Government Obama Style

Plotting ways to circumvent Congress behind closed doors but inviting lobbyists and special interest groups to help craft EO’s. Looks like he’s working on his post-presidency resume….

“Behind Closed Doors, Obama Crafts Executive Actions”
WASHINGTON — When President Obama announced in June that he planned to bypass congressional gridlock and overhaul the nation’s immigration system on his own, he did so in a most public way: a speech in the White House Rose Garden.

Since then, the process of drafting what will likely be the only significant immigration changes of his presidency — and his most consequential use of executive power — has been conducted almost entirely behind closed doors, where lobbyists and interest groups invited to the White House are making their case out of public view.

]Mr. Obama’s increasingly expansive appetite for the use of unilateral action on issues including immigration, tax policy and gay rights has emboldened activists and businesses to flock to the administration with their policy wish lists. It also has opened the president, already facing charges of executive overreach, to criticism that he is presiding over opaque policy-making, with the potential to reward political backers at the expense of other interests, including some on the losing side who are threatening to sue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/politics/behind-closed-doors-obama-crafts-executive-actions.html?hpw&rref=politics&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpHedThumbWell&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

The disengaged “leadership” style? Remember the marching orders, “don’t do stupid stuff”

“Obama Is Seen as Frustrating His Own Party”

WASHINGTON — The meeting in the Oval Office in late June was called to give President Obama and the four top members of Congress a chance to discuss the unraveling situation in Iraq.
B
ut Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, wanted to press another point.

With Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, sitting a few feet away, Mr. Reid complained that Senate Republicans were spitefully blocking the confirmation of dozens of Mr. Obama’s nominees to serve as ambassadors.

He expected that the president would back him up and urge Mr. McConnell to relent.
Mr. Obama quickly dismissed the matter.
“You and Mitch work it out,” Mr. Obama said coolly, cutting off any discussion.

Mr. Reid seethed quietly for the rest of the meeting, according to four separate accounts provided by people who spoke with him about it. After his return to the Capitol that afternoon, Mr. Reid told other senators and his staff members that he was astonished by how disengaged the president seemed. After all, these were Mr. Obama’s own ambassadors who were being blocked by Mr. McConnell, and Secretary of State John Kerry had been arguing for months that getting them installed was an urgent necessity for the administration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/aloof-obama-is-frustrating-his-own-party.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

When bad people do bad things to America, and they do that because they do not like the black guy........do your really think the President is going to waste one second on things he cannot change, or do you think he has fully comprehended that absent turning white overnight, folks will block everything including the naming of Ambassadors, just to keep to the conspiracy of the first week of the President's term alive. A very smart man, and yes Senator Reid and others are hopeful if the President does a song and dance like Bo Jangles maybe the masters will give the boy a break.........naw, the President has this figured out, and he will continue to kick asz and take names, and in the end he has won, history will recognize the hate and bigotry of America today, and he will have had the courage and skills to clearly star in the big leagues.......so let somebody else dance.

2seaoat wrote:When bad people do bad things to America, and they do that because they do not like the black guy........do your really think the President is going to waste one second on things he cannot change, or do you think he has fully comprehended that absent turning white overnight, folks will block everything including the naming of Ambassadors, just to keep to the conspiracy of the first week of the President's term alive.   A very smart man, and yes Senator Reid and others are hopeful if the President does a song and dance like Bo Jangles maybe the masters will give the boy a break.........naw, the President has this figured out, and he will continue to kick asz and take names, and in the end he has won, history will recognize the hate and bigotry of America today, and he will have had the courage and skills to clearly star in the big leagues.......so let somebody else dance.

It only took you 158 words to say - nothing. You're improving. ONLY you could take a thread about leadership (or lack of same) and turn it into a race thingy. You are pitiful.

Republican presidents on average use executive action more than democratic presidents.  We would have to go all the way back to Grover Cleveland to find a president who used less executive action that Obama.  And today's GOP supporters complain about executive action.  

Completely divorced from reality.

You are caught in a dissonance loop seagoat. You can't even acknowledge problems you know exist over the race card.

You're the problem... not some bearer of solutions.

And Bored... the number means next nothing... it's the content gumby.

Please keep your blinders on.........Grandpa gets a burning cross in his yard and shot because he has mixed grandbabies, an unarmed black man with his hands up gets murdered in the street, and 10 days later no indictment, and conspirators meet the first week of this President's term and pledge to shut down government and not allow this man to have ANY legislative success, and you think that Race does not play into any of these actions. ACA will be the crowning achievement of this President which will be the necessary step to Medicare for all, and contrary to your tripe, he will be held high in history....it just galls you doesn't it, that the people overwhelming elected him a second time.........Who do you really think is clueless.

boards of FL wrote:Republican presidents on average use executive action more than democratic presidents.  We would have to go all the way back to Grover Cleveland to find a president who used less executive action that Obama.  And today's GOP supporters complain about executive action.  

