Obama Looking Stronger
President Obama is looking a lot stronger these days. Today, especially, the president emerges as the big winner in the showdown with John Boehner and the House Republicans. But Obama's been looking better and better all month, so Boehner caving should be seen as just the icing on the cake for Obama.
Of course, a big part of the reason why Obama is looking better and better politically is the fact that Republicans are looking worse and worse. The Republicans could easily have claimed the passage of the payroll tax holiday and unemployment insurance payments as their own victory -- if only they had played their cards right. This is no longer feasible for them to even attempt. Republicans, after all, successfully forced Obama to rescind a veto threat -- which nearly always weakens a president (especially when veto threats have been as rare as they have been under Obama's leadership). Forcing a president to eat his own words on a veto threat is usually considered a win for the opposition party.
Not this time. The entire pipeline poison pill part of the bill has been all but ignored by the media, since there was a much more entertaining story to cover: Republican-on-Republican cage-match fighting. Republicans in the Senate passed the bill with an overwhelming 89-10 vote -- far beyond "veto-proof." But because of this show of strength, it only made the House Republicans look small and petty when they refused to go along with the deal cut by Mitch McConnell. As the crisis dragged on, the House Republicans looked more and more like the gang who couldn't shoot straight. One assumes that after they returned to their home districts, they all got an earful from their constituents about their intransigence. Today, Boehner caved to the inevitable as a direct result.
Which all goes to make Obama look better and better. While Congress has a public job approval rating that (as one pundit memorably put it) "resembles a hat size more than an approval number," Obama's approval rating has been going up for the past few weeks. Three national polls put Obama at 49 percent approval in the past week. Now, 49 percent is not exactly a number an incumbent should be jumping for joy over, but it is an improvement of from seven-to-ten points over just a few months ago (when Obama was charting approval in the high 30s).
The payroll tax fracas isn't the only reason Obama's looking better to the public. A large background to December has been the "troops coming home for the holidays" story, as America's military finally got out of Iraq. This was overwhelmingly approved by the public at large, and had to have been a large contributing factor in Obama faring better in the polls.
Also in the background is Obama striking his 2012 campaign theme (co-opted from the Occupiers, sorry about that, guys) of "inequality in America." Obama's always been a reluctant populist at best, but he sure has been striking the right notes of late. The image of Obama standing up and fighting for the middle class -- and, by contrast, the Republicans standing up only for the wealthiest -- has also done the president a lot of good with the public. Republicans can scream until they're blue in the face over "class warfare," but the poll numbers show Obama is a lot closer to what most Americans think on the subject than the GOP. The payroll tax holiday extension fight merely put this in some awfully stark terms, but it should be seen as a continuation of a strategy Obama has been pursuing for almost a year now.
Disappointed Democrats have been telling Obama for a long time to "just stand up and fight for something!" It seems he's taken this advice to heart, finally. Although the tax cut fight should have been a minor victory for the Republicans, the way it played out means it is clearly a win for the president, politically. In fact, this is the first time since the 2010 elections that Obama has scored such a clean win over John Boehner. Obama stood up and fought, he drew a line in the sand, he told the House Tea Party Republicans "No!" repeatedly, and in the end he forced them to do exactly what he wanted. That is strength, and the public respects such strength in a leader.
Obama should build on this strength over the holidays. Specifically, he should use the power granted to him in the Constitution to disband Congress, and then immediately recess-appoint every single candidate he's nominated for Senate approval over the past year. Dozens of nominees have been facing filibusters from Senate Republicans, and Obama should appoint them all in one fell swoop. Ideally, he should do this on the second of January, one day before Congress must reconvene for next year.
This is another political fight Obama can (and should) win. With Congress' approval rating stuck in single-digit numbers, Obama can easily make the case that the Senate has simply not done their constitutional duty in a timely fashion, forcing the president to do his own constitutional duty to see that Executive and Judiciary positions are filled for the last year of his (first?) term in office.
Republicans will, of course, howl. They will whine loudly to anyone who will listen. They will not convince anybody other than their core supporters, however. Obama's argument of "I have to do this because you guys can't get anything done" will easily win out (especially among independent voters) over the Republicans' counter-argument of "Obama is abusing the Constitution so that our own constitutional abuse is rendered meaningless!" Well, perhaps (to be fair), they might word that just a little differently, but that's what it's going to sound like to Mr. and Mrs. America.
