Acting Presidential

[Guest]

More than 24 hours and still no one here has screamed bloody murder or called for his head.

I, for one, applaud the President's action to appoint Richard Cordray to head the congressionally approved Consumer Fraud Protection Bureau. Cordray is well qualified, as conceded by many Republicans and Democrats, but his appointment was blocked by Republicans who wanted to restructure the agency mission and powers.

The President is risking lawsuits and rather severe hand slapping by the courts. Ultimately a court reversal could set an important precedent further limiting the power of Presidential appointments. Reversal, or even a reasonable indication it might occur, would also give opponents a major argument for unseating the incumbent in November.

So it took some courage and resolve to 'damn the torpedoes' and make the appointment. These are the qualities I look for in a President.

[Guest]

More than 24 hours and still no one here has screamed bloody murder or called for his head.

I, for one, applaud the President's action to appoint Richard Cordray to head the congressionally approved Consumer Fraud Protection Bureau. Cordray is well qualified, as conceded by many Republicans and Democrats, but his appointment was blocked by Republicans who wanted to restructure the agency mission and powers.

The President is risking lawsuits and rather severe hand slapping by the courts. Ultimately a court reversal could set an important precedent further limiting the power of Presidential appointments. Reversal, or even a reasonable indication it might occur, would also give opponents a major argument for unseating the incumbent in November.

So it took some courage and resolve to 'damn the torpedoes' and make the appointment. These are the qualities I look for in a President.





Here Here !!!!!!!!!!!! Can't refudiate that .......

[Guest]

Democrats are going to regret this. They won't be in power for long. The tables will turn.

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-the-cordray-appointment-constitutional/obamas-power-grab-sets-precedent-democrats-will-regret

[Guest]

no big deal lots of Presidents have done this. What is a big deal is Obama showing some leadership for a change. Good for him. If congress(both sides)can't agree on the simplest of nominations then it is up to the Pres. whoever he is to step up. Maybe just maybe if he keeps doing this kind of thing both sides might be more persuaded to compromise. I doubt it but we'll see.

[Guest]

Just a reminder...

"The two Democrats that President Barack Obama appointed to the National Labor Relations Board during what he considered a congressional “recess” are not on the White House’s official list of Obama’s appointments and nominations for various positions.

Obama referred his two Democratic nominees, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, to the Senate on Dec. 15. The Senate adjourned for the year – but did not go into an official recess — on the following day."

Just saying...it is politics....before you canonize the President...

"WhiteHouse.gov tracks the status of all of Obama’s appointments and nominations. Block and Griffin do not appear on that list — a sign that the administration rushed the recess appointments through too quickly for the Senate to even consider them"

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/06/dem-nlrb-recess-appointments-rushed-dont-appear-on-white-house-nominee-list/

[Guest]

no big deal lots of Presidents have done this. What is a big deal is Obama showing some leadership for a change. Good for him. If congress(both sides)can't agree on the simplest of nominations then it is up to the Pres. whoever he is to step up. Maybe just maybe if he keeps doing this kind of thing both sides might be more persuaded to compromise. I doubt it but we'll see.

No President has ever done this in the manner that Obama has. It may in fact be unconstitutional. Congress was in "pro forma" session as recognized by Congress and the Executive Office until this power grab.

"Damn the Constitution, full speed ahead"

[Guest]

No President has ever done this in the manner that Obama has. It may in fact be unconstitutional. Congress was in "pro forma" session as recognized by Congress and the Executive Office until this power grab.

"Damn the Constitution, full speed ahead"

Nope, you are condemning an action, (by a President you despise) prematurely.
The sham of the pro forma session has never been constitutionally tested. Here's a parallel for you - a Republican issuing an Emancipation Proclamation. Find that distastefully unconstitutional too?

My description of strong, reasonable Presidential action stands.

But hey, as you put it, you can always "knock yourself out" contributing funds or otherwise supporting an effort to sue and try to get the action overturned if you want.

