimately be bad for the  consumer agency.  It was not in fact a recess appointment because the congress in technically not in recess.  The President is well aware of this situation, and I believe that these "recess appointments" will probably be overturned in litigation.  If there was an actual confrontation of powers going on, I would be upset, but there is not, as far as I can determine, so I am not, and the outcome is pretty much predetermined.  For the President, it is a chance to appear strong before his base without actually making a stand of any sort.  I think an actual stand is probably needed, but this would not be the one since it would not be good for the constitution, as you seem to be trying to point out.

     The "signing statements" by President Bush, during the last administration, if they were in fact actual statements of when a sitting President would and would not obey laws passed by the congress, seemed to me to be something more clearly being worth upset.  These were challenges to Congressional authority, and asserted that the President had the right to act in the sort of Imperial fashion that you say distresses you here.  Yet you were quite sanguine about those, as I recall; perhaps if you remember differently, you might remind me of that.

     I would disagree about your characterization about President Obama, though.  

     These were not recess appointments:  Congress was not out of session, and the appointments were actually formally illegal.  It's unlikely they will stand litigation, and they are more an attempt to solidify his base for the coming primary.  It will make him appear more of a solid Democrat than he is.  During the General election he will then be able to appear more conciliatory.

     While Republicans may see The President as Mr. Liberal, the Republican base is likely somewhat biased in this regard.  The Republican base tends to reject some of the most popular and well accepted programs in the history of the country, such has social security and medicare, while the vast majority of the country feels they are useful and necessary.  And so forth.

     And the President is often willing to undermine portions of these programs to arrive at consensus.  Ergo, no, he's not a wild eyed anything; but probably a  Rockefeller Republican in Democratic Drag.  

     The place where he scares me is those places where he doesn't fulfill campaign promises to roll back some of the Republican depredation on civil liberties and rights.  He has not closed Gitmo, for example.  He certainly should have repaired the attack on Posse Comitatus under the Bush administration, and the attacks on the bill of rights from the PATRIOT ACT (sounds like a sexual perversion to me so grotesque whose details can only be published in some sort of bureaucratic code made up of excerpts of other laws).  If it really were patriotic, you'd think everybody would know all the details and would want to do it on the front lawn, like the Fourth of July picnic, wouldn't you?

     Anyway, I think Mike's got this backwards.

     I think the Post has it wrong as well.  The Post does seem to have its facts straight though.  Where it's gone wrong is assuming that the administration cares that the "recess appointments" have to stand.  I think that the administration is making a political sally that is trying to appeal to its base and consolidate it.  In that context, these appointments make sense, even if they don't work — perhaps especially if they don't work.  

     And, as the movies like to add for legal purposes at the end:  No Republicans were Injured in the making of this film.  

     No, I'm sorry.  In the movies, that's no Animals were injured in the making of this Film.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


17 posted 01-07-2012 04:45 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It was not in fact a recess appointment because the congress in technically not in recess.
Interesting. That puts you at odds with the administration, who claimed this morning on NPR that they will prove the case that congress actually was in recess, which validates the recess appointments you claim they are not.

These were not recess appointments:  Congress was not out of session, and the appointments were actually formally illegal.
I agree with you, Bob, and applaud your view that Obama's actions were illegal.

I think that the administration is making a political sally that is trying to appeal to its base and consolidate it.

Then I don't understand it. Democrats are going to vote for him no matter what he does. Republicans are not going to vote for him, no matter what he does. The people that need to be courted are the independents.  If independents view it as an illegal act, as you do, it will not favor him. If they view him as an ego type who says "to hell with congress", it will not favor him. If his appointments are overturned, it will not favor him. I don't think he is trying to appeal to his base. I think it's a case of "I'm Obama. Hear me roar!" He does not like it when he doesn't get his way. I see it as a hissy fit of presidential proportions.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


18 posted 01-07-2012 08:02 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
It was not in fact a recess appointment because the congress in technically not in recess.


Hmm.. I'm not convinced Bob.

