How are Bush's "signing statements" any different than what Obama has done with his EOs regarding Immigration and obamacare??

I mean, in BOTH cases Obama is defying "clear legislative intent by means of selective enforcement or non-enforcement"...

Whether a POTUS does it by "signing statements" or by "executive orders" the actions are identical...

Except Obama does it to serve his partisan agenda and Bush did it for the safety and security of the country...

So, other than the WHY, what's the diff??

As I noted, Red and Blue use the same playbook.

Yes they do.. But here in Weigantia, only the Red gets dinged for it... That ain't right...

Michale

I gave Bush regular hell for what I considered bad policies, some of which where implemented by means of executive orders, but not simply because they were executive orders.

I don't think it legitimate to use "signing statements" to defy clear legislative intent by means of selective enforcement or non-enforcement, unless there is a legitimate constitutional issue and the President is basically inviting a court challenge.

As I noted, Red and Blue use the same playbook.

How about 10 points or more??

How about: how are we defining "look like a family picnic"?

Heh.

That one's trickier..

It's like a NYPD Street Cop..

"I may not be able to define 'pornography' but I sure as hell know it when I see it!!"

:D

Michale

So how are we defining "far above"?

How about: how are we defining "look like a family picnic"?

Heh.

-CW

You will be interested in this month's OPW, I guarantee it. I'm going to make a bold prediction vis-a-vis second term trends.

Look for it next Monday (that's when OPW is scheduled, as of right now)...

:-)

-CW

Touche' :D

Seriously, there is really nothing to concede. I have no problem with executive orders as presidential perogatives,

Did you argue in favor of Bush against the Left when they demonized Bush for Executive Orders??

That's my point.

Again, I use Glenn Greenwald as a perfect example of one who has a moral and ethical foundation..

The fact that he is wrong as wrong can be is beside the point..

He believes what he believes regardless of the '-D' or '-R' behind his name..

I respect that..

That's my whole point. And, by and large (there are exceptions) the vast majority of Weigantians who demonized and vilified Bush for A, B and C, give Obama a complete pass for doing much WORSE versions of A, B and C..

I am sure you can see the logic of my argument..

Michale

I there is one thing that Obama Poll Watch (a subsidiary of ChrisWeigant Industries) shows, it is that presidents can recover a lot of lost popularity in their 2nd term.

"Just concede the point and we can move on.."

Why, when we're having so much fun! :)

Seriously, there is really nothing to concede. I have no problem with executive orders as presidential perogatives, I just have problems with specific orders I consider bad policy or ones that violate statutes and present constitutional problems. It just politics, which often hinges on fine points of legality, morality and sanity. It can't be any other way.

I've always felt both political use pretty much the same play book, but that doesn't mean they are simply mirror images of each other.

Define "far" and you have a bet! :D If I like the definition I'll even forgo quatloos and bet $100 GOAD... :D

We'll also set the date at 31 Mar 2014...

Michale

One quick response, more later:

Mid March is going to make October look like a family picnic as far as Obama's numbers are concerned.

In March of his 6th year in office, Dubya was down to 37.4 approval / 58.1 disapproval.

100 quatloos says Obama will be far above that.

:-)

-CW

How so???

Let me ask this..

What happens if a GOP POTUS decides that he won't allow his DOJ to enforce campaign laws against corporations so as to elect more GOP'ers to further the GOP Agenda..

You wouldn't cry foul??

Of course you would..

So, why is it OK for a DEM POTUS to ignore the laws so as to further the DEM agenda??

Because it's agenda that you happen to agree with..

Ya'all don't have a problem with Executive Orders as long as it furthers a political ideology that you believe in..

Just concede the point and we can move on..

Michale

"Ever hear of the term "CHECKS AND BALANCES"

My mind is pretty much a sieve with a big hole in it, but I do seem to recall them from high school. Or possibly School House Rock. My mind is pretty much a sieve with a big hole in it.

Yeah, yeah, congress is the check on the President, but then, the President is a check on Congress. Constitutional forces act very like physical forces: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Four actors, each pushing back at the other 3.

Nothing to see here, keep moving.

Republicans aren't the one's pushing for a "living wage" and bemoaning the plight of the under-paid.

Democrats are...

So, let them put their money (literally) where their mouths are.

Let them pay these poor slaves....

THEN they will have some moral foundation to preach from...

