Obama's Accomplishments So Far...

[Cain]

So I'm a socialist, and I'm not feeling the Obama love. What has he accomplished so far (apart from axing Guantanamo, rescinding "don't ask, don't tell," fixing healthcare, getting the economy on track, ending warrantless wiretapping, sticking it to Zionists, stabilizing Pakistan and winning big in Afghanistan)?

Here's Politifact's take on the administration's promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

"Promises kept" counts super-important things like "getting Sasha and what's her-name a puppy."

My favorite Democratic lie (you heard Kerry say it in 2004) is the one about getting us "energy independent" in ten years. I'm sure that's be "in the works."

[DC]

So I'm a socialist, and I'm not feeling the Obama love. What has he accomplished so far (apart from axing Guantanamo, rescinding "don't ask, don't tell," fixing healthcare, getting the economy on track, ending warrantless wiretapping, sticking it to Zionists, stabilizing Pakistan and winning big in Afghanistan)?

Here's Politifact's take on the administration's promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

"Promises kept" counts super-important things like "getting Sasha and what's her-name a puppy."

My favorite Democratic lie (you heard Kerry say it in 2004) is the one about getting us "energy independent" in ten years. I'm sure that's be "in the works."

our grandchildren will remember him for a long long time. They will be paying back the money spend under his administration.

[Dr Adequate]

So I'm a socialist, and I'm not feeling the Obama love. I'm a moderate liberal. So I guess that what he has done for you socialists is not being Bush.

If you want to get in your time-machine and vote for McCain 2008, feel free.

[maddog]

I'm a moderate liberal. So I guess that what he has done for you socialists is not being Bush.

If you want to get in your time-machine and vote for McCain 2008, feel free.

Hell, I voted for McCain 2008, and even I didn't want to do it. All he did to get my vote was not be Obama -- and in that respect, I think that Obama has justified my McCain vote.

And by the way, wtf is a "moderate liberal"?

[Marc39]

Being elected to the presidency seems to be his biggest accomplishment thus far.

[Tricky]

And by the way, wtf is a "moderate liberal"?
He hates brie.

[Dr Adequate]

Hell, I voted for McCain 2008, and even I didn't want to do it. All he did to get my vote was not be Obama -- and in that respect, I think that Obama has justified my McCain vote. Well, bad luck then

And by the way, wtf is a "moderate liberal"? Me. For example.

[maddog]

Me. For example.

Umm... what characteristics, policies, or beliefs distinguish a "moderate liberal" from a "non-moderate liberal", aside from not liking brie :D ?

[quarky]

A non-moderate liberal will drink a case of micro-brewery beer.

[Dr Adequate]

Umm... what characteristics, policies, or beliefs distinguish a "moderate liberal" from a "non-moderate liberal", aside from not liking brie :D ? Er ... moderation? You know, the way that I'm a moderate liberal rather than in immoderate liberal?

I do like brie. How about you?

[Dr Adequate]

A non-moderate liberal will drink a case of micro-brewery beer. In order to know whether that is an accurate distinction, I need to know how many bottles are in a case.

[tyr_13]

So I'm a socialist, and I'm not feeling the Obama love. What has he accomplished so far (apart from axing Guantanamo, rescinding "don't ask, don't tell," fixing healthcare, getting the economy on track, ending warrantless wiretapping, sticking it to Zionists, stabilizing Pakistan and winning big in Afghanistan)?

Here's Politifact's take on the administration's promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

"Promises kept" counts super-important things like "getting Sasha and what's her-name a puppy."

My favorite Democratic lie (you heard Kerry say it in 2004) is the one about getting us "energy independent" in ten years. I'm sure that's be "in the works."


OH NO! Obama isn't the second coming! Problems are hard to fix! It hasn't even been a year! There have been more pressing problems! NOOOOOO. He was supposed to be perfect.

He must be a bad, bad man.

[dudalb]

Wow, our resident ultra Hip radical is dissapointed in Obama.Whatta shocker.
And the "sticking it to the Zionists' remark is pretty tacky after the events of yesterday.
And besides, when did Obama run as a Socialist?

[ProbeX]

And besides, when did Obama run as a Socialist?

You stole my thought ;)

[Shalamar]

I find the comments from the Conservatives and Obama Bashers interesting. "He hasn't kept his promises!"

Well, Wait until the end of his administration to slam him for his accomplishments, or the lack of. There is a lot on his plate. At least let him work on it!

[BonkingBear]

So I'm a socialist, and I'm not feeling the Obama love. What has he accomplished so far (apart from axing Guantanamo, rescinding "don't ask, don't tell," fixing healthcare, getting the economy on track, ending warrantless wiretapping, sticking it to Zionists, stabilizing Pakistan and winning big in Afghanistan)?



Well sounds as though he has been busy so far - how about some gratitude for his achievements.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I find the comments from the Conservatives and Obama Bashers interesting. "He hasn't kept his promises!"