So while Obama is indeed getting stronger by the day politically, he needs to build on his recent success. He has already painted his campaign as one against a do-nothing Congress, and nothing would spotlight this better than a few dozen recess appointments right after the new year dawns. Starting with his choice to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
CW-
Still think Boehner is politician of the year? :)
Ok, ok. Sorry. Had to take that shot. It just rubs me the wrong way because I used to live in his district and have known him since 1987.
His claim to fame? He's been around a long time and he took tobacco lobbying money on the House floor. Other than that, the guy has never done anything. He's the world's biggest "yes man" who was simply next in line to be Speaker.
Unfortunately, I don't think he'll last long. I say unfortunately because he makes Dems look good.
Look for Republicans to start grousing about his "leadership".
Apologies for the rant. When it comes to Boehner, it's just probably a little too close to home.
-David
Ya'all should know...
Income Equality is not going to be the golden goose egg ya'all hope it's going to be.
Since I know how much ya'all like polls, recent polls show concern for Income Equality DOWN to 45%...
That's down from 52% in the late 90s...
Dems are going to have to find another thing to run on..
They can't run on their record, they can't run on class warfare, they can't run on income equality..
What WILL Dems choose next?? :D
Michale
290
Specifically, he should use the power granted to him in the Constitution to disband Congress,
Could you cite this Constitutional power??
Everything I have read says that the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch are equal..
If the Executive Branch can arbitrarily dismiss the Legislative Branch, then that would seem to argue against this power you speak of..
Imagine the fallout??
Do you REALLY want to give that ability to a future Republican president??
More and more I am amazed how much emphasis ya'all place on that little "-D" after a politicians name..
Imagine what ya'all would say if a GOP President had contemplated dismissing Congress....
The screams to high heaven would come Fast And Furious.. :D
Michale
291
Income Equality is not going to be the golden goose egg ya'all hope it's going to be.
Is this the latest right wing straw man?
If so, it's disappointing. A mere shadow of the socialist rants of the past :)
No one wants income equality, Michale. What most people want is a capitalist system that works.
Not the broken one we have.
What we want is an end to crony capitalism and more competition.
We'd also like to restore some of the balance we used to have which allowed capitalism to work for everyone. For instance, government should not be fighting on behalf of corporations to reduce wages and benefits.
What WILL Dems choose next?? :D
Fighting for the middle class and 99% is a good start!
It sure beats fighting for the 1% (Republicans).
Cue the rant about hurting the "job gods" :)
-David
Chris,
Article 3, section 3 states:
...he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper ... (emphasis mine)
A reading of this section in English would indicate that the purpose of this is to allow the president to declare a "time-out" because of deadlock between the House and Senate. Since the approval of appointment is in the sole hands of the Senate, there can be no such disagreement. ie: This portion does not apply.
I doubt the Framers ever foresaw a situation where the Minority could prevent for four years the appointments as described in the Constitution.
No one wants income equality, Michale.
Shirley you can't be serious...
That's all ya'all have talked about since the Oowezers made their infamous debut...
What we want is an end to crony capitalism and more competition.
NOW yer beginning to sound like Sarah Palin... :D Kudos..
Fighting for the middle class and 99% is a good start!
You mean like proposing legislation that allows bill collectors to harass people via cell phone??
Is THAT "fighting for the middle class"???
No?? Didna think so... :D
A reading of this section in English would indicate that the purpose of this is to allow the president to declare a "time-out" because of deadlock between the House and Senate. Since the approval of appointment is in the sole hands of the Senate, there can be no such disagreement. ie: This portion does not apply.
What DF said.... :D
Michale....
295
DerFarm -
Thanks for the cite, saved me the trouble of looking it up.
Let's review.
In normal times (say, pre-Speaker-Newt, for the sake of argument), the president nominates people for positions (Executive and Judicial), the Senate considers them, and then the Sente votes on them. If they get 51 votes, they are confirmed and start their new jobs.
Filibustering appointments was almost unheard of -- saved for rare occasions where someone incredibly unqualified was nominated. It almost NEVER happened.
The much more common way to block an appointment was for the Senate to refuse to act upon it at all. If this went on long enough, then eventually the Senate would go on vacation (into "recess") and the president would just go ahead and appoint them anyway.
