So there's going to be this State of the Union speech tonight. I suppose we should have a thread on it. I'm curiously how he'll explain how he can't do anything with majority of 59 senators now. Also why he has decided to reverse himself on the spending thing. <_<
QuoteA Republican's advice for ObamaBy John Feehery, Special to CNN
January 27, 2010 1:14 p.m. EST
Editor's note: John Feehery worked for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans in Congress. He is president of Feehery Group, a Washington-based advocacy firm that has represented clients such as the News Corp., Ford Motor Co. and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He also was a government relations executive vice president for the Motion Picture Association of America.
(CNN) -- There is a great line in "Casablanca." Signor Ferrari says to Victor Laszlo, "I am moved to make one more suggestion, why, for what reason I do not know, because it cannot profit me. ... "
As President Obama prepares to make his State of the Union speech, I am moved to make several suggestions to him about how to save his presidency, for reasons I do not know, because as a Republican it won't profit me politically.
But here are five suggestions on how Obama could right the ship and chart a course to a second term.
Stop talking: The president's people believe that the more Obama is out in the public talking, the better off he is. And if this were still the campaign, that might be the case.
But the president is supposed to be governing, not campaigning, and the more he appears as pundit in chief, the more people associate him with their problems. He has taken the mystery out of being president, and by being too available, he has diluted the strength of the bully pulpit.
It is fine to have his advocates out speaking on his behalf, and that is their role, but he should be seen as working, not talking. No more "60 Minutes" interviews, no more covers of GQ, no more surprise appearances on late-night television. Sometimes less is more, and the American people need to see a whole lot less of this president.
Fire his political staff: Independent voters hate political consultants. Heck, most people outside of politics hate political consultants.
He should fire all of the political hacks that came from his campaign and work in the White House. He could rehire them when he announces he is running for re-election and then have his campaign pay them.
The problem with political operatives is that they completely misunderstand the legislative process. Legislation, to be truly worthwhile, has to bring the country together. Political operatives, by their very nature, are looking to polarize the voters and demonize the opposition.
Bringing back the guy, David Plouffe, who ran the presidential campaign, is only going to make things worse for this White House. Obama needs legislative accomplishments, not political tactics. James Carville was smart enough to stay out of the Clinton White House, while George W. Bush would have done much better if he had kept Karl Rove on the outside looking in. Sorry, Karl.
Hire a well-respected gray eminence to run things: President Reagan did it when he brought in Howard Baker, and President Clinton did it when he brought in Leon Panetta.
The president is in desperate need of some political wisdom. Perhaps it is Vernon Jordan, perhaps it is a Colin Powell, or perhaps it is a Tom Carper, but Obama needs someone who is respected on both sides of the aisle, someone who knows where the bodies are buried and someone who knows how to work things in the Senate.
With all due respect to Rahm Emanuel, his hard-charging approach simply doesn't work in the Senate.
Hire a high-profile Republican to lead a presidential task force on government waste: Nobody believes that this president is serious about cutting government spending. So have a Republican do it, preferably one who has some real experience in budget matters. Ask Jim Nussle, the former Office of Management and Budget director, or Doug Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, to lead it.
If they succeed in coming up with real recommendations, push them through a-sure-to-be reluctant Congress. If they don't, well, it's the Republicans' fault.
Announce a surge for the inner cities: The president has seemingly shied away from the crisis that is afflicting our inner cities. Crime may be down slightly nationally, but gangs are still terrorizing too many communities.
Cities such as Detroit, Michigan, are suffering. Schools are spending money for security that could go toward computers, textbooks and qualified teachers. And when kids get killed, residents turn their heads, worried for their personal safety and that of their children, and not wanting to be seen as informers.
The president needs to take the lead on this crisis, not just hope it goes away. Obama made a big mistake last year in saying police acted stupidly in Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s arrest. He can help restore his image by becoming a law-and-order president. This would help with Reagan Democrats and blue-collar voters who think he has lost his way.
I don't expect the president to take all of this advice, but he should. His political fortunes are not declining because he is failing to communicate. He is in trouble because he is failing to lead in ways that unify the country.
This advice cannot possibly profit me politically, but if he takes it, it might help the country move forward, and that can't be a bad thing.