Michale

That is NOT what Obama said..

"See ya later Congress. You have obviously proven that ya'all won't bend to my will, you won't do things MY way, you won't do what I want, so I am just going to do it myself"

THAT is what Obama said...

Ya'all just don't GET IT..

Ever hear of the term "CHECKS AND BALANCES"??

Congress is a CHECK on the power of the Presidency.

Congress is doing their frakin' job, fer chreest's sake!!

And if we can imagine a GOP POTUS with a DEM Minority, then ya'all would be ALL FOR Congress "checking" the power of the Presidency..

Hell, we don't HAVE to imagine...

Was anyone here actually AWAKE during the Bush years??

At every turn, Democrats tried to stymie and obstruct the safety and security of this country.

It's only good fortune for this country that Democrats really sucked at it...

What Obama is doing is bypassing the Checks And Balances that make this country work...

Nothing good will come of that, you can bet.

Do you know how I know I am right??

Because ya'all said the EXACT same thing when BUSH did what Obama is doing...

But the difference is, Bush did what he did for the RIGHT reasons. Obama does what he does to serve a partisan agenda. Which is as wrong a reason as can possibly be...

Michale

Give it time.. Give it time...

Mid March is going to make October look like a family picnic as far as Obama's numbers are concerned..

(1) Cheney's repeated insistence on what he called the "unitary executive" which meant that Bush (and himself, by extension) could do pretty much whatever they damn well felt like doing, Congress and the Constitution be damned. That sort of sweeping power grab is just downright dangerous, from any party.

How is that any different from what Obama is saying??

"Congress won't do things MY way so I can pretty much do what I feel like doing and the Constitution be damned"

The DREAM Act is a perfect example. Ya'all went on and on about how Congress didn't act, so Obama did it himself..

Congress DID act.. The refused to pass the legislation..

Obama didn't LIKE how Congress acted, so he did it himself, Constitution be damned.

I honestly fail to see any difference between what Obama is doing and what the Left accused Bush of doing..

(2) Bush's "signing statements" where he essentially said "I don't like this part of this law that Congress passed, therefore I'm not going to pay it any attention." I still consider that to be an unacceptable power grab.

Ya know, you are proving my point again.. :D

"I don't like this part of my HealthCare law that Congress passed so I am going to grant an extension"

"I don't like THIS part of the Immigration laws so I am going to instruct agents not to enforce it"

Once again, I fail to see ANY difference between what Bush did (that the Left HATED) and what Obama is doing, which the Left LOVES...

Obama's use of executive orders, so far, are far below both Dubya and Clinton. So if anything, he's got some ground to make up.

Actually, Obama's use is a few numbers higher than Bush's...

I can find the cite, but I think Obama is at 574 times and Bush used Executive Orders 567 times..

The actual numbers maybe off, but the proportion is accurate..

But here's the thing. The majority of Bush's use of EOs was for NATIONAL SECURITY reasons. For the safety and security of this country.

The majority of Obama's use of EOs has been to further a partisan agenda that has HARMED this country...

Given THOSE parameters, Obama way WAY over-uses EOs compared to Bush...

And I think I've been pretty consistent on my view of how disgustingly unconstitutional National Security Letters are, when both Bush and Obama have been in the White House.

Yes, YOU have..

But as I am wont to say, you are the exception that proves the rule..

Most times I encompass the entire Left in my rants. It's an easier argument to make because there is so many facts to support that argument.

Many, if not most, of Weigantians also fall into that category of "The Left".. Although I have problems remembering yesterday, I still remember how things were around here during the Bush years. To hear rank and file Weigantians, Bush was Hitler and Satan's love child and Cheney was Darth Vader incarnate...

Don't you find it even SLIGHTLY funny how, if we made a scale of Counter Terrorism Policies and Satan/Hitler Jr and Darth Vader was at THIS point in the scale and Obama would be on the much MUCH worse part of that scale..

Don't ya just think that the irony is delicious!?? :D

" bortaS bIr jablu'DI' reH QaQqu' nay' "
-Old Klingon Proverb

Michale

My snap reactions are up on another column. But that bit about the cats, at the end, was seriously hilarious. Just had to say that.

-CW

Obama's State of Union was one of his better rhetorical efforts, and not what I expected.