OK, enough ancient history. In recent times, Dems and GOPers have been in an escalating war of parliamentary maneuvers. For instance, Republicans filibustering EVERYTHING that comes along in the Senate, including appointments (GOP has filibustered more in the past two years that in OUR ENTIRE HISTORY before that point). Dems came up with the "let's just not technically recess" tactic under Bush, though, to be fair. Back to the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 5:4)
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Got that? BOTH the House and Senate have to agree to adjourn. To do this, all they have to do is "meet" once every three days. How this is done (it was in the news a few days ago, when Dems yelled at the Chair while he was running out of the chamber) -- one guy shows up, gavels things into session, then immediately gavels things out of session. See you in three days.
Which brings us to Art. II, Sec.3, in full:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
The key clause: "in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper" There are no qualifiers to that at all. "as he shall think proper" means it is entirely up to the president.
This, back to history, goes back to the English King and Parliament. The King (or Queen) can, at any time, "dissolve" Parliament. It's a holdover from the British system, in other words. Just like the tradition that the president has to be invited to speak to Congress -- he can't just show up, he has to be asked.
In any case, that clause means exactly what it says, in plain English. If the Congress is having a disagreement about adjourning -- which is exactly the case, with that three-day insta-session thing going on -- then the president can say "I've had enough, I am declaring Congress in recess," the same way he can cancel their vacations should he so choose, and force them back to work.
Using this section is rare, but it is ENTIRELY constitutional and a proper Executive power for the president to wield.
All Obama has to do is, on Jan. 2, make a statement that Congress is recessed, and then immediately make his recess appointments. The statement would read something like: "Due to the Senate not acting on my nominees in a timely manner, as is their duty under the Constitution, we have a dangerous shortage of people being confirmed. Since I only have one year left in my term in office, these positions must be filled without further delay. Because Congress has not seen fit to formally adjourn, and instead play with parliamentary maneuvers, I am forced to do the same. Congress is hereby adjourned, and the following people are appointed to the following positions... (follows with a list of 90 or 100 people who have been waiting for months)."
That's all it would take.
I haven't looked it up, but the last memorable use of this was Harry Truman calling the "do-nothing Congress" back to work in the middle of the summer of an election year. Right before Truman defeated Dewey.
DerFarm, you're emphasizing isn't complete enough. The full phrase is "in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment" -- that is exactly the situation we are in right now. The House won't adjourn, so the Senate can't, so (they think) the president's hands are tied. But they aren't -- because the Constitution allows the president to break precisely the deadlock Congress is now in (and will be until they return next year). They disagree about the time of adjournment. So the president can recess them any time he feels like.
That is, indeed, the plain English of the Constitution. Sure, Republicans would howl. They love to deify the Constitition, but very few of them have actually read the darn thing....
-CW
NOW yer beginning to sound like Sarah Palin... :D Kudos.
Heheh. I'm ok with that. Everyone understands the problem. Unfortunately for Sarah and others, their answer is to get rid of government.
The same thing the crony capitalists have been pushing for for a long time.
So Sarah Palin is arguing that the problem is crony capitalism and the solution to the problem is the one that the crony capitalists want- less government, deregulation, more trickle down theory. Basically, the same direction we've been headed in for 30 years.
This is where Sarah Palin (and others) lack credibility. If she started proposing solutions that would actually deal with crony capitalism then more power to her.
That's all ya'all have talked about since the Oowezers made their infamous debut.
Actually, it's none of what's been talked about.
Except by right wingers hoping to brand the movement as something its not. The same old tired tactic wingers have been using forever.
The more its used, the less effective it becomes.
-David
CW,
That is, indeed, the plain English of the Constitution. Sure, Republicans would howl. They love to deify the Constitition, but very few of them have actually read the darn thing....
You do, indeed, make a logical case..
But do you really think it's wise for Democrats to set that precedent??
Suppose a future GOP President wants to expand the Patriot Act.. Congress can't agree, so the President dissolves Congress and then just does it..
That's a signpost on the road that you are proposing we travel down...
Michale
296
Actually, it's none of what's been talked about.
Google WEIGANT "Income Equality" and see how much it's been talked about..
That's the entire Oowzer reason for existing...
Income Equality..
I am glad to hear that YOU aren't interested in that..
But the vast majority of the Left is...
Michale
297
On a T-Shirt running down a blvd in Carmel:
"Woman, without her, man is nothing" (on front)
"Woman without her man, is nothing" ( on back)
Chris, you got me. You're right and I'm wrong. That damn comma!