Well, Wait until the end of his administration to slam him for his accomplishments, or the lack of. There is a lot on his plate. At least let him work on it!

I'm an Obama supporter, but I've still been voicing my criticism of some key failures. Some of his decisions are wrong, and I think it's important to let him know it right away.

He's keeping extraordinary rendition.

He reneged on his promise to ban discriminatory hiring in organizations that receive taxpayer money via the faith-based initiative program. His people say he wants to take those on a case-by-case basis (meaning, there's no ban on discriminatory hiring practices).

He announced that he wouldn't support prosecution of CIA operatives who committed torture since they were just following orders. (Though he took that statement back.)

I'm still glad he's our president compared to McCain and certainly compared to Bush!

[maddog]

Er ... moderation? You know, the way that I'm a moderate liberal rather than in immoderate liberal?

I do like brie. How about you?

I like brie, but not as much as asiago, swiss, or even parmesan. But I'm certainly not a liberal. And whether or not I'm moderate depends on what moderate means, which I haven't really been able to figure out, in specific political terms.

In order to know whether that is an accurate distinction, I need to know how many bottles are in a case.

Generally, 24. And for the record, I would drink a case of micro-brewery beer, though not at one time. It would take me about a week, and even then, I would have to be seriously working at it. I guess when it comes to drinking, I'm a moderate! :D

OH NO! Obama isn't the second coming! Problems are hard to fix! It hasn't even been a year! There have been more pressing problems! NOOOOOO. He was supposed to be perfect.

He must be a bad, bad man.

I'm still waiting on him to pay my mortgage! And just the other day, some news guy said Obama is "like a god". :eek:

But, seriously, as a conservative, I'm more HAPPY about him not doing the things he's trying to do. I don't WANT nationalization of banks or auto manufacturers or anything else. I don't WANT bailouts of every industry or business or mortgage-borrower or -lender that whines to the government. I want Obama to FAIL at many of the things he's trying to implement, because I believe that the country will be better off that way.

[Marc39]

sticking it to Zionists

And, not sticking it to the fascists.

[Just thinking]

My favorite Democratic lie (you heard Kerry say it in 2004) is the one about getting us "energy independent" in ten years. I'm sure that's be "in the works."

Even if Obama gets a full 8 years ... and is followed by another Democrat, at the end of those 12 years I believe we will not be any more energy independent than we are now ... even less so.

[Praktik]

I'm a moderate liberal. So I guess that what he has done for you socialists is not being Bush.

If you want to get in your time-machine and vote for McCain 2008, feel free.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kronos!

[Marc39]

Putting the US on the road to socialism.

[Scootch]

"The Politics of failure has failed!"
Kang (R)

[Upchurch]

There is a lot on his plate. At least let him work on it!
He's had 4-5 months. How long does he need?

[JoeTheJuggler]

He's had 4-5 months. How long does he need?

I understand that approach for tackling the messed up economy, health care reform, and so on, but on the items I mentioned, he's had enough time to make decisions contrary to his campaign promises.

[quarky]

There are no obvious solutions to what we're up against, and if there were, nobody would like them. The best chance allowable for legitimate solutions is to do it as gradually as possible.

radical change is indicated, imho, yet few embrace it. We're trying to move a dying elephant, and it is slow and heavy, and we are weak and know almost nothing about elephants. I'm dissapointed that Obama isn't more of a lefty, yet I see that there's lots of conservatives here that wish he was more righty...so its probably good that he's hanging near the middle. He probably knows what he can and can't get away with.

[TriskettheKid]

Quick, someone tell me the accomplishments, within 4-5 months of taking office, of:

Washington
Jefferson
Roosevelt
Lincoln
FDR
Eisenhower

GO!

[Cain]

DudalB said something like:
Wow, our resident ultra Hip radical is dissapointed in Obama.Whatta shocker...
And besides, when did Obama run as a Socialist?

Where did I say Obama ran as a socialist? If you want to claim familiarity with my ultra hip politics, then you'd know I didn't vote for him. I thought my socialist confession was an unmistakable reference to the Republican rhetoric casting Obama as a comrade. Then again, I suppose you have some wrong-streak you're trying to maintain.

Tyr blathered something like:
OH NO! Obama isn't the second coming! Problems are hard to fix! It hasn't even been a year! There have been more pressing problems! NOOOOOO. He was supposed to be perfect.

He must be a bad, bad man.

Not quite. Instead of accomplishments perhaps I should have asked what kind of progress he's making, and what the indicators seem to be, um, indicating. And right now I'm not too impressed.

Yes, health-care and the economy are difficult and take time, for no other reason than the fact they require collaboration with the legislature. I'll concede that right up front, but I also maintain the administration's actions (such as they are) so far do not inspire me any way. But let's instead go to something where Obama can make good on a campaign promise AND exercise leadership: use the power of the pen to sign an Executive Order that will stop the military from firing gays and lesbians. If this leads to a battle in Congress, then rally the troops.

