»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
New Year....Same Obama
| The Alley |
|
New Year....Same Obama |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/04/obama-makes-four-recess-appointments-of-dubious-legality/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter |
||
| © Copyright 2012 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yep. The same man the majority voted into office. One would hope he wouldn't change any more than necessary? 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. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: 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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: 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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: 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: Obama was voted into office, Mike. Without any help from the Supreme Court even. quote: 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: 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: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: 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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: 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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
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 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. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Yes, I'm upset as well. I'm not necessarily upset that the two branches are in conflict, mind you, because legitimate conflicts can happen and do need to get worked out. My upset in this case is that the conflict is spurious, and seems to be for appearances only. I had no idea that the WSJ editorial was restricted on your end, since I have no difficulty in pulling it up here on mine, and I have no subscription to that Journal. I was able to google the article and reference it that way. I wouldn't have referenced the pesky thing had I known that others wouldn't have been able to read it. I am very sorry. Perhaps somebody with better computer research skills than mine might be able to offer a solution? I think the editorial ought to be available; even though I don't like the political orientation, it has some solid points to make on the issue and they ought to be more widely available for conservatives who might agree and for liberals who might appreciate a well argued point of view from the political opposition. Uh, Mike — if I'm wrong, I'll accept your word on the fact. Short of that, my memory says that you supported the Bush recess appointment of Bolton without a problem, though I was upset by it at the time. My upset continues here with President Obama's recess appointments, while you have realized that the attempts to keep the congress in technical session really do have some point to them, and we are no longer living in the 18th century when it was important to be able to fill these posts and the time it took to get the congress and especially the Senate back into session could sometimes amount to months and not days or hours. Horseback, as opposed to airplanes. Should you wish to talk about your own personal thoughts and feelings about the subject, I suspect they would be edited out. Why you would ask me to go into detail about them seems a bit of a puzzle, since anybody can check the record if they wish, and if I go into any sort of personal pursuit of that sort it seems likely I will have it edited out as well. My position on recess appointments has remained pretty much consistent. I don't like them. It isn't bad to try to justify one's party's position, even if one's party's position changes, as both of ours have done here. Such tenacity shows party loyalty and many other laudable qualities. It's simply that, in this situation, I'm too much of a blockhead to do so, and I think that The President is acting for other than the reasons that you've suggested. You may even be more accurate in your analysis for the reasons for these recess appointments than I am, as I've said before. It just that I tend to like my own explanations a bit more because it explains The President's attempts to deal with his weakness within his own party during what is, after all, the primary season, when he has time more or less undisturbed to do exactly that. The Republicans are busy fighting Republicans right now, and he can use that time to consolidate as best he can. He may not be all that great at governing, but he is formidable indeed as a campaigner; and he may be very good at helping turn the tide a bit on the legislative level. That may depend on what the economy does over the next several months, and how the Republicans respond to that. I'm interested to hear on Mike's thoughts and on anybody else's thoughts on that, and I'm interested in seeing what sort of thinking we can all develop together as the campaign goes on. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
This was originally a repost of the above; now, of course, it's not. |
||
|
Klassy Lassy Member Elite
since 2005-06-28
Posts 2187Oregon |
Thanks, Michael, for posting this. Figuring out the strategy of the various componets of our government makes me feel stupid, but in this forum, at least I get different points of view to consider and sometimes a clue as to how politicians manipulate. The one thing I do realize is that ignorance is not bliss, and it's being made evident everyday. Nothing is as it seems on the surface...and whether or not someone is going to tell me it's woman's intuition, what's rotten is beginning to really stink! So what's to trust here? Not a lot and privileges Americans have shared in the past are being taken from them... as you say the list is growing. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Why you would ask me to go into detail about them seems a bit of a puzzle, since anybody can check the record if they wish Well, Bob, it should be no puzzle. You made the statement so it would be appropriate for you to offer the reference, if called on to do so. I seem to recall you asking for proof on comments I have made in the past....and appropriately so. To be truthful I don't recall making any comment about Bolton, nor do I recall it being important enough to comment on. That doesn't mean I didn't, since we post thousands of replies here in the Alley and it's not always easy to keep track of them. That's why I asked for clarification on something you claimed happened. Now you change it to "my memory says that" and I can accept that conditional avenue. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
He may not be all that great at governing, but he is formidable indeed as a campaigner; and he may be very good at helping turn the tide a bit on the legislative level. That may depend on what the economy does over the next several months, and how the Republicans respond to that. I can assure you that the economy is going to be brilliant over the next few months. The mainstream media will see to that. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
