Patrick Vent's over President Obama
Another Obama signing statement giving himself the right to ignore part of a law. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/27/obama-issues-statement-on_n_221821.html
Essentially, Bush (43) and Obama have both reclaimed the line item veto. Clinton briefly had this power from 1996-8 but the Supreme Court ruled the law as being unconstitutional and struck it down. Now both his successors have decided that the president can merely choose to ignore parts of laws they sign by stating that certain provisions would interfere with the powers of the executive.
Well, that's not how it works, my friends. If a bill does that, then you don't sign it into law. You veto it and tell Congress to try again. If Congress overrides it you have the Justice Department bring suit against it and go through the courts. I understand Bush doing this, he was not a lawyer and he was someone who was easily manipulated by his royal court. But Obama, someone who A) taught constitutional law and B) criticized Bush for doing this very same thing, knows better but has decided to try this out and see if he gets much push-back. Which I'm sure he won't. The media's criticism of presidents revolves around whether or not he endangers capitalism, i.e. the entrenched system of wealth distribution that funnels money upwards from the poor to the middle class to the insanely rich, i.e. the very people who pay their exorbitant salaries. So they have no problem getting tough on Obama when it comes to "nationalizing" General Motors (which it did not do) or trying to pass any kind of health care reform that doesn't consist solely of providing massive subsidies for everyone to buy expensive private coverage. That makes the media pat itself on the back for grilling the president and living up to the legacy of Woodward and Bernstein, an ethic that even Woodward and Bernstein couldn't maintain. But stories about the Office of the President abusing power, stealing power for itself, torturing people for political ends, refusing to play straight with the electorate? Bo-ring! Where's the percentage? Their bosses don't really care what laws presidents break so long as they don't have their taxes raised. And both Bush's and Obama's people know this.
Yes, yes, I know, Obama's very smart. And he probably knows things we don't know. And he's playing the long game. Biding his time. Waiting for the Republicans to trip up and drop from 25% approval down to 15%, or something, and then he can REALLY stand up and do the right thing. I'm not sure how much longer people will keep resorting to these excuses - and that's what they are, excuses. And I don't know what to make of a president who can't roll over the GOP in their current dessicated state. I can only conclude that he doesn't intend to. He's an adjuster, not a reformer. Even health care, I suspect, is going to end up being nothing but a big giveaway to the HMOs without any real guarantees that people can't be dropped whenever they actually get sick. And Obama will give his usual line about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and no one will dare to tell him that sometimes the good just isn't good enough.
Sorry, but I'm more and more disappointed with our president lately. Being "better than Bush" is not a high enough bar, for Christ's sake. Khrushchev was not a great statesman simply because he didn't kill twenty million of his own people like the last guy did. A leader must be judged by his own actions, and we can't keep giving Obama a pass just because he isn't George W. Bush. Just my opinion.
Patrick
2 comments:
Well he's not really acting like a President. He's basically gone out of his way overseas by badmouthing the U.S., Has broken several of his promises that he made during the campaign. And I can understand why the folks are upset about his private jet flights for "DATE NITE" etc. He's probably really pissed off now that MJ has kicked him out of the headlines. He really needs to just get off of TV and get to work already . Bill Maher put it best here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWulnfog20c
I think that substantive complaints about Obama are necessary, but they do need to be factual. In fact he has not gone overseas badmouthing the U.S. This is a stupid talking point from the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity, who play the first half of his quotes where he owns up to American mistakes of the past and cut off the remainder of the quotes where he calls other nations to account for their own mistakes and misconceptions. He has not gone on an apology tour. At some point, an American president really ought to do that, though, considering how much misery and bloodshed America has exported in our history.
As far as the Obama date nights go, what a silly non-story. I don't remember the media throwing a fit whenever Bush would fly down to Crawford to clear brush. And Bush spent weeks doing that, not just a single night. Presidents get a lot of perks that come with the job, that's just how it is.
I agree that he's broken promises, or to be very charitable, put off delivering on them so far. Don't Ask Don't Tell is still in place, the Obama Administration is adopting more and more of the Bush Administration's secrecy policies, he wants to close Guantanamo only to recreate the conditions elsewhere, etc. If he knuckles under on health care and signs a bill that has no public option, then I believe I will be done with him, and either vote third party or sit out 2012.
--Patrick
Post a Comment