He came across as the amiable, confident, happy warrior. To summarize: see you later Congress, I'll pursue a limited agenda through veto and executive order, unless you come up with something concrete. Which Obama is clearly not expecting.

Obama is not running for anything, so he might as well focus more on being the statesmen, less on being the politician. I think that transition makes sense in the current political landscape, which resembles a cratered WWI no mans land, and it would better complement his talents and temperament. Plus, it will annoy the hell out of his opponents.

Once again, the official Republican Response was amusingly lame. Cathy McMorris Rodgers reminded me a female Kenneth Parcels (30 Rock); rural, earnest, cheery, anachronistic and vaguely disturbing. I'm betting she'll be parodied on SNL.

But wait,there's more!

Rand Paul, apparently officially representing himself, basically lifted Jack Kemp's old economic empowerment zone speeches and white papers for much of his rebuttal, without ever citing Kemp. Not cool! Plagiarism seems to be a recurring theme in Rand Land.

I could not find a video of Mike Lee's Tea Party response. This is odd, since even cats routinely post their videos on YouTube.

Let's see, by your recent predictions, Obama would be following Dubya's numbers down a cliff, and the Obamacare website would somehow magically have crashed and burned into oblivion by now...

Heh. Couldn't resist.

TheStig [4] -

Awww, c'mon, the SOTU is the only fun some of these people have all year! Heh.

On balance, I have to say the SOTU, while being largely a pageant, is still a better "red carpet affair" in Washington than the only other real contender, the White House Correspondents' Dinner, which has devolved into a swamp of egomanics and big bucks. At least the SOTU is still (somewhat) dignified.

Paula [5] -

I finally read the entire New Yorker interview with Obama, and it confirmed something I have long believed. Obama really, truly did believe deep down that he could change the atmosphere in Washington, and it remains his biggest disappointment on a personal level that he has not been able to at all. Although Michale will scoff, Obama reached out time and time again to Republicans in his first 4 years in office, only to have his hand slapped away each and every time. I think that he has finally given up on this approach to a large extent (see: government shutdown), and that he now knows that unless Dems take the House (a longshot at best) and hold the Senate (even money), he's not going to be able to get much from the GOP and so he's going to have to act on his own.

Michale [6] -

While your point is somewhat valid (people on both sides either cheering or booing about presidential actions dependent on who exactly is in the White House), I really think, at least in my case, that you're talking about apples and oranges to some extent.

I was annoyed at Bush for some of his executive orders, true. But the two things that seriously made me angry were (1) Cheney's repeated insistence on what he called the "unitary executive" which meant that Bush (and himself, by extension) could do pretty much whatever they damn well felt like doing, Congress and the Constitution be damned. That sort of sweeping power grab is just downright dangerous, from any party.

(2) Bush's "signing statements" where he essentially said "I don't like this part of this law that Congress passed, therefore I'm not going to pay it any attention." I still consider that to be an unacceptable power grab.

But Obama's using executive orders doesn't fall into either one of those categories, at least for me. Well, I say that now -- I reserve the right to change my mind later depending on what orders he does issue. Just to be clear.

And before you cite it, here's a debunking page to consider:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp

Obama's use of executive orders, so far, are far below both Dubya and Clinton. So if anything, he's got some ground to make up.

:-)

TheStig [7] -

Exactly.

Michale [10] -

Aha! Maybe we do see a little more eye-to-eye. I, personally, had a problem with the method Bush used when I thought it was un- (or perhaps "extra-") constitutional. Either by signing statements or by overreaching his legally-defined boundaries.

So the Right has an argument to make on, perhaps, Obama changing Obamacare rules without asking Congress for permission. I probably won't agree with that case, but it is a valid case to make.

But while I do remember the Left being outraged about signing statements, I don't really over the mere action of an Executive Order. Maybe my memory's foggy, I dunno.

I have even defended Bush when he was doing something completely in line with his constitutional powers (pardons) when the Left was upset, as I recall. The power to pardon is absolute. Period. Clinton didn't do anything unconstitutional when he used it, and neither did Bush (Scooter Libby? I forget when this was a big deal...).

And I think I've been pretty consistent on my view of how disgustingly unconstitutional National Security Letters are, when both Bush and Obama have been in the White House.

So the issue may be a little more subtle than you're making out. I don't know this "Left" you speak of... I just know what I have stated and what I have not, so let's keep the conversation about that, OK?