Completely divorced from reality.

Apparently, like 2SO, you ignore the meat of the thread and leap to extraneous nothingness. Are you two related by any chance?

This is what your typical nonresponse to any serious attempt at discourse reminds me of:

Nothing.

And Bored... the number means next nothing... it's the content gumby.



up is down, left is right, and bad ideas fail........exactly how can executive orders be considered if you do not count them, and who do suppose suffers from dissonance on this thread......numbers mean nothing......you continue to keep a smile on my face.

2seaoat wrote:Please keep your blinders on.........Grandpa gets a burning cross in his yard and shot because he has mixed grandbabies, an unarmed black man with his hands up gets murdered in the street, and 10 days later no indictment, and conspirators meet the first week of this President's term and pledge to shut down government and not allow this man to have ANY legislative success, and you think that Race does not play into any of these actions.   ACA will be the crowning achievement of this President which will be the necessary step to Medicare for all, and contrary to your tripe, he will be held high in history....it just galls you doesn't it, that the people overwhelming elected him a second time.........Who do you really think is clueless.

And again, what does all your tripe have to do with the two articles starting this thread? Absolutely nothing.

And BTW, even though the ACA is the furthest thing away from this topic as possible, I've ALWAYS been a proponent of Medicare for all. Too bad all the money being wasted on the ACA is the only road there.

I know you are clueless due to your repeated inability to stay on topic.

This is what your typical nonresponse to any serious attempt at discourse reminds me of:

I have genuine tears of laughter......thank you.......a serious attempt at discourse......cutting and pasting articles and your inability to have an original thought or produce a paragraph of discourse worthy of thought and response.......Boards just gave you the numbers which are not up for debate or in dispute, and this is nothing, but your cut and paste is a serious attempt at discourse......let me get a kleenex to wipe the tears from my eyes.....thank you....you need to take this act on the road.

2seaoat wrote:Who do you really think is clueless.

Voters that would elect a person they knew next to nothing about with minimal experience...

then reelect knowing the promises were hollow.

I know you are clueless due to your repeated inability to stay on topic.

Yes, I understand your mind can neither multi task or get around a concept which is beyond your reach, but at least you are being honest that you did not comprehend how race is relevant to your thread and the number of EO is also relevant.......concepts quite honestly which are neither complex or difficult.

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Republican presidents on average use executive action more than democratic presidents.  We would have to go all the way back to Grover Cleveland to find a president who used less executive action that Obama.  And today's GOP supporters complain about executive action.  

Completely divorced from reality.

Apparently, like 2SO, you ignore the meat of the thread and leap to extraneous nothingness. Are you two related by any chance?

This is what your typical nonresponse to any serious attempt at discourse reminds me of:

Nothing.

You just created a thread titled "Government Obama Style" regarding the use of executive action whereas the reality of the situation is that we would have to go back over 100 years to find a president who used executive action less.  Don't you see the fallacy there?  You're characterizing a presidency by that which the president has done the least.  

It's like if I were to create a thread titled "Quarterbacking Peyton Manning Style" and then proceeded to make the case that Peyton Manning is a run-first, mobile QB.

2seaoat wrote:This is what your typical nonresponse to any serious attempt at discourse reminds me of:

I have genuine tears of laughter......thank you.......a serious attempt at discourse......cutting and pasting articles and your inability to have an original thought or produce a paragraph of discourse worthy of thought and response.......Boards just gave you the numbers which are not up for debate or in dispute, and this is nothing, but your cut and paste is a serious attempt at discourse......let me get a kleenex to wipe the tears from my eyes.....thank you....you need to take this act on the road.

Wow, you really can't read - that's it!

I apologize for insulting you when you have a disability.

The discussion isn't about numbers of EO's, everyone knows all Presidents use them.

The discussion was supposed to be about BHO's lack of transparency and disengagement from even his own party. But you can't read so now I realize you wouldn't know.

Or maybe you can read but just can't comprehend what you are reading.

Maybe that's it.

Voters that would elect a person they knew next to nothing about with minimal experience...

then reelect knowing the promises were hollow.

By golly that is what they said about Harry Truman the shoe salesman and county commissioner as the Chicago Tribune announced that Dewey had won......however, history has been correct on how utterly successful the two term Truman Presidency was......keep holding that tribune up......I think we know what is hollow.