[Guest]

Nope, you are condemning an action, (by a President you despise) prematurely.
The sham of the pro forma session has never been constitutionally tested. Here's a parallel for you - a Republican issuing an Emancipation Proclamation. Find that distastefully unconstitutional too?

My description of strong, reasonable Presidential action stands.

But hey, as you put it, you can always "knock yourself out" contributing funds or otherwise supporting an effort to sue and try to get the action overturned if you want.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order. What does one have to do with the other?

[Guest]

it's a presidential act, by any name, subject to judicial review.

[Guest]

ijusluvit might call it presidential...i just call it arrogant.

[Guest]

Again the founding Fathers created recess appointments knowing that congress could not remain in sessions year round, ergo allowing temporary appointments. However far too many presidents have used this priviledge selfishly to push their personal agenda.

In Obama's case Congress was still in session and all three appointments were to gain tighter government control .

By the way the last adjective I would ever associate with Obama is "courage"

[Guest]

Again the founding Fathers created recess appointments knowing that congress could not remain in sessions year round, ergo allowing temporary appointments. However far too many presidents have used this priviledge selfishly to push their personal agenda.

In Obama's case Congress was still in session and all three appointments were to gain tighter government control .

By the way the last adjective I would ever associate with Obama is "courage"

AND they were never published thus congress could NOT even consider them prior to.

Thus there could not be a delay by the other party despite what folks are saying.....spin it, spin it

[Guest]

AND they were never published thus congress could NOT even consider them prior to.

Thus there could not be a delay by the other party despite what folks are saying.....spin it, spin it

BUCCO: to detail it more these spinmeisters can spin false bad news and false good news . Either way we are all being fed misinformation and I for one am tired of it and don't appreciate the game playing as it is just plain destructive

[Guest]

What does the Emancipation Proclamation have to do with this? Do you know what the Emancipation Proclamation did?

[Guest]

What does the Emancipation Proclamation have to do with this? Do you know what the Emancipation Proclamation did?

Buggyone, yes, at 18 it free's parents from their kids:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Guest]

it's a presidential act, by any name, subject to judicial review.

Obama declaring himself "ruler for life" would also be a "presidential act" and would also be against our constitution. I'm willing to bet you would argue that point with me also.

[Guest]

Obama declaring himself "ruler for life" would also be a "presidential act" and would also be against our constitution. I'm willing to bet you would argue that point with me also.

:duck: time for silly stuff I guess

[Guest]

:duck: time for silly stuff I guess

It's only "silly" because I finally found something that Obama could do that even you would find outrageous.

He's doing things that are pretty close to despotic right now. It's just that next step that worries you, it seems.

[Guest]

It's only "silly" because I finally found something that Obama could do that even you would find outrageous.

He's doing things that are pretty close to despotic right now. It's just that next step that worries you, it seems.

"Despotic"!!! I thought you were being silly before.
Objective criticism of the President's last year says he is still trying too hard to compromise with an intransigent congressional bloc. The Cordray appointment was a small effort to step out of the Executive straitjacket and get something done. As I said above, there were risks, but strong rationale to act because of the sham sessions, and the legal standing of the new bureau.
The only remaining folks who might still call Lincoln, FDR & LBJ despots for the ways they forced change are a tiny fringe of wilderness militiamen. You've got to be at least that far out if you judge Obama's baby step similarly. Come on back to reality!

[Guest]

As we get closer to the November election, and as Obama's polling lead increases over every potential R candidate, the sillier the threads and comments here will become. It's already started.

By reading some of the (obviously) con postings here, you'd have thought Obama has gone to referring to himself as "The Decider" or something.

Or maybe telling our enemies to "bring it on". You know, something so absurd as to be practically treasonous.

[Guest]

As we get closer to the November election, and as Obama's polling lead increases over every potential R candidate, the sillier the threads and comments here will become. It's already started.

By reading some of the (obviously) con postings here, you'd have thought Obama has gone to referring to himself as "The Decider" or something.