Always the goat. :(
Ain't gonna watch it. Just wanted to post that to increase my post count.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 27, 2010, 05:38:44 PM
Ain't gonna watch it. Just wanted to post that to increase my post count.
Like you need it. Post whore. :P
3 to 1 odds someone in Congress yells out, "You lie, nigger!"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 27, 2010, 06:23:24 PM
3 to 1 odds someone in Congress yells out, "You lie, nigger!"
That would be totally awesome.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 27, 2010, 06:23:24 PM
3 to 1 odds someone in Congress yells out, "You lie, nigger!"
So you got an invite? :huh:
I thought the SOTU was already at 1300. :hmm:
Anywhere I can watch this live online?
Found a couple of places, but what should interest people here is that Obama is going to ask for Don't Ask Don't Tell to be repealed according to a rumor sweeping the net.
EDIT: Can't he just do that by an executive decision like Truman?
Blah...Blah..Blah...We need to work together to get past our problems...Blah...Blah...Blah
Just not sure how working together works when one side closes the other out of meetings.
He should just resign. It's clear that only a Republican can lead our country against the chicom internet warriors and terrorists.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 05:08:36 PM
So there's going to be this State of the Union speech tonight. I suppose we should have a thread on it. I'm curiously how he'll explain how he can't do anything with majority of 59 senators now. Also why he has decided to reverse himself on the spending thing. <_<
How has he reversed himself? It seems more of a gimmick than anything else... discretionary spending rose 22% from Bush before he "froze" it.
Wow, not a single post during the speech. I guess I made the right decision to not watch. I know Obama can speak, it's putting his words into action that I'm still waiting for.
I switched from my kid's cartoons (which he was not watching) to catch a little bit of it (my kid of course came running in from the other room yelling "NO NO NO NO"). Apparently he considers himself a free trader now? :huh:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 27, 2010, 07:17:12 PM
Found a couple of places, but what should interest people here is that Obama is going to ask for Don't Ask Don't Tell to be repealed according to a rumor sweeping the net.
EDIT: Can't he just do that by an executive decision like Truman?
Obama doesn't have the courage to do anything on his authority until he wins re-election.
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2010, 09:35:11 PM
Wow, not a single post during the speech. I guess I made the right decision to not watch. I know Obama can speak, it's putting his words into action that I'm still waiting for.
I'm at work and just started watching.
So far, he pretty much tackled everything & thrown as much as he can under the bus. Shoot enough times, you'll score at a good %.
I'm not a huge fan of State of the Union speeches in general, but his approach is getting annoying. I'm not sure if he thinks he's doing a Press Club speech or speaking in front of a congregation, but it seems inappropriate for the occasion.
Quote from: Neil on January 27, 2010, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 27, 2010, 07:17:12 PM
Found a couple of places, but what should interest people here is that Obama is going to ask for Don't Ask Don't Tell to be repealed according to a rumor sweeping the net.
EDIT: Can't he just do that by an executive decision like Truman?
Obama doesn't have the courage to do anything on his authority until he wins re-election.
He just told the Senate he was going over their heads via executive order. :contract:
I like the idea of reinstituting PAYGO.
Anyone catch the announcement over the high speed rail train? Obama and Biden are going down to Tampa tomorrow to announce that stimulus funds will be going towards building the US's first true high speed rail, which will run from Tampa to Orlando, and eventually down to Miami. There's been rumors swirling over this for a while, so this is no surprise.
In my opinion, it's going to be boondoogle. Both Tampa and Orlando are highly de-centralized. Sure there is plenty of traffic between the Tampa area and the Orlando area, but not enough to sustain a line profitably. Cars are way more convenient, probably cheaper to use, and almost as fast. The main benefit will be "stimulus" eg creating jobs, but IMO there's better ways to invest this money.
To quote The Simpsons:
Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?
Lyle Lanley: You'll be given cushy jobs.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infactah.com%2Fuploaded_images%2FLyleLanley-721661.jpg&hash=ca7e6645de432e9cb03f7b54fb183f8f5b8540d9)
He just mentioned his campaign promise to end the Iraq war. He'd be best served not mentioning campaign promises at all :lol:
"We find unity in our incredible diversity."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedaystarisbright.com%2Fgallery%2Fd%2F631-1%2Ff0da30ed-PattonWTF.jpg&hash=4fb4c7cbb81d12450028eb7f2a73c14e9a93f2c9)
Went on about 20 minutes to long. I feel his efforts to shame the Republicans are futile. They seem to lack any type of shame.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 10:32:45 PM
Went on about 20 minutes to long. I feel his efforts to shame the Republicans are futile. They seem to lack any type of shame.
