I'd rather have a futile president trying to solve our problems than a GOP
congress willing to confront any of them.
The tea party obstruction is creating unnecessary and unreasonable problems.
Boehner jumps with no alternative plan. He must things up to a vote instead of
trying to bring down government and the economy.
Remember this gem from just a year ago,"CBS’ Bob Schieffer asked
Speaker of the House John Boehner very bluntly about the current gridlock in
Congress, its failure to pass any important legislation and its record-low
approval ratings among the American people. Boehner responded by
saying that, “We should not be judged by how many new laws we create, we
ought to be judged on how many laws we repeal.” In other
words, “Laws are bad and government is bad, so who needs either.”
My guess is that the President wants to be remembered as a President
who got things done under the worst of circumstances even if some of his actions
are reversed. Remember Roosevelt had some of his major legislation
overturned yet he persisted and became the author of modern America. The
America that was a beacon on the hill.
Republicans found a way to stop Obama from making recess appointments.
They're so busy celebrating, I wonder when they'll realize that
they've given Democrats the same power to use over the next Republican
Republicans and Conservatives gloated everytime GeorgeWBush violated the
constitution because it supported their needs. BUT NOW they scream foul
everytime President Obama breaks the rules. Remember this little
poem;Bush lied and our troops have died. Bush lied and his
administration spied. Bush lied and our liberties were denied. Bush
lied and freedoms were circumscribed. Bush lied and our laws he did not
abide. Face it Bush does nothing without having first lied. You all though he was so cute!
@Hawkeye79I looked back on my comments, on nowhere did I state that
congress should serve as a "yes man" to the president. The problem I see
is that too many feel like it's their obligation to say no to him no matter
what. They aren't interested in being a part of the negotiations. The
president has to accept some blame, but so does congress. Don't you see the
problem we currently have when nobody is willing to cross party lines and listen
to one another?
I see it as an extension of the World Cup:Constitution 1President 0Goal!
The Constitution gives us rules that should be followed, not rules that act as
guidelines. Unfortunately today we gave an executive branch that does not want
to follow the rules.It is not a bad thing that Congress does nothing, it
is better for us all that they move slowly. Today we have a President that
believes ho knows best and that it will be his way and only his way and no other
way is acceptable.Obama demonizes Congress and therefore others also
protest, a case of the blind leading the blind.
Hi Really???,"It's time we get a completely new congress
that will actually work towards something other than stifling our
president."I suppose I missed where Congress is supposed to
serve as a "yes man" to the President. If Congress won't approve
the nominees that the President is recommending, then perhaps the President
should try nominating someone that Congress will be willing to approve.When the President decides to alienate a significant portion of Congress by
excluding them from important negotiations, there is a political price to pay.
It is up to the President to repair the relationships that he has damaged and
make a good faith effort to reach across the aisle. And no, proposing partisan
ideas and traveling the country to complain every time he is told "No"
isn't likely to do the trick.Several White House staff members
have reported about the President's "my way or the highway"
approach to politics. It's a rookie mistake to think that such a
dictatorial approach will yield cooperation. Here's hoping that he decides
to change before his term is over.
The wording of the Constitution matters as long as it is in line with the
DN's opinion. Yet, again and again, we see the DN writing
Editorials that the wording of the Constitution doesn't matter as it
relates to the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection of US Citizens.Once again, the DN is hypocritical.
So what about the NLRB rulings made with three illegally appointed members ?
Thrown out ?Reheard automatically ? Reheard if appealed ? Let stand ?
From the piece " The idea was to block President Obama’s nominations
to the NLRB, appointees that Senate Republicans found unacceptable."This is highly obfuscatory. The NLRB is the executive agency charged
with enforcing the nation's labor laws. The Republicans do not want our
labor laws to be enforced, or at least the people who finance their campaigns do
not want them enforced. The GOP lacks the votes to either abolish the NRB or to
rewrite the labor laws, so what they do is filibuster everyone the president
nominates to the board, thereby preventing it from functioning.So
the Republicans egregiously abuse the rules of the senate to achieve means that
they are unable to achieve via our constitutional process, and no one can stop
them. I thought Republicans were supported "the rule of law", I guess
that only applies when they think President Obama is selectively enforcing the
law. If you are a working person, you no longer have any recourse
when your employer acts against you illegally. Just remember, that's the
way Republicans want it.
It's time we get a completely new congress that will actually work towards
something other than stifling our president. Yes, the president overreached, but
our congress has played a major role in the problem.
Yes, but those appointees are on the NLRB today, so it's hard to see this
case as terribly consequential. And we all can just savor the rich comedy of the
line "for average Americans, the issue is whether government can continue
functioning in a somewhat efficient manner. . ." I take my hat off.
That's funny! Congress, today, functioning? Hilarious.
The over ridding issue here is, will we the people tell the government what it
can and can not do or will the government tell we the people what we can and can
not do? In other words, will we have a government of the people, by the people
or for the people or will we have a dictatorship?