Or maybe telling our enemies to "bring it on". You know, something so absurd as to be practically treasonous.

Not sure how you arrive at how "cons" as you refer to them are thinking.

I just want to remind you of two things..one I have posted here and you folks just ignore...

""The two Democrats that President Barack Obama appointed to the National Labor Relations Board during what he considered a congressional “recess” are not on the White House’s official list of Obama’s appointments and nominations for various positions.

Obama referred his two Democratic nominees, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, to the Senate on Dec. 15. The Senate adjourned for the year – but did not go into an official recess — on the following day."

"WhiteHouse.gov tracks the status of all of Obama’s appointments and nominations. Block and Griffin do not appear on that list — a sign that the administration rushed the recess appointments through too quickly for the Senate to even consider them"

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/06/de...-nominee-list/


Thus this fact certainly takes away from your premise that it was a necessary and needed appointment...he never presented them


NEXT, I want to remind you when you speak of polls that the Republican party is now in the process of a primary and if you know anything at all about politics you will know that during that time will be the lowest polling because you are beating each other up. Example....during the Clinton/ Obama polls which began with Mc Cain well behind.....well, if you check right after the debates and as the nomination was cinched....McCain and Obama were basically in a dead heat !

[Guest]

ijusluvit - i know that this is a runing thing between you and richielion, but i had to pop in here where you post;

[QUOTE=ijusluvit;437614
Objective criticism of the President's last year says he is still trying too hard to compromise with an intransigent congressional bloc. [/QUOTE]

who is it that has offered 'objective criticism' indicating that the pres is trying to compromise? EVERY time i see him yammering in front of ANYONE who will lisiten he is whining that the republicans refuse to do it HIS way! that is not compromise in MY book!

[Guest]

"McCain and Obama were basically in a dead heat !" according to one poster but then, if I remember 2008 correctly, Obama got 365 electoral votes to McCain's 173, popular vote was also at about 53% for Obama and 47% for McCain. So much for your dead heat!

There will be again at least 90% of the black vote going to Obama, most of the Hispanic vote, most of the youth vote, most of the post-graduate college vote, and most union votes going to Obama. Looks as though it will be over 53% this time, doesn't it?:boxing2:

[Guest]

"McCain and Obama were basically in a dead heat !" according to one poster but then, if I remember 2008 correctly, Obama got 365 electoral votes to McCain's 173, popular vote was also at about 53% for Obama and 47% for McCain. So much for your dead heat!

There will be again at least 90% of the black vote going to Obama, most of the Hispanic vote, most of the youth vote, most of the post-graduate college vote, and most union votes going to Obama. Looks as though it will be over 53% this time, doesn't it?:boxing2:

THIS statement is what I was responding to...

"As we get closer to the November election, and as Obama's polling lead increases over every potential R candidate, the sillier the threads and comments here will become. It's already started.

Point being it is expected that this will happen at this time....when there are only TWO....the President and another candidate it will change...perhaps you are correct....who knows...MY POINT WAS ....polls today versus the President have no value and I showed that in the McCain example.

Not sure what you are trying to say except to spin it someway.

[Guest]

I won't get into a debate on whether appointments such as made by President Obama have been done before. Of course they have, by President Bush and others before him. If there wasn't precedent and if such action wasn't expected, why did the Senate choose not to go into recess, but rather choose some other procedural sham to say they were in session when in fact they were home, vacationing, fund raising, or anywhere but in Washington, DC?

But another consideration of why the POTUS made these appointments now was the law that would have essentially disbanded both the Federal Labor Relations Board as well as the Consumer Protection Agency if they continued for even a short time more with no appointed executive in charge of the agencies. Let's not forget that might have been a key reason for the appointments now.

[Guest]

I won't get into a debate on whether appointments such as made by President Obama have been done before. Of course they have, by President Bush and others before him. If there wasn't precedent and if such action wasn't expected, why did the Senate choose not to go into recess, but rather choose some other procedural sham to say they were in session when in fact they were home, vacationing, fund raising, or anywhere but in Washington, DC?