Of course, Democrats prefer to stand along the sidelines. For eight years during Bush we heard about how they needed to come off as Republican-lite in order to win a majority and THEN undo the disastrous policies of fanatical, reactionary Republicans (and if anyone had a Messiah complex, it was Bush). Now they're in power and they refuse to lead.

I can't be bothered to look it up, but some months ago Obama said our history and culture of individualism :rolleyes: means single-payer healthcare isn't a good fit, unlike our neighbors to the north, or enlightened European countries. We also had a goddamn culture of slavery. Argue for your principles, and win people over to your side... that is, if you believe in your principles at all Mr. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Comments about brie are not out of place because Obama only seems to want to blaze a trail when it comes to food criticism.

Quick, someone tell me the accomplishments, within 4-5 months of taking office, of:

Washington
Jefferson
Roosevelt
Lincoln
FDR
Eisenhower

Why not compare to him the last president? One problem is that Bush had a free hand after 9/11, but a Google search reveals the first round of Bush tax cuts were passed in late May, and that came at a time when a lot of people still joked he wasn't legitimately elected. Given economic crisis, a clear winner in the Electoral College, and public goodwill in the first months of office, what has Obama done? Continued Bush's billions for bailouts?

[The Platypus]

It's funny watching the right wing implode and act like children having a temper tantrum over Obama. They seem to get more childish and ridiculous by the day. The republican party is in a nose dive and acting more idiotic is their only solution and then they wonder why Obama won...

[Whiplash]

I seem to remember making a prediction that people on the hard left would turn on Obama for not being left enough. Some months ago. But I'm not meaning to say "look at me, I called it" as much as to say that I think it's a good thing. If people on the hard left aren't happy with him, then he's probably behaving rather moderately after all. Which I can live with.

[SezMe]

And by the way, wtf is a "moderate liberal"?
Not Rev. Wright. :)

[SezMe]

I'm still waiting on him to pay my mortgage! And just the other day, some news guy said Obama is "like a god". :eek:
What a throw-away line. That could be anyone from Beck or Savage to Olberman or Malloy depending on context. What did you mean to imply?

[SezMe]

My favorite Democratic lie (you heard Kerry say it in 2004) is the one about getting us "energy independent" in ten years. I'm sure that's be "in the works."
I don't remember Obama making such a promise. In fact, from the very site you linked to:

"Will cut U.S. oil consumption of foreign oil by 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, take 50 million cars worth of pollution off the road, and save American consumers more than $50 billion at the gas pump." [No time frame given for that statement]

Will "reduce oil consumption overall by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels of oil, by 2030."

Criticizing Obama is OK but at least keep it factual.

In fact, I am not happy with Obama. But the real biggie is on the horizon right now: health care. What compromises he makes to accomodate the Republicans may well spell the success or failure of his first term.

[Cain]

I don't remember Obama making such a promise. In fact, from the very site you linked to:

Criticizing Obama is OK but at least keep it factual.

Obama in the first debate, speaking to tens of millions:

"We have to have energy independence, so I've put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years' time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home, but most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy, solar, wind, biodiesel, making sure that we're developing the fuel-efficient cars of the future right here in the United States, in Ohio and Michigan, instead of Japan and South Korea."

In his acceptance speech:

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

As people like to point out, we currently only get something like 15% of our oil from the Middle East but it's a global market. We could get ALL of our oil from Mexico and Canada, but that will not mean sovereignty from decisions in the Middle East.

[SezMe]

A goal is not the same as a promise. That said, you've made your point.

[quarky]

I was discouraged that Michelle bought $500 sneakers to walk the dog. Is it a negro thing?

[INRM]

Well

- He promised us change...

- He got elected...

- He released some DOJ documents and some stuff which helped make our previous administration look bad (which they were undoubtedly), and got us all to trust him...

- Refused to release other documents he promised to release

- Defended Bush's controversial (and illegal) warrantless wiretapping policy

- Declared that the ACTA treaty must be declared secret under grounds of national security

- Fired a gay arab-translator under the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy even though Obama during the campaign claimed to oppose it.

- Re-instituted the controversial military-commissions tribunals which were conceived under the Bush administration

- Proposed preventive detention for people the government doesn't have any evidence to try but feels they "may" at one point in the future pose some kind of threat, national security or otherwise, and hold them indefinetly.


INRM

[dudalb]

It's funny watching the right wing implode and act like children having a temper tantrum over Obama. They seem to get more childish and ridiculous by the day. The republican party is in a nose dive and acting more idiotic is their only solution and then they wonder why Obama won...


WHich is sad because we will need a counterbalance to the Dems . Sooner or later the Dems in congress will want to go crazy with the credit cards.

