Fairweather

It is. You miss the point. Cuz yer slow.

Yup.

My gripe was with the military posture taken up by police in the aftermath of the shooting. Particularly that SAW-looking thang on top of the armored vehicle. Based on the available facts, I don't see where Mr. Wilson could or should have done anything differently. That little 12-year old kid with the plastic gun who was shot by police in Ohio is a more worthy complaint.

A good interview. Looks like even George Stephanopoulos understands the danger this most arrogant president poses. Worth the six minutes: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/president-obama-defends-executive-action-immigration-27115743

Not sure why these losers have to hijack legitimate protests. Malcontents with no real agenda or clue.

Looked like a ref to the shake up in the middle east appearing at the top of the list of infamous errors... NP. My mistake. They all did have their moments for sure. Lots of "mixed bags"... Fair enough with the inclusion of GW on the shitbag list, at the risk of sounding unappreciative, I do think dubya should win top billing on that list... Fair? I was a lil surprised not to see FDR on your list... Plenty of fodder from his what, 12/13 year run? Wasn't the trail of tears 'ole hickory's thing? LBJ did get to sign into law some pretty momentous legislation in our history... Medicare, civil rights act... And, the resulting exodus of racist southern democrats to the republican party in '64 after he signed the latter into law went a long way to make the R's what they are today... They have to be somewhere I guess. Taking a broad view is important when judging these men, and the job they did as President. Historical perspective awaits both GW and Obama. One man's "dictater" is another man's "leader". d FDR was the closest thing to a dictator we've had, for sure. I left him off the list because you were invoking "strategic" errors and FDR's handling of WWII was not as bad as the other presidents and conflicts I mentioned. Still, how do liberals reconcile incinerating perhaps a million Japanese in their homes with kerosene and the domestic "good" that he did? Not to mention, as I did above, the incarceration of 100,000 Japanese (60,000 of them US citizens) in camps? Ditto, LBJ's bifurcated legacy. The left seems far too willing to overlook a LOT. Still, FDR's court stacking scheme is probably the true measure of his autocratic proclivities. I have no doubt that, similarly, Obama sees himself as the only path forward today and would not hesitate to do something similar. Recall that this is the guy who suggested minting a $1Tn platinum coin during the budget crisis. As for Trail of Tears, yes, Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830 (passed by the narrowest of margins in Congress, if I recall) but it was Van Buren who imposed force on reluctant tribes after 1837. I think the "Trail of Tears" generally refers to this period, but I'll have to do a refresh on this. Which presidents are not cursed with shitbaggery? Probably only two, IMO: George Washington--and Jimmy Carter.

Doug, "The Great Experiment" is a pretty common reference to American Democracy itself. Not sure how you conflated it with the Iraq War. Not my intent at all.

David Brooks--no righty by any stretch--really does a good job of distilling down the problem(s) with Obama in a recent New York Times editorial: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2014/11/19/1-obama-doesnt-seem-to-be-learning-from-failure.html Wednesday November 19, 2014 They say failure can be a good teacher, but, so far, the Obama administration is opting out of the course. The post-midterm period has been one of the most bizarre of the Obama presidency. President Barack Obama has racked up impressive foreign-policy accomplishments, but, domestically and politically, things are off the rails. Usually presidents use midterm defeats as a chance to rethink and refocus. That’s what Obama did four years ago. Voters like to feel the president is listening to them. But Obama’s done no public rethinking. In his post-election news conference, the president tried to reframe the defeat by saying turnout was low, as if it was the Republicans’ fault that the Democrats could mobilize only their core base. The president seemed to detach himself from his party, as if the Democrats who lost their jobs because of him were far-off victims of some ethereal malaise. Usually presidents at the end of their terms get less partisan, not more. But with his implied veto threat of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, Obama seems intent on showing that Democrats, too, can put partisanship above science. Keystone XL has been studied to the point of exhaustion, and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it’s a modest-but-good idea. The latest State Department study found that it would not significantly worsen the environment. The oil’s going to come out anyway, and it’s greener to transport it by pipeline than by train. The economic impact isn’t huge, but at least there’d be a $5.3 billion infrastructure project. Usually presidents with a new congressional majority try to figure out if there is anything that the two branches can do together. The governing Republicans have a strong incentive to pass legislation. The obvious thing is to start out with the easiest things, if only to show that Washington can function on some elemental level. But the White House has not privately engaged with Congress on the legislative areas where there could be agreement. Instead, the president has been superaggressive on the one topic sure to blow everything up: the executive order to rewrite the nation’s immigration laws. The president was in no rush to issue this order through 2014, when it might have been politically risky. He questioned whether he had the constitutional authority to do this through most of his first term, when he said that an executive order of this sort would probably be illegal. But now the president is in a rush and is convinced he has authority. I sympathize with what Obama is trying to do substantively, but the process of how it’s being done is ruinous. Republicans would rightly take it as a calculated insult and yet more political ineptitude. Everybody would go into warfare mode. We’ll get two more years of dysfunction that will further arouse public disgust and anti-government fervor (making a Republican presidency more likely). This move would make it much less likely that we’ll have immigration reform anytime soon. White House officials don’t understand that many in the Republican Party are trying to find a way to get immigration reform out of the way. This executive order would destroy their efforts. The move would further destabilize the legitimacy of government. Redefining the legal status of 5 million or 6 million people is a big deal. This is the sort of change we have a legislative process for. To do something this seismic with the stroke of one man’s pen is dangerous. Instead of a nation of laws, we could slowly devolve into a nation of diktats, with each president relying on and revoking different measures on the basis of unilateral power — creating unstable swings from one presidency to the next. If Obama enacts this order on the transparently flimsy basis of “prosecutorial discretion,” he’s inviting future presidents to use similarly flimsy criteria. Talk about defining constitutional deviancy down. I’m not sure why the Obama administration has been behaving so strangely since the midterms. Whatever it is, it’s been a long journey from the Iowa caucuses in early 2008 to the pre-emptive obstruction of today. I wonder if, post-presidency, Obama will look back and regret that he got sucked into the very emotional maelstrom he set out to destroy. David Brooks writes for The New York Times.

Well, we'll just disagree on the big parts--even as we agree on a few of the details. I'm certainly not as cynical as you regarding the Great Experiment as I don't see the status-quo looking much different than historical trends or events. For example, you label the Iraq War as "the absolute[] worst strategic error ever perpetrated by a president . . . " I'd go backwards and suggest LBJ's (and McNamara's) Vietnam bungling, Wilson's WWI waffling and Versailles arrogance, McKinley's Spanish-American War and the brutal suppression of the Philippine Insurrection that followed under TR, the pre-Civil War incompetence of Buchanan, The underhanded dealings of Polk in Tex-Mex, Van Buren's Trail of Tears, Madison's War of 1812, etc, all compete for this prize. (I'd love to hear Ivan's take on this as well.) If it makes you feel better, I will call all of these presidents shitbags too. Including GW. And to varying degrees, they all were. As far as corruption, well, I'll just go way out on a limb and say that I don't think personal enrichment normally plays a direct role in American politics. In other words, yes, corporations (and unions, and grass-roots) "buy" influence and subsequently lobby representatives, senators, and presidents for ROI. But with exceptions like Harry Reid, Dick Cheney (arguably, IMO), the Clintons, and pretty much every single Illinois-grown politician since the 1920s, I think what you view as corruption is much closer to good old fashioned pigs at the trough--or true-believer syndrome vis-a-vis ideology. Anyhow, I'd like to respond more completely, but the wife is standing here looking at her watch.

Wild turkey, anyone?

Me too. Sorry, Rad, but you don't appear to be up to the task. Some history or civics education is clearly in order. Still, I hope you have a good Tofurkey Day, err, uhh, or whatever you people eat up there in anarchy land.

Most of the old gear got recycled--except my orange fiberglass Stubai axe and blue wool Dachstiens-- but I've got some good non-gear museum stuff.

It's not the President's place to tell Congress to do anything. In fact, the American people regularly gridlock govt at the midterm to check the executive branch. Works both ways. It's also worth noting, FYI, that bills are supposed to originate in the House. The fact that Harry Reid's Senate came up with an Obama rubber-stamp bill means jack. Then, of course, there is always the lack of action during the 2009-2011 Democrat-controlled Congress. Obama has played politics with the law, with the recent election he thought Democrats had a chance-in-hell of winning, and with the lives of the very immigrants he claims to champion. Bills are supposed to originate in the House. check Harry Reid rubber stamp. check lack of action of some historical Congress. check. Obama has played politics within the law. check. Thought they had a chance of winning? I bet he knew they wouldn't. Championing immigrants? Who will then? Should we? I guess Congress is going to figure that out! It's settled then. Congress will have to sort it out. After they neuter the dick-tater.

It's not the President's place to tell Congress to do anything. In fact, the American people regularly gridlock govt at the midterm to check the executive branch. Works both ways. It's also worth noting, FYI, that bills are supposed to originate in the House. The fact that Harry Reid's Senate came up with an Obama rubber-stamp bill means jack. Then, of course, there is always the lack of action during the 2009-2011 Democrat-controlled Congress. Obama has played politics with the law, with the recent election he thought Democrats had a chance-in-hell of winning, and with the lives of the very immigrants he claims to champion.

No need for shrillness this time, Matt. I'll just say that the oft-repeated "number of executive orders" argument is not relevant. It is the content of the order(s) that is important. For example, you'd agree with me that FDR's Order 9066 was far more consequential--not to mention unconstitutional and immoral--than an order issued under the Antiquities Act? So it is with Obama's exercising an order of "prosecutorial discretion" re immigration. It's beyond his power to do--unless, of course, he is allowed to do it. I suspect your tune will change when the next Republican president uses it. Rest assured, mine won't. As for this "ObamaCare was a Republican idea," well, I assume you are referring to Romney's Massachusetts program? Not at all the same. If you are referring to something else, I'd love to hear it. In any event, I recall that in the past you've expressed serious misgivings about Obama's handing out of "executive exemptions" to unions, corporations, Federal agencies, etc. Have you changed your mind? Finally, I have absolutely no idea where you came up with the Iraq withdrawl thing. Obama's announced and full withdrawl is exactly what Bush warned against. In the end, I doubt it made much of a difference as the chaos we see there was ordained the day we toppled Saddam. I know you've pushed the true names thing for years, and I can see your point--to a point. You know my name, and I know yours. And we both know that neither of us is going to come knocking on the others door or start ringing the phone. There are others here I'm not so sure about, so I think the anonymity remains warranted. Hope all is well--and Happy T-Day.

Think about what you have written here.

Hmm, defunding universities, defunding science, defunding arts…. sound familiar? You live in Washington State, no? Run by Democrats for, what, going on 35 years? Exactly who has been defunding education?? Still, what do you think about the President's powers re immigration and line-item power on ACA?

Not on a scale like this. Here's what the Constitution says: Article I - The Legislative Branch Section 8 Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads; Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy; Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Here's a movie scene you may be able to relate to more effectively: Anakin Skywalker: I don’t think the system works. Padmé: How would you have it work? Anakin Skywalker: We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem… agree what’s in the best interest of all people… and then do it. Padmé: That’s exactly what we do. The trouble is that people don’t always agree. Anakin Skywalker: Well, then they should be made to. Padmé: By whom? Who’s going to make them? Anakin Skywalker: I don’t know. Someone. Padmé: You? Anakin Skywalker: Of course not me. Padmé: But someone. Anakin Skywalker: Someone wise. Padmé: Sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me. Anakin Skywalker: Well, if it works.

Doug, A thoughtful reply, much appreciated. I will point out a couple of things I disagree with. First, think what you want about the Iraq War; Bush went to Congress to authorize it. Did he lie to get an authorization passed? You no doubt say yes--and I'll say he was poorly informed. Still, he went to Congress and made a case. And negotiated. Why is it beneath Obama to do the same? Second, I'm not sure where you draw your line between rhetoric and hyperbole, but my use of "shitbag" no doubt puts it in the latter category. I never pretended otherwise. As you yourself said, this isn't a debating session, and given the thousands of gems that were leveled by posters here against our former president, I don't think my words are beyond the pale. Were you as outraged then? Anyhow, I do think the process is more important than any ideal--or single man, or perceptions of "leadership." And I do think this president is setting very dangerous precedents. Americans seem to prefer negotiation and compromise as a solution to the very gridlock they impose mid-term. Obama is thumbing his nose at the path out. And that's not hyperbole.

First, Democrats controlled Congress for Obama's first two years in office. Why wasn't there urgency then? Second, you don't seem to have a grasp on how American government is structured. Congress isn't there to do whatever the President wants ala Putin's Russia. There is a process. And Obama, clearly, thinks the process is beneath him.

This kind of language only serves to further expose you. You won't care of course, but you should... d Not sure why. (Please tell me.) Meantime, feel free to defend a president who has no regard for the Constitution re immigration law or his own healthcare law, uses the IRS as a political tool, spies on citizens and allies alike, and uses the Justice Dept to harass reporters. Like I said, thanks for the dictator. You should be ashamed.

But for now, I'd settle for Joe Biden.

yup. then yer shitbag - whoya got in mind? Someone who believes in individual liberty and separation of powers.

Well hail fucking Cesar. Two more years of this shit bag?