But another consideration of why the POTUS made these appointments now was the law that would have essentially disbanded both the Federal Labor Relations Board as well as the Consumer Protection Agency if they continued for even a short time more with no appointed executive in charge of the agencies. Let's not forget that might have been a key reason for the appointments now.

This is by far the silliest and most non-informative post I've read from you in ages. You misrepresent what happened and try to pawn it off as business as usual. With some here I understand the confusion, but I thought you much more informed and intelligent for that. I may have been mistaken.

[Guest]

VK,very informative post. Facts are sometimes tough to deal with.

[Guest]

This is by far the silliest and most non-informative post I've read from you in ages. You misrepresent what happened and try to pawn it off as business as usual. With some here I understand the confusion, but I thought you much more informed and intelligent for that. I may have been mistaken.

Richie, why is it that virtually every post that disagrees with your viewpoint requires you to question the judgement, understanding, and/or intelligence of the poster?

[Guest]

There are posts on this forum that discuss the meat and potatoes of serious issues such as foreign policy, healthcare reform, abortion, loss of freedom...but regarding this thread: Who cares how "presidential" the guy in the White House "acts"? Heck, who even knows what that means? Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of our current president have not come even close to being presidential IMHO.

[Guest]

Richie, why is it that virtually every post that disagrees with your viewpoint requires you to question the judgement, understanding, and/or intelligence of the poster?

I don't have a problem with people's opinions, but they don't have a right to their own facts.

VK's post was factually inaccurate. Does that explain it enough for you?

[Guest]

I won't get into a debate on whether appointments such as made by President Obama have been done before. Of course they have, by President Bush and others before him. If there wasn't precedent and if such action wasn't expected, why did the Senate choose not to go into recess, but rather choose some other procedural sham to say they were in session when in fact they were home, vacationing, fund raising, or anywhere but in Washington, DC?

But another consideration of why the POTUS made these appointments now was the law that would have essentially disbanded both the Federal Labor Relations Board as well as the Consumer Protection Agency if they continued for even a short time more with no appointed executive in charge of the agencies. Let's not forget that might have been a key reason for the appointments now.

Yep, the sham sessions have been around for a while, specifically in the attempt to thwart recess appointments. My point was that circumstances are different now, far more confrontational, (to which you allude in another thread today). The President was taking a bigger risk, almost certain the intransigent bloc would initiate a suit. That issue bouncing around in the courts as the election approaches would be (or will be) spun unmercifully by the superPACs.
And hey, just ignore that our intelligence has been questioned. As you know, this is a typical response when there's nothing left to refute the facts. Some folks just can't stand the idea that a valid point might be made by someone who does not share their views entirely.

[Guest]

I don't have a problem with people's opinions, but they don't have a right to their own facts.

VK's post was factually inaccurate. Does that explain it enough for you?

The explaination would have been adequate without that final zinger. That is what I'm talking about, you almost always end with an insult. I think you generally have thoughtful and intelligent posts, but you seem unable to resist a tweak at the end, which may destroy your effort to change the hearts and minds of people with differing views.

[Guest]

The explaination would have been adequate without that final zinger. That is what I'm talking about, you almost always end with an insult. I think you generally have thoughtful and intelligent posts, but you seem unable to resist a tweak at the end, which may destroy your effort to change the hearts and minds of people with differing views.

I am what I am and I'm not aiming to be a "role model" here. I was a bit ticked at the way you posted your comment to me and I responded as I'm wont to do.

I'm sorry you're easily offended. (oops, I did it again)

[Guest]

I am what I am and I'm not aiming to be a "role model" here. I was a bit ticked at the way you posted your comment to me and I responded as I'm wont to do.

I'm sorry you're easily offended. (oops, I did it again)

Okay internet tough-guy, I'll stand on my previous comments.