[Dorian Gray]

It's funny watching the right wing implode and act like children having a temper tantrum over Obama. They seem to get more childish and ridiculous by the day. The republican party is in a nose dive and acting more idiotic is their only solution and then they wonder why Obama won...
I just had a mild deja-vu attack... circa 2001... and 2005... only someone said it about the left wing....

[TriskettheKid]

I just had a mild deja-vu attack... circa 2001... and 2005... only someone said it about the left wing....

True.

However, the numbers show something very different is happening right now with the GOP.

[tyr_13]

I like how a lot of people try to play Obama being pragmatic as some sort of betrayal. Such as...

Well

- He promised us change...

He's not GW, so that's change, can't say promise broken. Stupid promise? Yeah, but it was a political campaign.


- He got elected...

Yes, a politician being a politician worked in politics...


- He released some DOJ documents and some stuff which helped make our previous administration look bad (which they were undoubtedly), and got us all to trust him...

Got us all to trust him, was the right thing to do, what's the diff?


- Refused to release other documents he promised to release

Because no one could possibility change their mind after actually seeing the documents right? It isn't as if the last administration was automatically wrong about everything.


- Defended Bush's controversial (and illegal) warrantless wiretapping policy

Which is bad in my view.


- Declared that the ACTA treaty must be declared secret under grounds of national security

Maybe it should? Not that I don't think that the treaty shouldn't be disclosed to the people, but if Congress doesn't disagree either, I could be entirely wrong.


- Fired a gay arab-translator under the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy even though Obama during the campaign claimed to oppose it.

Which he is legally obligated to do. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a legislative order which the president can't do anything about except oppose it. Yeah, it sucks, it's wrong, write your Congressman.


- Re-instituted the controversial military-commissions tribunals which were conceived under the Bush administration

Which is better than no trials at all. If they claim to be military, then that's the correct path anyway. If not, well, there are plenty of threads on this and it isn't as cut and dry as you make it sound.


- Proposed preventive detention for people the government doesn't have any evidence to try but feels they "may" at one point in the future pose some kind of threat, national security or otherwise, and hold them indefinetly.

Besides the tribunals and whatnot. Again, I disagree with this, but I'm not crying bloody murder.


Yes, hold Obama to his promises unless he gives us rational reasons for changing his mind. Ideas should be amended as new information becomes available. However, I've been hearing about this, 'Obama no different than Bush' and 'he hasn't fixed everything yet' etc, for the last four freaking months. It's hard to sort the valid gripes from the whining and moaning when so much of it is thrown out there all the time.

Then again, my family watches Fox a lot. Perhaps it is just confirmation bias on my part.

[The Painter]

...

. But let's instead go to something where Obama can make good on a campaign promise AND exercise leadership: use the power of the pen to sign an Executive Order that will stop the military from firing gays and lesbians. If this leads to a battle in Congress, then rally the troops. ...





- Fired a gay arab-translator under the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy even though Obama during the campaign claimed to oppose it.
Which he is legally obligated to do. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a legislative order which the president can't do anything about except oppose it. Yeah, it sucks, it's wrong, write your Congressman.


Which one is it??? Can he do something about it or not??

[Dr Adequate]

Which one is it??? Can he do something about it or not?? It's a federal law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html). It's not clear that it would be constitutional for him to over-ride that by using his authority as PotUS and C-in-C to issue an executive order. Much though I dislike DADT, perhaps (for once) we can agree that it would probably be a bad idea if he could do that sort of thing.

[Cain]

Which one is it??? Can he do something about it or not??

Tyr's full of crap, as usual. Theoretically, the legislature is the most powerful branch -- creates laws, funds the military, declares war, and so forth. But Obama's the Commander-in-Chief and he can sign an Executive Order right now that would force Congress to act (which is why I refer to a "battle" in the quoted sentence). If Congress wants to keep "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," it can over-rule him. Pussy Democrats would rather send the issue to the courts, but that ain't happening now. Obama's also the leader of his party, and if he can twist arms to get billions for bailouts, then he should do the same on an issue of basic social justice.

Here's a link to Gibbs' unambiguous answer on the question before Obama was sworn in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrtpMrtnGJU#t=4m16s

He freaking campaigned on this but the Obamaphiles will try desperately to sound oh-so-reasonable when making their lame excuses. And I'm sort of getting sick of this crap about how there's too much on his plate. Is ending discrimination a major issue? No, I don't think so. Which is exactly why he should act. It's also in the Democrats' best long-term interest for party branding. If they had the courts do it, then it's another feather in the cap for the philosopher kings. Republicans are on the wrong side of this issue morally and demographically. Democrats can claim to be the party that opposed blacks and whites drinking from separate water fountains, and it cost them politically in the South (e.g., good riddance to Strom Thurmond). Say the modern Democratic party embodies those values for social justice. Jesus Christ, John *********** McCain would tell anyone who would listen he was proud to win the nomination of the party of Lincoln, which is a total joke. Those radical abolitionist reconstructionist Republicans from New England who over-rode "states' rights" inspire today's party members? Really?