:lol:
I tried to watch but Nancy Pelosi just weirds me out which made it hard to focus on Obama.
I fell asleep. How long until President Brown/McDonnell/Palin? :sleep:
Quote from: derspiess on January 27, 2010, 09:43:12 PM
I switched from my kid's cartoons (which he was not watching) to catch a little bit of it (my kid of course came running in from the other room yelling "NO NO NO NO"). Apparently he considers himself a free trader now? :huh:
Your kid is a free trader? Wow, talk about precocious...
Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 10:32:45 PM
Went on about 20 minutes to long. I feel his efforts to shame the Republicans are futile. They seem to lack any type of shame.
He's been using that tactic for a while now, and it still doesn't work so well. The Dems are running the roost, doing business as usual but even more so, which is what has voters so angry! Especially when Obama promised CHANGE! He ought to be trying to shame his own party! ;)
Quote from: Alatriste on January 28, 2010, 03:13:58 AM
Your kid is a free trader? Wow, talk about precocious...
Yeah, he won't shut up about Canadian logging subsidies.
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2010, 10:15:10 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on January 28, 2010, 03:13:58 AM
Your kid is a free trader? Wow, talk about precocious...
Yeah, he won't shut up about Canadian logging subsidies.
:lol:
Quote from: KRonn on January 28, 2010, 09:12:49 AM
He ought to be trying to shame his own party! ;)
That would be awesome! Remember when those ads were running during the Bush administration comparing RINOs to France?
Quote from: KRonn on January 28, 2010, 09:12:49 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 10:32:45 PM
Went on about 20 minutes to long. I feel his efforts to shame the Republicans are futile. They seem to lack any type of shame.
He's been using that tactic for a while now, and it still doesn't work so well. The Dems are running the roost, doing business as usual but even more so, which is what has voters so angry! Especially when Obama promised CHANGE! He ought to be trying to shame his own party! ;)
What is "business as usual" in this case?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 28, 2010, 11:31:32 AM
Quote from: KRonn on January 28, 2010, 09:12:49 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 10:32:45 PM
Went on about 20 minutes to long. I feel his efforts to shame the Republicans are futile. They seem to lack any type of shame.
He's been using that tactic for a while now, and it still doesn't work so well. The Dems are running the roost, doing business as usual but even more so, which is what has voters so angry! Especially when Obama promised CHANGE! He ought to be trying to shame his own party! ;)
What is "business as usual" in this case?
:huh:
Government deficits, multitudes of pork deals, even so embarrassing now that the Congressmembers getting them are feeling much heat, from their own states. , Obama said from day one that he was going to address all of that. Closed door meetings, dealing heavily with lobbyists and various interests when he promised change to that process. Congress doing its wheeling and dealing, all the dealing with the concoction of the health care bill, smoke and mirrors accounting for it, which has people pretty damned angry. And more. Business hasn't seemed to have changed at all; gotten worse. Some they can't change too much, as there will always be special interests, but when a President promises change and does things the same, with an over bearing Congressional leadership like Pelosi and Reid, it catches up with the President pretty fast.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 27, 2010, 07:17:12 PM
Found a couple of places, but what should interest people here is that Obama is going to ask for Don't Ask Don't Tell to be repealed according to a rumor sweeping the net.
EDIT: Can't he just do that by an executive decision like Truman?
I missed the speech. Did he do it?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2010, 12:25:47 PM
I missed the speech. Did he do it?
The only time an executive order was mentioned was when Obama blacked on the Senate about voting down Biden's task force and told them he'd do it anyway via executive order. I also counted no less than four veto threats to both houses, but his hands are pretty tied where DADT is concerned; military regulations are
explicitly delegated to Congress by the US Constitution.
he certainly proved he lacked any class, particularly when he launched a dishonest political attack against the Supreme Court. He comes across as petulant, peeved, and nasty.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 28, 2010, 01:32:47 PM
he certainly proved he lacked any class, particularly when he launched a dishonest political attack against the Supreme Court. He comes across as petulant, peeved, and nasty.