[Guest]

Okay internet tough-guy, I'll stand on my previous comments.

Lighten up a little. You'll live longer. (I do like the tough guy thing, though. At least you give me a laugh)

[Guest]

Okay internet tough-guy, I'll stand on my previous comments.

Lighten up a little. You'll live longer. (I do like the tough guy thing, though. At least you give me a laugh)

No biggie, just trying to pass along a little constructive criticism. By the way the operative word was internet.

[Guest]

The manner in which Obama had made these recess appointment is in keeping with his personal "artful dodger, sneak around, behind a screen, in the dark, without consulting anyone, manner in order to realize his european life style agenda. The Consumer Fraud Financial and NLRB rulings are going to be a death blows to business.

[Guest]

The manner in which Obama had made these recess appointment is in keeping with his personal "artful dodger, sneak around, behind a screen, in the dark, without consulting anyone, manner in order to realize his european life style agenda. The Consumer Fraud Financial and NLRB rulings are going to be a death blows to business.

rubicon - i pretty much agree with your post. where i disagree is with your statement that the pres doesn't consult with anyone...i think he conslts A LOT with david alexander! matter of fact, i think david alexander pulls a lot of the president's strings!

[Guest]

rubicon - i pretty much agree with your post. where i disagree is with your statement that the pres doesn't consult with anyone...i think he conslts A LOT with david alexander! matter of fact, i think david alexander pulls a lot of the president's strings!

Who is David Alexander? I never heard of him.

[Guest]

Who is David Alexander? I never heard of him.

I googled him and he is apparantly either a partner at Trinity Hunt in Dallas, or one of the worlds greatest entertainers from Wales.

[Guest]

Who is David Alexander? I never heard of him.

I googled him and he is apparantly either a partner at Trinity Hunt in Dallas, or one of the worlds greatest entertainers from Wales.

janmcn - thanx for the catch - am doing too mmuch today with cooking, laundry and my mother's phone calls.

meant david axlerod. and david plouffe is probably on the phone often, too!

back to cooking and laundry - later.

[Guest]

janmcn - thanx for the catch - am doing too mmuch today with cooking, laundry and my mother's phone calls.

meant david axlerod. and david plouffe is probably on the phone often, too!

back to cooking and laundry - later.

Axelrod and Plouffe are political advisors - don't think they get much input on policy decisions.

[Guest]

Axelrod and Plouffe are political advisors - don't think they get much input on policy decisions.

Can't imagine why you think that. Axelrod is one of the closest people to, and has unlimited access to Obama. He is Obama's "go to" guy. I'd say he has about as much influence on policy in this administration as anyone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/us/politics/09axelrod.html?pagewanted=all

[Guest]

Can't imagine why you think that. Axelrod is one of the closest people to, and has unlimited access to Obama. He is Obama's "go to" guy. I'd say he has about as much influence on policy in this administration as anyone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/us/politics/09axelrod.html?pagewanted=all

Interesting article which does nothing to change my opinion that he is a political advisor and not involved in policy making. He frames the message and helps the president's communication of policy. From the article......
Mr. Axelrod rejects the comparison [with Rove], saying that he is more of a protector of Mr. Obama’s image and message than a policy maker or strategist intent on remaking the country’s political DNA, as Mr. Rove often talked about.

[Guest]

Interesting article which does nothing to change my opinion that he is a political advisor and not involved in policy making. He frames the message and helps the president's communication of policy. From the article......
Mr. Axelrod rejects the comparison [with Rove], saying that he is more of a protector of Mr. Obama’s image and message than a policy maker or strategist intent on remaking the country’s political DNA, as Mr. Rove often talked about.

"The circle around Mr. Obama has grown exponentially since he arrived in the White House. An army of new assistants, deputies and advisers surrounds him, but it is Mr. Axelrod who sits the closest to the Oval Office. His proximity is a symbol, in a unique West Wing kind of way, of how close he remains to Mr. Obama."