[Dr Adequate]

Tyr's full of crap, as usual. Theoretically, the legislature is the most powerful branch -- creates laws, funds the military, declares war, and so forth. But Obama's the Commander-in-Chief and he can sign an Executive Order right now that would force Congress to act (which is why I refer to a "battle" in the quoted sentence). If Congress wants to keep "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," it can over-rule him. But haven't they "over-ruled" this already, by passing, y'know ... a law?

How could they more over-rule him? Pass the same law again?

[tyr_13]

Tyr's full of crap, as usual. Theoretically, the legislature is the most powerful branch -- creates laws, funds the military, declares war, and so forth. But Obama's the Commander-in-Chief and he can sign an Executive Order right now that would force Congress to act (which is why I refer to a "battle" in the quoted sentence). If Congress wants to keep "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," it can over-rule him. Pussy Democrats would rather send the issue to the courts, but that ain't happening now. Obama's also the leader of his party, and if he can twist arms to get billions for bailouts, then he should do the same on an issue of basic social justice.

This is just demonstrating your massive ignorance on the balance of powers in the US. Obama could try exactly what you are saying, and he would be legally wrong in exercising a power the executive does not have, and it would create a battle with Congress at a time when there are other matters at the forefront, issues that you yourself just pointed out, which require a bit more co-operation and legislative time. However, there are already threads about this. Go argue with the people who know more than me about it instead of staying in your thread which those people have no interest in.


Here's a link to Gibbs' unambiguous answer on the question before Obama was sworn in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrtpMrtnGJU#t=4m16s

He freaking campaigned on this but the Obamaphiles will try desperately to sound oh-so-reasonable when making their lame excuses. And I'm sort of getting sick of this crap about how there's too much on his plate. Is ending discrimination a major issue? No, I don't think so. Which is exactly why he should act. It's also in the Democrats' best long-term interest for party branding. If they had the courts do it, then it's another feather in the cap for the philosopher kings. Republicans are on the wrong side of this issue morally and demographically. Democrats can claim to be the party that opposed blacks and whites drinking from separate water fountains, and it cost them politically in the South (e.g., good riddance to Strom Thurmond). Say the modern Democratic party embodies those values for social justice. Jesus Christ, John *********** McCain would tell anyone who would listen he was proud to win the nomination of the party of Lincoln, which is a total joke. Those radical abolitionist reconstructionist Republicans from New England who over-rode "states' rights" inspire today's party members? Really?


Don't fall off the soap box.

[Cain]

But haven't they "over-ruled" this already, by passing, y'know ... a law?

How could they more over-rule him? Pass the same law again?

President Obama can circumvent the mess by signing an executive order commanding the military to suspend discharges for homosexuality. The law requires that the military discharge service members found to be gay. But nothing requires the military to reach such findings. The president should simply order the military to cease making findings about the troops’ sexual orientation.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/in-the-barracks-out-of-the-closet/

Tyr writes:
This is just demonstrating your massive ignorance on the balance of powers in the US. Obama could try exactly what you are saying, and he would be legally wrong in exercising a power the executive does not have, and it would create a battle with Congress at a time when there are other matters at the forefront, issues that you yourself just pointed out, which require a bit more co-operation and legislative time.

Well, someone is ignorant of the Constitution, and perhaps current events. I'm not sure if you noticed, but we're currently involved in two massive social engineering projects. The President, as commander-in-chief, has the power to prevent the military from firing personnel instrumental to national security objectives. The executive branch is envisioned as the institution that can quickly adapt to changing circumstances not foreseen by a 15 year-old law (one most people claim to no longer support anyway).

What I think is instructive here is how Obama apologists are bending over backwards to make excuses: "Well, he wants to act but he can't, and he has all these other things to do." So if he can't -- and I know he's not a constitutional scholar or anything :rolleyes: -- then is it fair to say he blatantly lied on the campaign trail? Is Gibbs lying in that video? "Oh, 'Don't ask, don't tell' -- we can't do anything about that. It's the Constitution, y'know?"

[Dr Adequate]

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/in-the-barracks-out-of-the-closet/ But that doesn't answer the question that I actually asked.

You said that he could pass an executive order and that if Congress didn't like it they could over-rule him.

What I asked was, how could they over-rule him? There is already a federal law, passed by Congress, saying that anyone openly gay in the military should be discharged. How could he possibly be more over-ruled by Congress than that?

Now you have given me a quote claiming that he could pass the executive order. But it does not explain how: "If Congress wants to keep "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," it can over-rule him." If he can cancel an actual federal law with an executive order, then how can they over-rule him?