Of course, the way it reads as you describe it, the President can adjourn either house of congress IF THE OTHER HOUSE IS ALREADY IN ADJOURNMENT ... or recess or whatever the hell it is called.
and as far as setting a precedent, who cares? What??? you don't respect the Constitution?
and as far as setting a precedent, who cares?
I am sure YOU will care, when it is used to initiate PATRIOT ACT II:The Squeekquel...
What??? you don't respect the Constitution?
I respect it unequivocally. Regardless of WHICH political Party it favors...
That sets me apart from Democrats (and Republicans) who only respect it when it allows them to further their own partisan agenda at the expense of the welfare of the country.
Michale
298
Google WEIGANT "Income Equality" and see how much it's been talked about.
About 151 results.
Then google 'weigant "income inequality"' and see how much it has.
About 8,860 results.
Many of us want to reduce the degree of income inequality. None of us want to impose absolute equality of income.
This switch from "income inequality" (a matter of degree) to "income equality" (an endpoint of the range) reminds me of the switch from "vote fraud" to "voter fraud". In each case, a small change in the text dramatically affects the meaning, for the sake of generating Republican talking points.
--
The big change in the filibuster was from "one-track" to "two-track". "One-track" is how it worked from the 1790s to the 1970s: if you want to filibuster a bill, you're holding up all senate business. In the 1970s they changed it to "two-track": if you want to filibuster a bill, other business continues. If senate leaders want to retaliate by holding up other business, that's their decision.
Google WEIGANT "Income Equality" and see how much it's been talked about.
I see one reference.
In this one usage, I don't believe Chris was referring to making all incomes equal as the "right" likes to use the term "income equality".
My point is that no one is for making all incomes equal.
That's a common talking point from the right - socialism, blah, blah, blah.
Universally people have accepted the idea that some people are going to make more than others. This is a good thing.
The issue is that we used to live in a society where the 1% understood that everyone benefited if people made a decent living.
For example, Henry Ford understood that he created more customers by paying his employees decent salaries.
What we're becoming is a society that doesn't believe this. What we're becoming is a society that believes the 1% have no responsibility. What we're becoming is a society that believes "owners" are entitled to all the spoils.
What we're becoming is China, a country with a very rich few, and a very poor many.
Chris might say it differently (and Chris, please feel free to correct if I'm misstating). OWS might say it differently, but I believe the gist is the same.
The capitalism we have is broke. Let's fix it so it works more like it did in the '50s and '60s. This is the main point of OWS.
-David
p.s. I'm trying to help you up your donation! :)
{Suppose a future GOP President wants to expand the Patriot Act.. Congress can't agree, so the President dissolves Congress and then just does it..}
Yeah. Passes a law thru both houses with both not in session ... and gay marriage will lead to man on dog marriage. You don't get to make your own rules, Michale.
This reading of the Constitution says the President can adjourn IF THE HOUSES OF CONGRESS CAN'T AGREE ON WHEN TO ADJOURN.
It says nothing about dismissing both houses like the King could do in 1624, to pass a law without Congressional support.
talk about strawman arguments
Then google 'weigant "income inequality"' and see how much it has.
"A difference which makes no difference IS no difference.
-Commander Spock
Ya'all are concerned that incomes are not so disproportionally unequal...
My only point is that is not the concern of Joe SixPack... At least according to the polls that ya'all revere... :D
David,
What we're becoming is a society that doesn't believe this. What we're becoming is a society that believes the 1% have no responsibility. What we're becoming is a society that believes "owners" are entitled to all the spoils.
No, we're becoming a society that rewards laziness and sloth rather than rewarding hard work and ingenuity...
The capitalism we have is broke. Let's fix it so it works more like it did in the '50s and '60s. This is the main point of OWS.
They don't want to "fix" it.. The Oowzers want to abolish it.. Now, maybe your 99%ers want to fix it..
But the Oowzers don't..
p.s. I'm trying to help you up your donation! :)
I see that... I'm going to need all the help I can get... :D Especially since i have decided to give ya'all a christmas present and not post on Xmas day.. :D
Michale
299
talk about strawman arguments
Ok. Strawman arguments are when you present a phony argument against your position, refute it easily, and pretend to have established your position.
By contrast, when you respond to a point by saying something completely unrelated, sometimes even verging on incoherent, as Michale just did with Patriot Act II and adjournment, that's called a non-sequitur.