"Mr. Axelrod has played a major role in framing the message of the domestic agenda, from the economic stimulus plan to health care. He has devoted far less time to foreign policy, given the amount of time the president spends dealing with the nation’s fiscal crisis."

I'm still not sure how you can downplay Axelrod's influence with Obama on his policy decisions. I'm also not sure why you want to.

I would say from this article it is clear that his job is exactly that of helping craft the message that Obama sends in order to put things in it's best light in care of Obama's image.

Is there another reason you wish to separate Axelrod from Obama's policy decisions?

[Guest]

"The circle around Mr. Obama has grown exponentially since he arrived in the White House. An army of new assistants, deputies and advisers surrounds him, but it is Mr. Axelrod who sits the closest to the Oval Office. His proximity is a symbol, in a unique West Wing kind of way, of how close he remains to Mr. Obama."

"Mr. Axelrod has played a major role in framing the message of the domestic agenda, from the economic stimulus plan to health care. He has devoted far less time to foreign policy, given the amount of time the president spends dealing with the nation’s fiscal crisis."

I'm still not sure how you can downplay Axelrod's influence with Obama on his policy decisions. I'm also not sure why you want to.

I would say from this article it is clear that his job is exactly that of helping craft the message that Obama sends in order to put things in it's best light in care of Obama's image.

Is there another reason you wish to separate Axelrod from Obama's policy decisions?

I have zero desire to seperate Axelrod from Obama's policy decisions, it seems to be the fact as far as I can see. Again, Richie, I agree he helps craft message, which is what you are saying apparently - that is a far cry from crafting policy.

[Guest]

ed - how about this scenario:

axelrod speaking to the president:
if you shape the policy this way your image will be that of a fool; but if you shape the policy this way your image will be that of a hero.

thus, policy is influenced and an image is saved. maybe simplistic - and maybe not.

axelrod is a brilliant strategist, he has access to everyone in the administration from the ground up, he provides policy guidance from the outset all through the process to the final policy presentation to and by obama. to admit that axelrod has that kind of power and influence would be to diminish the perception of the power and wisdom of the president - therefore, admission of anything close to that will never be spoken.

an opinion like yours is just what david axelrod wants promoted...hold fast to it...and i will hold fast to mine.

[Guest]

I have zero desire to seperate Axelrod from Obama's policy decisions, it seems to be the fact as far as I can see. Again, Richie, I agree he helps craft message, which is what you are saying apparently - that is a far cry from crafting policy.

You say tomatoes, I say tomaatoes

[Guest]

ed - how about this scenario:

axelrod speaking to the president:
if you shape the policy this way your image will be that of a fool; but if you shape the policy this way your image will be that of a hero.

thus, policy is influenced and an image is saved. maybe simplistic - and maybe not.

axelrod is a brilliant strategist, he has access to everyone in the administration from the ground up, he provides policy guidance from the outset all through the process to the final policy presentation to and by obama. to admit that axelrod has that kind of power and influence would be to diminish the perception of the power and wisdom of the president - therefore, admission of anything close to that will never be spoken.

an opinion like yours is just what david axelrod wants promoted...hold fast to it...and i will hold fast to mine.

He is a brilliant POLITICAL strategist. I don't know where you got the statement that I bolded about policy guidance. Look, I have no interest in trying to defend or promote Obama or Axelrod. My original point was that Axelrod is a political advisor to Obama and not a policy advisor and I made it simply to clarify his role. It may be a matter of semantics we are arguing here - he is a major player in what is COMMUNICATED to the public, I see no evidence he gets involved in the actual crafting of policy. I honestly don't have any personal interest in this debate other than to defend my original comment.

[Guest]

I have zero desire to seperate Axelrod from Obama's policy decisions, it seems to be the fact as far as I can see. Again, Richie, I agree he helps craft message, which is what you are saying apparently - that is a far cry from crafting policy.

You say tomatoes, I say tomaatoes

Are you serious, you see no distinction between crafting message and crafting policy?