What I think is instructive here is how Obama apologists are bending over backwards to make excuses: "Well, he wants to act but he can't, and he has all these other things to do." So if he can't -- and I know he's not a constitutional scholar or anything -- then is it fair to say he blatantly lied on the campaign trail? He said he'd move to repeal DADT. I hope he will, it would be wrong and pusillanimous of him not to. But your solution does seem to exceed the sort of constitutional authority that the President actually has, or that I'd want him to have.

[Alt+F4]

What I think is instructive here is how Obama apologists are bending over backwards to make excuses: "Well, he wants to act but he can't, and he has all these other things to do." So if he can't -- and I know he's not a constitutional scholar or anything :rolleyes: -- then is it fair to say he blatantly lied on the campaign trail? Is Gibbs lying in that video? "Oh, 'Don't ask, don't tell' -- we can't do anything about that. It's the Constitution, y'know?"

Yes, I think it's fair to say he blatantly lied on the campaign trail. If Truman could do Executive Order 9981 Obama could do similar, but he won't.

Jesus told him it was wrong.

[The Painter]

it would create a battle with Congress

???? The Senate is majority Democrats, the House is majority Democrats, the President is a Democrat. Who's going to battle? It's all the same party. If it is going to be done, it should be done now. Before the backlash vote of 2010.

[Alt+F4]

???? The Senate is majority Democrats, the House is majority Democrats, the President is a Democrat. Who's going to battle? It's all the same party. If it is going to be done, it should be done now. Before the backlash vote of 2010.

In addition, that's what Congress is supposed to do...work. The 111th Congress has only worked 76 days since their term started in January.

[Cain]

But that doesn't answer the question that I actually asked.

You said that he could pass an executive order and that if Congress didn't like it they could over-rule him.

The President decides bureaucratic thumb twiddling over who likes to eat dick is a waste of resources, so he refuses to enforce the idiotic policy in light of the fact times have changed (social progress, which undermines the "morale" argument at the core of gays openly serving in the military) and circumstances have changed (we're at war and we need people). In other words, the President is acting in good faith. Perhaps you rarely venture outside an online forum where every Rule 12 section 3 code is strictly enforced, but executives ignore dumb, anachronistic laws all the time.* Assuming the courts agree that whatever piece of legislation contained "Don't ask, don't tell" has the mechanisms in place for such discretion, Congress can go back and re-write the law in full awareness of present day circumstances and research (2009 is not 1993). If the President vetoes the law, then Congress can over-ride his veto. If the President ignores the law, then the legislature can remove him from office.

He said he'd move to repeal DADT.

Get a member of Congress to introduce the legislation, rally support, get the votes, get it signed. If he's afraid that will take years, and if he actually cares about the issue from a national security and human rights standpoint, then, in the meantime, he can sign executive order right now so that we do not lose the troops he claims we need, and the troops do not lose their job and benefits for reasons he claims to believe are immoral.

*And in the case of the Bush administration, not-so-dumb, always relevant laws. Lucky for them, the Congress decided to abdicate its Constitutional responsibilities.

[Dr Adequate]

Perhaps you rarely venture outside an online forum where every Rule 12 section 3 code is strictly enforced, but executives ignore dumb, anachronistic laws all the time.*

*And in the case of the Bush administration, not-so-dumb, always relevant laws. Lucky for them, the Congress decided to abdicate its Constitutional responsibilities. I think that you just satirized your own position so effectively that any further comment from me would be superfluous.

[mhaze]

Obama in the first debate, speaking to tens of millions:

"We have to have energy independence, so I've put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years' time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil ....

Since he never did put forth such a plan, why should you be disappointed that the plan he did not put forth did not and will not produce results?

Keep in mind please in responding the issue is not "some plan for energy" but the 10 years time constraint.

Even the repubs made no such wild claim, and they proposed 45 nuclear plants and extended drilling, as well as expansion of solar, wind, yada yada. A simple examination of the actual magnitude of this issue will show that the "10 year" statement is from ignorance or just a lie.

In either case, it plays right into the hands of the Arabs, doesn't it?

[EGarrett]

Er ... moderation? You know, the way that I'm a moderate liberal rather than in immoderate liberal?

I do like brie. How about you?He asked you a perfectly fair question. Answer it.

[tyr_13]

He asked you a perfectly fair question. Answer it.

Um, what? That was an answer.

[Cain]

I think that you just satirized your own position so effectively that any further comment from me would be superfluous.

I'm perfectly willing to draw out the fiercest comparisons. Anyway, I fully expect you to remain consistent on that point with regard to all of Obama's future executive orders and policies. And I do take some small satisfaction in the non-existent follow-up to the "over-rule" non-argument that had allegedly been at the heart of your original question.

Mhaze:
Since he never did put forth such a plan, why should you be disappointed that the plan he did not put forth did not and will not produce results?

Where did I express disappointment? I was never disappointed with that -- with what I've always regarded as almost physically impossible. Somewhere in here I called it "my favorite Democratic lie."

Even the repubs made no such wild claim,...