What an actor you'd make! You've got the outrage down pat. :lol:
G.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 28, 2010, 01:32:47 PM
he certainly proved he lacked any class, particularly when he launched a dishonest political attack against the Supreme Court. He comes across as petulant, peeved, and nasty.
Weren't you the one smearing the court as unelected God-Emperors who need to be reigned in?
Quote from: Valmy on January 28, 2010, 01:40:51 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 28, 2010, 01:32:47 PM
he certainly proved he lacked any class, particularly when he launched a dishonest political attack against the Supreme Court. He comes across as petulant, peeved, and nasty.
Weren't you the one smearing the court as unelected God-Emperors who need to be reigned in?
Shush. If it's Obama doing it, it's automatically wrong to Hans. If Obama had said "1+1=2," Hans would probably have gone into a tirade about Euclidean mathematics. :contract:
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 28, 2010, 01:32:47 PM
he certainly proved he lacked any class, particularly when he launched a dishonest political attack against the Supreme Court. He comes across as petulant, peeved, and nasty.
What did he say about the Supreme Court?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 28, 2010, 02:05:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 28, 2010, 01:40:51 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 28, 2010, 01:32:47 PM
he certainly proved he lacked any class, particularly when he launched a dishonest political attack against the Supreme Court. He comes across as petulant, peeved, and nasty.
Weren't you the one smearing the court as unelected God-Emperors who need to be reigned in?
Shush. If it's Obama doing it, it's automatically wrong to Hans. If Obama had said "1+1=2," Hans would probably have gone into a tirade about Euclidean mathematics. :contract:
Well, 1+1=3 for large values of 1.
Quote from: Valmy on January 28, 2010, 01:40:51 PM
Weren't you the one smearing the court as unelected God-Emperors who need to be reigned in?
I think Hans's point is that the State of the Union speech was not the appropriate place & time to do this.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 28, 2010, 02:08:31 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 28, 2010, 01:32:47 PM
he certainly proved he lacked any class, particularly when he launched a dishonest political attack against the Supreme Court. He comes across as petulant, peeved, and nasty.
What did he say about the Supreme Court?
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6148956n&tag=api
Stay classy, Barry :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2010, 02:10:46 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6148956n&tag=api
Stay classy, Barry :lol:
Dialup. :(
Can you execsum me baby?
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2010, 02:09:00 PM
I think Hans's point is that the State of the Union speech was not the appropriate place & time to do this.
Really? When he's trying to get the point across to Congress as well as the American people that the "state of the union" is pretty shaky because all of the branches are fighting against each other and trying to make rules that overstep their authority, that sounds pretty appropriate to me.
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2010, 02:09:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 28, 2010, 01:40:51 PM
Weren't you the one smearing the court as unelected God-Emperors who need to be reigned in?
I think Hans's point is that the State of the Union speech was not the appropriate place & time to do this.
Did Bush in any of his SOTU complain about legislating from the bench?
Quote from: KRonn on January 28, 2010, 11:55:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 28, 2010, 11:31:32 AM
Quote from: KRonn on January 28, 2010, 09:12:49 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2010, 10:32:45 PM
Went on about 20 minutes to long. I feel his efforts to shame the Republicans are futile. They seem to lack any type of shame.
He's been using that tactic for a while now, and it still doesn't work so well. The Dems are running the roost, doing business as usual but even more so, which is what has voters so angry! Especially when Obama promised CHANGE! He ought to be trying to shame his own party! ;)
What is "business as usual" in this case?
:huh:
Government deficits, multitudes of pork deals, even so embarrassing now that the Congressmembers getting them are feeling much heat, from their own states. , Obama said from day one that he was going to address all of that. Closed door meetings, dealing heavily with lobbyists and various interests when he promised change to that process. Congress doing its wheeling and dealing, all the dealing with the concoction of the health care bill, smoke and mirrors accounting for it, which has people pretty damned angry. And more. Business hasn't seemed to have changed at all; gotten worse. Some they can't change too much, as there will always be special interests, but when a President promises change and does things the same, with an over bearing Congressional leadership like Pelosi and Reid, it catches up with the President pretty fast.