The Constitution affords the President the power to make appointments when the Senate is in recess:

"The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

In plain English that means that when the Senate is not available to give "advice and consent" the President can make a temporary appointment that would either be confirmed or rejected by the Senate at a later date.

There's a few historical precedents, for instance Theodore Roosevelt made 160 appointments in the 30 second window between the first and second session of the 58th Congress. Those appointments, following several complaints, resulted in a Senate Judiciary Committee review. After careful consideration the Comittee clearly stated that any time where the Senate was unable to give advice and consent regarding appointments was, by definition, a recess.

Here's a section from their report that clarifies the point:

"It was evidently intended by the framers of the Constitution that it [Article II,
sec. 2] should mean something real, not something imaginary; something actual,
not something fictitious. They used the word as the mass of mankind then
understood it and now understand it. It means, in our judgment, in this
connection the period of time when the Senate is not sitting in regular or
extraordinary session as a branch of the Congress or in extraordinary session
for the discharge of executive functions; when its members owe no duty of
attendance; when its chamber is empty; when, because of its absence, it can not
receive communications from the President or participate as a body in making
appointments.... This is essentially a proviso to the provision relative to
appointments by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. It was carefully
devised so as to accomplish the purpose in view, without in the slightest degree
changing the policy of the Constitution, that such appointments are only to be
made with the participation of the Senate. Its sole purpose was to render it certain
that at all times there should be, whether the Senate was in session or not, an
officer for every office, entitled to discharge the duties thereof."

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


19 posted 01-07-2012 09:02 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Well, Grinch, you make an interesting case.  However, the senate has been somewhat nervous about such appointments since Mr. Bolton, and has made a point of not actually going into formal recess, even though to non-parliamentarians such as myself it sure as heck looks like it, what with most of the senators not being in town and all.  It seems that there have somehow or another been arrangements made to bring the Senate into session every third day with a crew of folks who are there especially for that purpose, that would be, I guess, to defeat those appointments.

     I am not find of the Wall Street Journal these days, but I do find the current piece on its opinion page convincing, even though it is a Conservative paper, and even though the opinion is in many ways a conservative opinion.  I would, in fact, appreciate a convincing response to this piece that would enable me to walk away from its basic conclusions in good conscience.  Should you provide me with one, I’d be grateful.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577142540864703780.html

    
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


20 posted 01-07-2012 09:31 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It seems that there have somehow or another been arrangements made to bring the Senate into session every third day with a crew of folks who are there especially for that purpose, that would be, I guess, to defeat those appointments.

Exactly what Reid did to block Bush. Of course, there was no democratic complaint then, even by senator Obama.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


21 posted 01-07-2012 09:45 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:


I think that the administration is making a political sally that is trying to appeal to its base and consolidate it.

Then I don't understand it. Democrats are going to vote for him no matter what he does. Republicans are not going to vote for him, no matter what he does. The people that need to be courted are the independents.  If independents view it as an illegal act, as you do, it will not favor him. If they view him as an ego type who says "to hell with congress", it will not favor him. If his appointments are overturned, it will not favor him. I don't think he is trying to appeal to his base. I think it's a case of "I'm Obama. Hear me roar!" He does not like it when he doesn't get his way. I see it as a hissy fit of presidential proportions.



     Permit me to disagree slightly, Mike.

     The President has alienated a lot of his Democratic base; despite what you think, I believe he has alienated many of his more liberal constituents, who think he has cut and run around Gitmo, civil rights, human rights, health care, unions and any number of issues in which you have given the impression that you see him as being a shining bulwark of everything the right wing hates.  Your correctness or incorrectness about the American left is not an issue here, though in some other forum, we might discuss that, though probably not to any good effect.  The issue in this case is not whether you are right or wrong (or whether I am, for that matter), but how the Democratic left sees the President, and how the President is likely to react to that perception.

     Were you talking about the Republicans, I think I would agree with your analysis of the situation.  The Republicans need to swing a large number of independents simply to break even with the Democrats in terms of votes, and the Democrats need to make sure that those independants don’t go to the Right.  And the Republicans typically need to suppress a large number of Democratic votes in addition in order to win, hence the attacks on the legitimacy of the Democratic voters and the high risk of election fraud as a Republican strategy.  With any luck, large blocks of otherwise Democratic voters can be eliminated at once.  It’s not pretty, but it is practical.