Not true. I remember McCain parroting the same sort of nonsense time horizons in the debates, which were recently confirmed when I keyword searched the transcripts for the above Obama quotes. If anything he went even further.

[Dr Adequate]

I'm perfectly willing to draw out the fiercest comparisons. Anyway, I fully expect you to remain consistent on that point with regard to all of Obama's future executive orders and policies. Certainly. I think that an executive order shouldn't be able to over-ride a federal law saying the exact opposite. If Obama breaches this, feel free to get back to me.

And I do take some small satisfaction in the non-existent follow-up to the "over-rule" non-argument that had allegedly been at the heart of your original question. Uh ... that was the follow-up.

As far as over-ruling him goes, you seem to have suggested, first that they could do what I originally joked about, and write exactly the same law again, and second, that they could actually impeach him for breaking the law. But if they can impeach him, doesn't that mean that he really shouldn't have done it in the first place?

[Dr Adequate]

He asked you a perfectly fair question. Answer it. I'm a moderate liberal. I thought that the phrase was self-explanatory. If it isn't, then I do not presently care to spend my time writing a few thousand words explaining my position on every political issue and why I hold it.

[Upchurch]

I'm a moderate liberal. I thought that the phrase was self-explanatory. If it isn't, then I do not presently care to spend my time writing a few thousand words explaining my position on every political issue and why I hold it.
I don't think you need to do all that.

Simply put, politics are a spectrum between extreme liberal to extreme conservative, with moderate somewhere in the middle. A moderate liberal, by definition, would be someone who is on the liberal side of the spectrum, but more towards the moderate and than the extremist end.

[JoeTheJuggler]

<minor derail>
Theoretically, the legislature is the most powerful branch -- creates laws, funds the military, declares war, and so forth.

And which is "the most powerful" of rock, scissors or paper? My understanding of the system of checks and balances was to avoid having any one branch of government become "the most powerful".
</derail>

[Dr Adequate]

I don't think you need to do all that.

Simply put, politics are a spectrum between extreme liberal to extreme conservative, with moderate somewhere in the middle. A moderate liberal, by definition, would be someone who is on the liberal side of the spectrum, but more towards the moderate and than the extremist end. Well that's what I thought it meant.

But apparently by clearly labeling myself as a member of a category I am being shifty and ambiguous.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well that's what I thought it meant.

But apparently by clearly labeling myself as a member of a category I am being shifty and ambiguous.
I think that's the definition of "moderate liberal" that maddog (et al.) were hoping for. . ."shifty and ambiguous".

[Molinaro]

A couple months into the administration (R) were complaing that Obama was trying to address too many issues too quickly.

A couple months later (R) are complaining that he hasn't solved everything.

I would never have guessed. :rolleyes:

[Cain]

<minor derail>
And which is "the most powerful" of rock, scissors or paper? My understanding of the system of checks and balances was to avoid having any one branch of government become "the most powerful".
</derail>

Dumb analogy; perhaps you should read the Constitution. Congress has the power to remove the President, Supreme Court Justices, over-ride vetoes and amend the Constitution (working with state legislatures). Exercising these powers, however, requires a super-majority.

----
Certainly. I think that an executive order shouldn't be able to over-ride a federal law saying the exact opposite. If Obama breaches this, feel free to get back to me.

What a bunch of crap -- "if". Obama's stood behind the illegal wiretapping. He's violating federal law right now. With regard to gays and lesbians in the military, he can stop them from getting fired, which would force Congress to deal with the law he promised to get rid of anyway. If Congress bigfoots him, then fine, he can obey (the probably unconstitutional law) as he doesn't have much of a choice.

You're crazy if you think he's refusing to intervene on the grounds that it's lawbreaking. He's frightened of the political consequences, replaying the Clinton fiasco. The military is one of the most respected institutions in America. He's not afraid of "White House versus Congress" (which I'm guessing has a ~20% approval rating). He's afraid of "White House versus Pentagon."

As for impeachment... that's always been more about politics than the law.

[maddog]

What a throw-away line. That could be anyone from Beck or Savage to Olberman or Malloy depending on context. What did you mean to imply?

I meant to imply that a lot of people have completely unrealistic expectations of what politicians in general, and Obama in specific - more extremely than most - want to do, and could do even if they wanted to.

I think that's the definition of "moderate liberal" that maddog (et al.) were hoping for. . ."shifty and ambiguous".

Of course it's ambiguous, which is not problematic. Simple labels could never convey much information about such a complex topic as a political belief system. I asked, not because I wanted a definition of what "moderate" means (thank you, Upchurch - I thought Dr. A. was the Master of the Obvious :D), but because I was curious about what the term means specifically to Dr. A.

I would say that the modifier "moderate" typically means something like "I'm definitely of that belief on some issues, but on other issues, some people on this side are really 'out there', and I'm definitely not an extremist on those issues". The question is, which issues of liberalism really matter to Dr. A., and which are the "don't care so much" issues.