Gotten worse is a change. Besides if Pelosi and Reid were overbearing they'd actually accomplish something. Now Johnson, he was overbearing. He got shit done.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 28, 2010, 02:14:53 PM
Dialup. :(
Can you execsum me baby?
Anything for you, Yi.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html
Quote"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."
You do need to watch it to get the 'full effect'.
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2010, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 28, 2010, 02:14:53 PM
Dialup. :(
Can you execsum me baby?
Anything for you, Yi.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html
Quote"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."
You do need to watch it to get the 'full effect'.
And of course Obama is lying. The USSC did not overturn the laws prohibiting foreign interests from "bankrolling" US elections, those laws are still in place. obama didn't argue the legal and constitutional merits of the decision, he simply launched into a political attack.
Quote from: Valmy on January 28, 2010, 01:40:51 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 28, 2010, 01:32:47 PM
he certainly proved he lacked any class, particularly when he launched a dishonest political attack against the Supreme Court. He comes across as petulant, peeved, and nasty.
Weren't you the one smearing the court as unelected God-Emperors who need to be reigned in?
Indeed, by refuting their arguments on the merits, not by raging "how dare the USSC prohibit us from doing whatever we want", that is just as imperious a behaviour than that the USSC sometimes engages in.
Doing it in such a petulant manner during the SOTU speech is just bad form. Obama has developed a certain amount of tone-deafness that is surprising. What message was he trying to send? Whom was he trying to persuade? it's just very baffling. Almost makes me miss Bill Clinton, at least he had some political acumen. Obama just makes up a bunch of nonsense, such as claiming he had "saved or created" 2 million jobs without any evidence to support it and believes people are going to swallow it. I think he vastly overestimates himself. Blaming everybody else might work when you're a candidate or a community organizer, but Presidents are measured by results.
Attacking Justice Kennedy's opinion certainly isn't going to help in getting the support of the USSC, attacking the Republicans certainly isn't going to make them suddenly embrace his far-left agenda, blaming the Democrats in Congress for all the backroom dealing Obama engaged in certainly isn't going to make them want to fall in behind him, and constantly blaming President Bush for everything certainly isn't going to convince the public that you're up to the job.
Hey Hans, check out the French veil thread. I'm genuinely curious how you'd come down on that.
And the deep thoughts of the Detroit Free Press shopping writer:
QuoteDid purple apparel send a message at the State of the Union address?
By Georgea Kovanis
Free Press Shopping Writer
During the president's second State of the Union address, television cameras panned to Michelle Obama who was clad in a brilliant dark purple dress with a full skirt by Isaac Mizrahi. And to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who wore a lavender suit. And to Vice President Joe Biden, who wore a purple tie.
Coincidence?
Maybe.
Then again, there are few coincidences in politics.
"Color sends a message,'" says Kate Smith, a color expert who works as a corporate color consultant. "There's some message on our mind, whether it's conscious or unconscious."
So, what does purple mean when it comes to politics?
Because it is a combination of red and blue, it carries some meanings from both colors. "You're communicating the trustworthiness from blue as well as some red, the power, the in-charge side of red,'' says Smith, who owns Sensational Color, a company based in Washington, D.C. "They're unifying."
And unification was one of the points of Obama's speech.
He urged the Republicans and Democrats to be trustworthy in their power, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life."
So in essence, Obama is telling the nation not to act as red states or blue states, but to come together as, well, purple states.
The fact that he wore a tie that leans more toward burgundy than a true red is significant, too, says Smith. "It still has the message of the red tie, but when you go to a deeper tone, it's not in your face, it's not quite as bold."
In other words, he's in charge but he's willing to cooperate with others.
"Purple is the color of creativity. When people wear it, it's often becasue they are looking for creative answers, creative solutions,'' says Leatrice Eiseman, director of the Pantone Color Institute, which is based in Carlstadt, N.J., and forecasts color trends.
Of course, here's what we all want to know: Did they call or text each other to coordinate their wardrobes?
Come Obama, give Prince a cabinet position.
Thanks to plastic surgery Pelosi already has a permanent hideous smile on her face like the Joker. She really shouldn't wear purple; it makes the resemblance even more obvious.