Michale [11] -

Oh, please. How many Republicans pay interns? Is this really a partisan issue?

-CW

The biggest hurdle that I foresee is the Keystone Pipeline, which I pray he rejects. Raising federal minimum wage will be good.

96% Of Democrats Who Push Minimum Wage Increase Don't Pay Their Interns One Red Cent
http://www.minimumwage.com/2014/01/maximum-hypocrisy-on-the-minimum-wage/

Democrats. The Party that embodies hypocrisy

Michale

To more fully elaborate...

During the Bush years, the Left's argument was NOT "Bush is a war criminal and an asshole because he is using Executive Orders to further the Rethuglican agenda!!!"

If THAT was the Left's argument, then *I* would not have an argument in the here and now..

No, back then, the Left's argument was "Bush is a war criminal and an asshole because he is using Executive Orders!!!"

PERIOD....

Well, 3 Exclamation Points, but the effect is the same..

You see my point??

The Left took issue, not with WHY Bush was using Executive Orders, but rather that Bush was USING Executive Orders.. Remember ya'alls (and The Lefts) hysterics over Bush's Signing Statements??

I KNOW that ya'all understand the difference because you STATED so, very clearly in the National Security Letters commentary, which is a nearly identical issue to "Executive Orders" and "Signing Statements".. They are all part and parcel to the same action. Namely a POTUS who bypasses Congress and legislates from the Oval Office..

My question is simple..

WHY is it OK for Obama to do it when it was a horrible crime against humanity when Bush did it??

Simple question...

Now, if ya'all want to establish that such things ARE perfectly acceptable if they further an acceptable agenda, then by all means.

Make the case..

Make the case that The Ends Justifies The Means...

I double dog dare ya :D

"...... and your journey to the darkside will be complete!"
-The Emperor, STAR WARS VI RETURN OF THE JEDI

:D

Michale

You completely and utterly miss my point..

What you say IS factual, that is not the argument.

The argument is WHY did the LEFT not understand this factual statement during the Bush years??

Why are ya'all perfectly OK with Obama's use of Executive Orders, but ya'all castigated Bush for the EXACT same action.

THAT is the question here..

Michale

Which brings up a very interesting question..

In ya'alls opinion, is it OK for a POTUS to bypass Congress and rule by decree if the agenda is acceptable..

The reason I ask is because, during the Bush years, the Left was apoplectic when Bush did the same thing.

Note that the Left was hysterical BECAUSE Bush did it. Not because of WHY Bush did it.

In other words, it wasn't the agenda that was the problem, it was the action itself..

So, logically speaking, the Left should have the EXACT same re-action to the action when THEIR guy does it, right??

Given all this, can we agree that the Left (and ya'all) really don't have a problem with a POTUS that rules by decree as long as it's THE LEFT's POTUS that does it..

Can we agree on that??

Just fishing for some common ground here.. :D

Michale

Obama doesn't always do the smartest thing, or "right thing" (which is, of course, subjective) immediately, but he does learn. I think he's pretty much figured out that there's no cooperation to be had from the pubs and he won't waste more effort on them. He may make the gesture here and there for forms sake, but will move on to do what he wants to do. Which is good.

The biggest hurdle that I foresee is the Keystone Pipeline, which I pray he rejects. Raising federal minimum wage will be good.

Anything can happen, yadda, yadda, yadda, but if I had to bet money, I would bet that his numbers will stabilize and/or improve yet more.

The minority responses to the SOTU are always toxic. Take 'em out I say, before they kill your gravitas on a national stage.

The upswing in Presidential Approval strikes me as small compared to the background noise. Still, better to hit bottom earlier in your 2nd term than later. Republicans seem to be dropping "Obama Care" as more people sign up, and more states take the Medicaid Money.

Do ya'all know WHY I have faith??

Because, if Obama has proven ONE thing beyond ANY DOUBT whatsoever, he has proven that he simply cannot be trusted..

I challenge ANYONE to refute that assertion.

But please. Refute it with FACTS, not hysterical ideology...

Michale

However, other polls show had bad and precarious his presidency really is.

So I have faith that the numbers will soon head back down.. :D

Michale

Just to warn everyone: as usual, there will be no column at the normal time tomorrow. But check back about an hour or so after the SOTU speech for my snap reactions.

-CW