[Upchurch]

I asked, not because I wanted a definition of what "moderate" means (thank you, Upchurch - I thought Dr. A. was the Master of the Obvious :D),
Hey, ask a simple question, get a simple answer. Next time, be more specific.

[maddog]

Hey, ask a simple question, get a simple answer. Next time, be more specific.

Well, I didn't want to push it too much, either. I wanted to ask and give him the opportunity to respond. Clearly, he chose not to respond in any detail, so... that's his business, and I'm okay with that. And if I can give you a fun tweak in the process, all the better! (intended in good humor, as I believe you understand)

[DDWW]

I am pleased with his first six months. I feel that reaching out to the Islamic terrorists hosting countries is a win-win situation. By telling them we are not the torturing, mean spirited, power hungry, land grabbing people portrayed by the former administration they will see we are nice people that just want to live in harmony with them.

If he is right…great.

If he is wrong then they will again attack New York, Washington, D.C, San Francisco, Los Angeles,….all havens of “moderate liberals”. My mid west conservative city will probably be safe!

[Grizzly Bear]

He ain't Bush (hope) and he tripled the national debt (change)

Cut taxes for 95% of all Americans (hope) and then raise taxes on companies who pass these costs to the consumers (change)

Well no matter how you spin hope and change I guess there's no promise that can break...


Quick, someone tell me the accomplishments, within 4-5 months of taking office, of:

Washington
Jefferson
Roosevelt
Lincoln
FDR
Eisenhower

GO!
A member asked us to name major accomplishments by other presidents in their first 6 months. Well I personally can't name anything right off the bat, which is probably his point. But I can say it probably didn't involve trillion-dollar deficits in a mere 3 months (up from 200 to 400 billion in 8 years). The unbreakable and quite vague promises of hope and change are another merely for the support it's gained him.

So... my question. Is this the hope and change most people were hoping for? I guess we'll find out when more of his policies become memorable.

[Just thinking]

Keep in mind please in responding the issue is not "some plan for energy" but the 10 years time constraint.

Even the repubs made no such wild claim, and they proposed 45 nuclear plants and extended drilling, as well as expansion of solar, wind, yada yada. A simple examination of the actual magnitude of this issue will show that the "10 year" statement is from ignorance or just a lie.

In either case, it plays right into the hands of the Arabs, doesn't it?

I guess you missed my comment in Post #20 ... it was brief --- easy to overlook.

How much you want to bet I'm right on target? ... that is, if we're both around in 12 years to see the results. :)

[PitPat]

I'd agree that it's much too early to determine if the policies he's pushed and enacted pans out favorably. Evaluating one-eighth of one term isn't going to prove anything. But one decision that had me riled up this morning was this one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house/

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

...

The Obama administration is arguing that the White House visitor logs are presidential records — not Secret Service agency records, which would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The administration ought to be able to hold secret meetings in the White House, "such as an elected official interviewing for an administration position or an ambassador coming for a discussion on issues that would affect international negotiations," said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt.

...

In February, the White House spokesman, LaBolt, told msnbc.com that the policy was under review. "We are reviewing our policy on access to visitor logs and related litigation involving the previous administration to determine how we can ensure that policymaking in this administration happens in an open and transparent way, and that we take appropriate measures to ensure that we are operating in a secure environment."Obama did promise a more open and transparent government. I couldn't find any rationale for this decision that, in my opinion, justifies it. LaBolt's earlier explanation sounds sorta like they're waiting to see if this is going to turn into a huge mess. It is. On the surface, it's not much different than Bush's administration attempt to hide the visitors who were involved in forging energy legislation. If somebody can identify a substantial difference, sans ideology, that'd be great. Nobody's asking for details of the conversation, just the names of people present. Doesn't seem like to much to ask for.

I voted for Obama, I like him, and think he's doing an okay job so far. But this is disappointing.

[Neally]

* Trillions added to our national debt.
* American is having trouble getting other countries to buy American debt
* Obama virtually ignores a corrupt election in Iran. We leave it to French President Sarkozy to speak out for the Iranian people wanting a free election.
* GM and Citigroup now government operations. More to come.
* The government (Obama) gets to set executive compensation levels.
* Obama seeking the ability to seize private businesses.
* Firing inspector generals who uncover corruption involving Obama buddies.
* Overturning established law to favor unions over secured creditors in GM's bankruptcy.
* Obama wants to reduce tax deductions for charitable deductions. Government doesn't like competition.
* The Washington DC voucher system, with a great record of success, slated for elimination while Obama's kids go to private school.
* Obama says 8% unemployment max. We're nearing 10%
* Obama moves to raise taxes on the small businesses that create the jobs.
* North Korea threatening to send a missile toward Hawaii
* While NK is lobbing missiles, Obama cuts spending in missile defense systems.