I was about to make a Pelosi=Joker post. Bitch :mad:
btw I agree with Hans 100%. I'm shocked he would drag the Supreme Court into a political bullshit speech like the State of the Union.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 28, 2010, 12:47:21 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2010, 12:25:47 PM
I missed the speech. Did he do it?
The only time an executive order was mentioned was when Obama blacked on the Senate about voting down Biden's task force and told them he'd do it anyway via executive order. I also counted no less than four veto threats to both houses, but his hands are pretty tied where DADT is concerned; military regulations are explicitly delegated to Congress by the US Constitution.
How did Truman get around it then?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 28, 2010, 12:47:21 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2010, 12:25:47 PM
I missed the speech. Did he do it?
The only time an executive order was mentioned was when Obama blacked on the Senate about voting down Biden's task force and told them he'd do it anyway via executive order. I also counted no less than four veto threats to both houses, but his hands are pretty tied where DADT is concerned; military regulations are explicitly delegated to Congress by the US Constitution.
What he can do (and this was pointed out to him repeatedly by GLBT organisations) is to order the military to refocus their attention and not to investigate DADT issues.
It is, after all, much easier to accomplish than what Truman did, since it's much easier to "turn the blind eye" here.
Quote from: Martinus on January 28, 2010, 06:42:05 PM
What he can do (and this was pointed out to him repeatedly by GLBT organisations) is to order the military to refocus their attention and not to investigate DADT issues.
It is, after all, much easier to accomplish than what Truman did, since it's much easier to "turn the blind eye" here.
God, I can't believe we're rehashing this
again. He can't do that because he'd be forever rubber-stamping those orders. The second he made a blanket order for multiple occurrences, he's set regulation and run afoul of the constitutional restriction.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 28, 2010, 07:57:02 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 28, 2010, 06:42:05 PM
What he can do (and this was pointed out to him repeatedly by GLBT organisations) is to order the military to refocus their attention and not to investigate DADT issues.
It is, after all, much easier to accomplish than what Truman did, since it's much easier to "turn the blind eye" here.
God, I can't believe we're rehashing this again. He can't do that because he'd be forever rubber-stamping those orders. The second he made a blanket order for multiple occurrences, he's set regulation and run afoul of the constitutional restriction.
Wasn't segregation of the military a regulation? What's the difference? :unsure:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 28, 2010, 07:57:02 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 28, 2010, 06:42:05 PM
What he can do (and this was pointed out to him repeatedly by GLBT organisations) is to order the military to refocus their attention and not to investigate DADT issues.
It is, after all, much easier to accomplish than what Truman did, since it's much easier to "turn the blind eye" here.
God, I can't believe we're rehashing this again. He can't do that because he'd be forever rubber-stamping those orders. The second he made a blanket order for multiple occurrences, he's set regulation and run afoul of the constitutional restriction.
At least you didn't say "Hod" or "Gawd". Goddamn moronic shit.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 28, 2010, 08:11:09 PM
At least you didn't say "Hod" or "Gawd". Goddamn moronic shit.
Well, I'm pretty sure we're rehashing this discussion almost post for post at this point. I'm bailing.
:lol:
Quote from: Caliga on January 28, 2010, 06:35:56 PM
btw I agree with Hans 100%. I'm shocked he would drag the Supreme Court into a political bullshit speech like the State of the Union.
I agree, that was poor sportsmanship, but Barack needs to have voter anger targeted at someone besides himself if the Democrats are to maintain a majority in both houses. That decision is perfect for him: unelected judges are allowing big greedy corporations to buy elections (at least that's how it was reported on NPR.) That's two scapegoats for the price of one; a bargain if I've ever heard one. :)
Quote from: derspiess on January 27, 2010, 09:53:55 PM
I'm not a huge fan of State of the Union speeches in general, but his approach is getting annoying.
Jefferson was right, they're a monarchical trapping of power. You should go back to the President sending Congress a letter on the State of the Union.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2010, 02:37:00 PM
You should go back to the President sending Congress a letter on the State of the Union.
Fine by me.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 28, 2010, 02:54:26 PM
And of course Obama is lying. The USSC did not overturn the laws prohibiting foreign interests from "bankrolling" US elections, those laws are still in place.
What prevents a foreign corp from spending on US elections through a domestic sub? Foreign corps could do that before the ruling through PACs as long as they had the domestic sub fund the PAC directly and kept foreign nationals off the committee.