     It is nice to get Independents for Obama, but it’s very important to keep the coalition together; and, above all, not to allow some sort of left leaning third party to come into the race.  A left leaning third party could strip off some of the votes from the Democratic base, and take away some of the votes from the Independents in the center and leave the Republicans holding the trophy in the end.  So a gesture to make The President look like he’s not going to take the Republican blockade lying down, but that he’s willing to play hard ball with them the way the left has been urging him to do all along will go a long way in helping The President consolidate his somewhat weakened grip on his party.  He does not look like a particularly strong Democratic candidate to the Democratic left right now, and many of us are talking among ourselves about Hilary.  Is it possible?  Might their be some way?

     Which of these would you rather have running a race against a Republican Presidential candidate?  Which would you rather have running against a Romney or a Santorum or a — pardon me for grinning, here, I know it’s a bit impolite — Gingrich?

     After a while, it begins to look like handicapping a horserace, doesn’t it?  Wet track?  Dry track?  Do they do well coming back after injuries?  Are they prone to groin pulls (so many of these candidates are in one way or another, aren’t they?).  Do they get stronger over the distance?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


22 posted 01-07-2012 09:49 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     If you use the Bush/Bolton example, of course, both you and I are wrong; the appointmnents are legal; and the discussion is totally silly.  That is the way that appointment worked out as I recall, isn't it?  Bolton was confirmed and served out his term as ambassidor to the U.N.  I was against it at that time, as I am against it now and you, as I recall, were in favor of it than, though you have deep seated moral objections to it now.

     I do have that straight, don't I?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


23 posted 01-07-2012 10:01 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

and you, as I recall, were in favor of it than, though you have deep seated moral objections to it now.
     I do have that straight, don't I?


Do you have evidence to back that statement up?

Obama or Hillary? I would much rather have Obama run. His record is something he cannot run on with success and, if you are correct, even many in his own party are out of favor with him. Hillary, on the other hand, is the unknown quantity. She could get elected in much the same way Obama did....with promises and speeches of hope and change, whether or not she would follow through on them or not. Obama has shown, by your own examples, that he has not.

I would love to see Obama and Hillary debating for the nomination. She would have no choice but to point out every he has failed to do and/or done wrong. I would have popcorn ready for that one!
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


24 posted 01-07-2012 10:07 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Unfortunately the article requires subscription Bob.

I can pretty much guess what it says though from the teaser I read.

Members of the Senate who want to deny the President the Constitutional right to make recess appointments pretend that the Senate is still in session by having two Senators turn up every three days for 30 seconds.  It's a game that's been played by both sides on numerous occasions, the idea is that, supposedly, a recess is a break of more than three days and a senate session is a 30 second visit to the chamber by two token idiots.

Let's deal with the three day minimum myth first. In short there is no minimum  there's even a legal ruling to that effect - the Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit on February 20, 2004 stated:

"The Constitution, on its face, does not establish a minimum time that an
authorized break in the Senate must last to give legal force to the
President’s appointment power under the Recess Appointments Clause."


So what about the two man 30 second Senate session?

The Constitutional right afforded the President is that he can, where the Senate isn't in session to offer advice and consent, make temporary appointments. The only question that needs to be addressed, as highlighted by the review conducted by the Senate points out, is whether the Senate was available to offer advice and consent.  Just imagine for one second Bob, if Obama had managed to contact the two Senators in the 30 second window would they be empowered to grant or deny the appointment? If Obama sent three of his guys to the chamber could they out vote the two Republican's. Would they have to recall the Senate and if so recall it from what if not a recess?

In an earlier post you said this:

quote:
If there was an actual confrontation of powers going on, I would be upset


If that's true then you should be getting upset right around now because this is a clear cut case of one government body (the Senate) trying to deny the Constitutional power of another (the President).

P.S.

I'm still against this appointment though.

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> New Year....Same Obama   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors