Thanks for the Dictator

[Crux]

Just saw it on the Interwebs -- that clever weazlin' DICTATER Obama sneakin' in another of them executive actions, with more of them unconstitushunul AMENESTIES -- ON THANKSGIVING DAY!!!

 

 

[video:youtube]

 

 

 

 

 

[glassgowkiss]

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

Your historical memory is very selective. You tend to ignore well known facts, which brings me to a question: are you bending historical truth to fit your right wing political agenda, or are you simply uneducated in this matter?

"The story begins on November 6, 1986, when Reagan signed the last comprehensive legalization bill to pass Congress."

"In July 1989, the Senate moved to protect a bigger group—all spouses and children of those who legalized under IRCA. The Senate passed legislation 81-17 that prohibited the administration from deporting family members of immigrants in the process of legalizing and directed officials to grant them work authorization. The House failed to act on the Senate’s bill.

 

George Bush Sr. then responded in February 1990 by administratively implementing the Senate bill’s provisions himself. As Bush’s INS Commissioner, Gene McNary, stated: “It is vital that we enforce the law against illegal entry. However, we can enforce the law humanely. To split families encourages further violations of the law as they reunite.” Under Bush’s “family fairness” policy, applicants had to meet certain criteria, and reapply to the INS every year for extensions."

"A series of anti-government strikes led by the labor union Solidarity in Poland led to a 1981 declaration of martial law in that country and a renewed era of political repression. The Reagan administration declared a program of extended voluntary departure for Poles who made it to the United States that was repeatedly extended throughout the decade."- also an executive order.

Now, would you care to elaborate on this?

 

 

[dougd]

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.

 

Yeah, I was outraged. Sure, I made some pretty strong statements during that time that I stand by today, that could have been perceived as being beyond the pale.. I didn't understand what the big rush was to go in there and take that country over like that even after 9/11. GW was making statements like bring it on, and , saddam tried to kill my dad, and we all remember the talk about mushroom clouds et al. That he got congress to authorize military force wasn't hard given the circumstances and the resulting rise of nationalistic fervor. Nationalistic fervor fed by the administration and eagerly gobbled up by supporters. Folks like me were labeled unpatriotic, and worse, for questioning what was, and I'm confident history will show, to be the absolutely worst strategic error ever perpetrated by a president on this country. This action has turned out to be profoundly damaging world wide, not only to America. Just look at the Middle East now. And it didn't need to happen. To use the men and women of our military in this way is unforgivable... All this of course noted, after setting aside the death and destruction brought to the Iraqi people...

 

Whether or not he lied to get the authorization passed I don't know. I do know he took advantage of every opportunity to take us to war in a country we had no business going into.

 

To call this President a shitbag, after all that happened leading up to '08, and all that has happened since? Seems to indicate a narrow view. That is as kind as I can be...

 

Serious questions about the Executive Order on immigration are being asked. Republicans have filed suit. Now the Judicial branch will do it's job. I do know the supremes are very uncomfortable refereeing tiffs between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. It will be interesting to see how this crew would decide it, if they actually accept a case if/when it reaches them. I'm pretty comfortable letting the system continue to work.

 

This representative government experiment of ours is not looking so good these days. Our so called leaders appear to be ruining it with unprecedented selfishness. It's more about what they can get for themselves than what they can do for the country. They come out publicly and make statements that indicate a lack of real thought prior to making them, demonstrating poor judgement, and worse, a lack of understanding of just what an effect this might have on "the people". The resulting lack of confidence in the competence of these leaders is very troubling. The system does appear to be feeding this culture of selfishness and so a vicious cycle with considerable gathered momentum is in play now. It's tough to see how to sustain it as it is. So we limp along, watching, wondering just how long it can go on like this...

 

Real answers? A viable third party would be great to have right now. Term limits for Congress is an idea I like a lot. Campaign finance reform is a huge issue. As it is now, Legislators have to immediately start raising money to have a hope of keeping their jobs. The supremes pretty much gutted the last decent efforts of McCain Finegold.

 

Representative government really needs participation to work. Everybody was pretty excited at first. They hadn't had choices before the revolution and were thrilled to finally have a say. What we're seeing currently is a lot about a lack of participation IMO. Look at the mid term percentages of registered voter participation. Low 30% turnout is unacceptable.

 

It starts with me. I know I can do more and I will. Giving up certainly isn't an option.

 

d

 

 

[Fairweather]

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.

 

 

 

 

[dougd]

We can agree to include the "Great Experiment" as you call it, with the other worst of the worsts list? I could go for that. I may have been too hasty, in my original assessment...

 

 

[ivan]

is it possible that nothing changes in american politics beyond beard styles?

[Fairweather]

 

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.

 

Edited November 29, 2014 by Fairweather

[dougd]

David Brooks, IMO, is one of the good guys but ya have to be careful with him. He appears to be trying to be fair, at least. "No righty by any stretch" is certainly debatable...

 

He did think that bush's war, or, at least that part of the "great experiment" you refer to was a great idea... Just goes to show ya, how wrong people can be.

 

The power of the pen:

 

http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/2013/03/ten-years-ago-david-brooks-iraq-war-hawk.html

 

The Great Experiment sounds like a video game or something... Great term for the deniers.

 

d

[Fairweather]

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.

[glassgowkiss]

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.

I think you have hard time connecting the dots. Iraq war started under the banner of WMD's, which we know now never existed in the first place. That was already known before the invasion, and Scott Ritter spoke about it publicly and openly. He probably would have a pretty good grasp of the subject matter at hand, since he was one of the inspectors, who spent several years in Iraq as a UN monitor.

So the war started with a pretend as a search for non-existant WMD, quickly was renamed to "regime change", and soon after renamed again to "installing western style democracy".

[dougd]

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.

 

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

 

[ivan]

not that it matters to this conversation, but it is an interesting piece of historical trivia that the terms "dictator" and "tyrant" were originally political offices with, if not positive, at least neutral, connotations.

 

legislative bodies are fond, throughout history and across cultures, of handing over power to singular individuals, generally as admission of the fact that dividing power results in nothing more than lethargy and inaction

 

there are many more ciceros and catos in the future of man, as well as ceasers n' sullas

[Fairweather]

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.

 

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.

 

[Fairweather]

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

[olyclimber]

OMG THE DANGER!!!!

[Fairweather]

Yup.

[Off_White]

I think of David Brooks as a righty, but he's worth reading and often has interesting things to say. I sort of think that about George Will, though I suspect he crushes puppies when no one is looking.

 

Just to keep it on the subject:

[Fairweather]

Perfect.

[tvashtarkatena]

Moving. From a former US Army officer assigned to defend two Guantanamo detainees.

 

A Case Against Torture

[Phil K]

....... Recall that this is the guy who suggested minting a $1Tn platinum coin during the budget crisis.

 

Source?

 

WIki cites various people who proposed the idea, but Our Beloved Tyrant was not among them. Curiously the concept has arguable legitimacy under a statute passed by a Republican congress in 1996 over Democratic opposition.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion_dollar_coin

[Fairweather]

Source?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/03/platinum-coin-option_n_4351706.html?1386084682

 

 

[glassgowkiss]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/03/platinum-coin-option_n_4351706.html?1386084682

 

What's your point?

[ivan]

....... Recall that this is the guy who suggested minting a $1Tn platinum coin during the budget crisis.

 

Source?

 

WIki cites various people who proposed the idea, but Our Beloved Tyrant was not among them. Curiously the concept has arguable legitimacy under a statute passed by a Republican congress in 1996 over Democratic opposition.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion_dollar_coin

word of the day: numismatics

 

trillion buck coin? hell, why not? how cool to find that fucker down deep in the cushions?

 

economists. kee-rist. they're the first to get put up against the wall when The Revolution comes

[ivan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/03/platinum-coin-option_n_4351706.html?1386084682

 

What's your point?

that the chinaman is not the issue?

[Phil K]

Source?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/03/platinum-coin-option_n_4351706.html?1386084682

 

 

 

THAT lefty rag?