Well, DSWS, Michale proposed a scenario that doesn't fit the actual paramters and used it to buttress his incoherent position: the president disolves congress to get an anti-American bill passed, and then he declares it. Therefore, he established his position that this is a VERY BAD THING. Maybe it ISN'T a strawman argument. But it ought to be.
Now as to why any president would need to disolve congress to pass some stronger Patriot act ... THAT is incoherent, I'll grant you.
BTW, are you participating in First Night this year?
Ahhhh I see my mistake..
I hadn't realized that the only time the President can dismiss Congress is when there is disagreement on adjourning..
I believe it's the same mistake you made.. :D
But do you see why it will be impossible for you to ignore me??
Because every once in a while, I'll make a mistake.. And you'll just explode if you don't point that out.. :D
Of course, that also means that, when you DON'T make any contrary point, that will mean you have no argument. :D
Michale
301
They don't want to "fix" it.. The Oowzers want to abolish it.. Now, maybe your 99%ers want to fix it.
Now you're just confusing Ayn Rand and OWS.
It's the Ayn Randians who want to get rid of the system.
Now you're just confusing Ayn Rand and OWS.
Don't make me Google!!! The Oowzers are all about wealth redistribution and abolishing capitalism etc etc...
As I said, your 99%'ers are not..
But the Oowzers definitely are..
Michale
302
The Oowzers are all about wealth redistribution and abolishing capitalism etc etc.
Most aren't. At least not abolishing capitalism. "Wealth redistribution" is arguable because most do believe the extremely wealthy should pay their fair share. Mostly because they've been avoiding it for so long.
I suppose you could call this "wealth redistribution" but I'd call it fair taxation because the current system is wealth distribution as well.
Only its wealth distribution upwards. It's been rigged this way by the wealthy.
This is the story I've heard from the people protesting.
And I don't care how much you "Google". Get out there and talk to people, Michale. Don't listen to what you're told or take my word for it. See for yourself. You might be surprised.
I've been very surprised (and pleasantly so) when I've actually talked to conservatives as if they're people (not as if they're wingnuts like I've been told). By and large I've found that we have much more in common than I'd of ever thought once upon a time.
-David
michale[20],
Don't screw with Bertrand Russell.
Argument from ignorance: absence of evidence from evidence of absence
Most aren't. At least not abolishing capitalism. "Wealth redistribution" is arguable because most do believe the extremely wealthy should pay their fair share. Mostly because they've been avoiding it for so long.
No, you are talking about the 99%'ers...
I am talking about the Oowzers...
Rhymes with "Lusers"..
I've been very surprised (and pleasantly so) when I've actually talked to conservatives as if they're people (not as if they're wingnuts like I've been told). By and large I've found that we have much more in common than I'd of ever thought once upon a time.
I have absolutely NO desire to learn that I might have something in common with a bunch of spoiled brats who thinks it's a political statement to crap on a police car...
No thank you...
DF,
Argument from ignorance: absence of evidence from evidence of absence
Wasn't it you who just said a couple days ago, that THAT is not a valid argument???
Michale
307
Michale wrote:
I have absolutely NO desire to learn that I might have something in common with a bunch of spoiled brats who thinks it's a political statement to crap on a police car.
After all, the brats are human.
After all, the brats are human.
Their actions belay that claim....
Their actions indicate they are barely above the animal on the evolutionary scale...
Or perhaps you know of a better description for a person who throws urine and feces at a vendor, just because the vendor refused to give them free food...
Animal works fine for me....
Michale
309
Suppose a future GOP President wants to expand the Patriot Act.. Congress can't agree, so the President dissolves Congress and then just does it..
That's a signpost on the road that you are proposing we travel down...
Michale, who do you think you're dealing with here ... a bunch of idiots!?
Even you have a phrase for this kind of nonsense ... what is it ... oh, yeah ... apples and dinosaurs" or some such thing ...
A future GOP president (far, far, into the future, if the GOP has anything to do about it - and, in fact, the GOP is dead and long gone, in case you haven't noticed; you simple cannot, with a straight face, call the current Republican collective the GOP) would never have to deal with a majority of Democrats who wished to screw the country at all costs.
Even you have a phrase for this kind of nonsense ... what is it ... oh, yeah ... apples and dinosaurs" or some such thing
The common one is "apples and orangutans". Not sure what Michale uses.