That's right. You know, the one that checks their facts on a consistent basis: The one that the Republicans only complain about when it disagrees with them? Then, when they agree, they make loud crowing noises about? Yet still quote happily when they agree with the Republican point of view when the facts actually support the republican position, as they sometimes do because Republicans actually voice some decent and appropriate and well taken points of view on occasion. It does actually happen. I know it; and any decent newspaper worth its salt will say so when it's true as well. The Wall Street Journal has an excellent editorial piece about the recess appointments just the other day. They occasionally do good editorial pieces. They used to do a much hight proportion of good journalism than they do now. The New York Times is a much more accurate paper on the whole in terms of it's reporting in my opinion, as is The Washington Post. I believe that The Economist, clearly a conservative publication, is fully as accurate a publication as The New York Times, and is also a Mains Stream publication, while the News in The WSJ is not as accurate on the Whole, though it too is one of the Main Stream Media. The New York Post, one of The MSM and conservative doesn't seem to be as accurate as The NYT or TWP. The Times of London, a Murdoch owned paper, is definitely mainstream media. It is also right of center, at least slightly, and many people think of it as one of the national Papers of record. Mike, the sort of thinking you are voicing never made any sense, and it is a waste of time in terms of the practical pursuit of any liberal versus conservative discussion, since some respectable publications, some main stream media are already conservative and at least some of them check their facts. Sadly, they tend to contradict Fox news a fair about of the time or, at a minimum, they tend to contradict the spin Fox news puts on the news and the "facts" that they report. That doesn't mean that these and other more journalistically meticulous conservative journals are foolish or liars, though, since they may still be at odds with more liberal publications about facts or the slant of the facts. To my mind, it does mean that the readers of the more simplistic conservative publications have simply chosen the Fox News version of events over versions which may be more complex and better researched and better vetted. And which may, often, be richer, more likely and in the end more accurate. I am well aware of my use of the word "may" in this last sentence. I don't intend to try to force my version of reality down anybody's throat, even if I thought such a thing was possible in terms of making a convincing case; or in terms of the way that I see people constructing their own personal views of reality. I do hope to be reasonably clear in talking about how I see things and in talking about how basically flawed the notion of mainstream media is in terms of a political discussion. It in essence suggests that we should rather look for and support media that is essentially incompetent as the source of our information rather than media — left or right — that functions to standards of at least reasonable skill and competence. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
By the way, I really do believe that the issue will depend on how well the economy does and how the Republicans respond to the ups or downs of the economy, I thought the comment was actually worth a response. Wasn't so long ago that the unemployment rate was 9.3 and you were issuing frequent reminders of that fact, with the number itself featured and with comments about the failure of the Obama recovery plan and shovel ready jobs. As would have been a good political tactic for following a ampaign argument, whether or not that was your intention Over the last couple of months, the figure's fallen somewhat, for whatever reason. The Washington Post says it's down to 8.5. I think iut's too early to say that it';s headed downward in any firm fashion, and Senator Santorum the other day on TV said that he thought that the reason for that was because the public was anticipating a Republican win. So there can be all sorts of hysterican tricks played with the number by everybody. Hopefully, the Democrats have enough sense not to make any claims at all, and let people like the Senator make their case for them, and if the figures turn around then they won't be in a position of having to eat any words. I think it was CNN who said that the Democrats were in a position of risking an early peak or a turnaround in the figures before the election. These are things that I think are interesting and possible directions for the election to go in. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, you know as well as I there are infinite ways to spin a story. The media will spin it the way they want, be it NBC or FOX. Obama spins his own when claiming that the economy is better because of him (which it isn't) and how he has created hundreds of thousands of jobs (which he hasn't). How it is trumpeted by the news is up to them. What page it lands on is also up to them. FOX would bring up facts to disclaim it. Mainstream might simply posts Obama's claim without going into detail...or post details on thousands of jobs created (without going into detail that they were temp jobs for a limited amount of time. If you want to make the case that media will take the facts and print or broadcast them without bias, you are living in a fantasy world. It doesn't work that way, which I'm sure you know. Let's see how they carry the resignation of the latest chief of staff. That will make four chiefs of staff since Obama took control...quite amazing, I would say. I'm interesting in see how they will spin it and imagine how the spin would be different if it were a republican president going through so many chiefs of staff. May be interesting.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Don't know why the decrease in the unemployment rate. Might be seasonal, might not. But I doubt the decline would be from 9.3 to 8.5, personally. If you think that's the case, of course, you could always say so, just like Rick Santorum said he thought that the cause was the upcoming Republican victory in the fall. I'd rather put my money on my I-really-don't-know, but-given-the-.8%-overall-rise-over-the-past-several-months-it-seems-faintly-possible-that-there-may-be-a-recovery-of -sorts-going-on scenario, though, because it suggests something decent for the country and not simply for my party. The Democrats would still have to win the election, you know. The number of thrilled Republicans would probably be limited to the actual number of Republicans, I suspect and perhaps some Independents; unlikely enough to generate an economic uptick to my mind. I think the uptick would have to come first. I'd like to hear an actual estimate of exactly how much of that .8 % you believe would be a result of the Christmas sales this year. More than last year's? Wouldn't there have had to be a larger than usual uptick in Christmas spending to account for a large part-time hiring bonanza for the economy? You're the one suggesting it, aren't you? Doesn't make much sense to me, but I'm willing to be convinced with some decent facts. The Democrats aren't advertising it anyway, near as I can tell. The increase seems fragile, and if it collapses after it's been campaigned on, it's a large potential trap; the same way, I think, in reverse, the criticisms you're toying with making may be as well if the increase in employment turns out to have any sort of stability to it. I haven't kept track of Republican chiefs of staff, truth be told. I have no idea if the number of chiefs of staff that a president has says anything about the President's ability or not, and how that works. I seem to recall that Lincoln, for example, went through a great number of commanding Generals for the Grand Army of the Republic before he settled on Grant. I would really hate to think that your example about President Obama extended to President Lincoln, another great Republican President by some measures, whom many people criticized very harshly for being aggressively pro-civil liberties, while other people criticized him for being savagely any civil liberties. You may remember that I've always suggested that Our current President was a closet Republican? And of course many have suggested that Lincoln would never have been elected by a modern day Republican party to even an office modest as that of a dog catcher. At any rate, he certainly went through quite a few of those all important military posts, and his contemporaries were often at least as critical of his competence as ours are of President Obama. I do wish that President Obama has as much spine as that first Republican President, though. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