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Republican presidents on average use executive action more than democratic presidents.  We would have to go all the way back to Grover Cleveland to find a president who used less executive action that Obama.  And today's GOP supporters complain about executive action.  

Completely divorced from reality.

Apparently, like 2SO, you ignore the meat of the thread and leap to extraneous nothingness. Are you two related by any chance?

This is what your typical nonresponse to any serious attempt at discourse reminds me of:

Nothing.

You just created a thread titled "Government Obama Style" regarding the use of executive action whereas the reality of the situation is that we would have to go back over 100 years to find a president who used executive action less.  Don't you see the fallacy there?  You're characterizing a presidency by that which the president has done the least.  

It's like if I were to create a thread titled "Quarterbacking Peyton Manning Style" and then proceeded to make the case that Peyton Manning is a run-first, mobile QB.

Take your circular "logic" elsewhere.

Let me help you along with 2SO,

BHO's lack of transparency

BHO's disengagement from even his party

Got it now?


Probably not.

BHO's lack of transparency

BHO's disengagement from even his party

So this is what you garnered from your cut and paste job....So let me ask you this, what could the President do to get his ambassadors appointed which would be transparent, successful, and good for America? You should be able to answer this simple question.

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Republican presidents on average use executive action more than democratic presidents.  We would have to go all the way back to Grover Cleveland to find a president who used less executive action that Obama.  And today's GOP supporters complain about executive action.  

Completely divorced from reality.

Apparently, like 2SO, you ignore the meat of the thread and leap to extraneous nothingness. Are you two related by any chance?

This is what your typical nonresponse to any serious attempt at discourse reminds me of:

Nothing.

You just created a thread titled "Government Obama Style" regarding the use of executive action whereas the reality of the situation is that we would have to go back over 100 years to find a president who used executive action less.  Don't you see the fallacy there?  You're characterizing a presidency by that which the president has done the least.  

It's like if I were to create a thread titled "Quarterbacking Peyton Manning Style" and then proceeded to make the case that Peyton Manning is a run-first, mobile QB.

Take your circular "logic" elsewhere.

Let me help you along with 2SO,

BHO's lack of transparency

BHO's disengagement from even his party

Got it now?


Probably not.

The phrase "circular logic" doesn't mean what you think it means.

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Republican presidents on average use executive action more than democratic presidents.  We would have to go all the way back to Grover Cleveland to find a president who used less executive action that Obama.  And today's GOP supporters complain about executive action.  

Completely divorced from reality.

Apparently, like 2SO, you ignore the meat of the thread and leap to extraneous nothingness. Are you two related by any chance?

This is what your typical nonresponse to any serious attempt at discourse reminds me of:

Nothing.

You just created a thread titled "Government Obama Style" regarding the use of executive action whereas the reality of the situation is that we would have to go back over 100 years to find a president who used executive action less.  Don't you see the fallacy there?  You're characterizing a presidency by that which the president has done the least.  

It's like if I were to create a thread titled "Quarterbacking Peyton Manning Style" and then proceeded to make the case that Peyton Manning is a run-first, mobile QB.

Take your circular "logic" elsewhere.

Let me help you along with 2SO,

BHO's lack of transparency

BHO's disengagement from even his party

Got it now?


Probably not.

The phrase "circular logic" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Given that your premise is flawed, yes it does.

I cannot even get a real time answer to a simple question.....gotta go visit the grandkids......they understand conceptual things better than some on this forum, but they also are scared of boogeymen.

2seaoat wrote:BHO's lack of transparency

BHO's disengagement from even his party

So this is what you garnered from your cut and paste job....So let me ask you this, what could the President do to get his ambassadors appointed which would be transparent, successful, and good for America?  You should be able to answer this simple question.

Proving once AGAIN your inability to comprehend the written word.

The transparency issue dealt with immigration.

The disengagement issue dealt with BHO's refusal to assist Reid in getting things done, like appointing Ambassadors.

Such simple issues, it's not surprising you can't follow them.

The disengagement issue dealt with BHO's refusal to assist Reid in getting things done, like appointing Ambassadors.

I have extended way too much respect your way.......I am embarrassed for you. First, the president appoints ambassadors, and second, the senate confirms those ambassadors. You are a child not knowing the difference that President Obama's appointed ambassadors are not getting CONFIRMED, and then you chastise the president for not getting things done, like appointing Ambassadors......stick to cutting and pasting.....you simply do not have the intelligence to comprehend the simple concepts, and discuss the same in a semi intelligent manner. This was my polite restrained response....here is my less than polite response:

2seaoat wrote:The disengagement issue dealt with BHO's refusal to assist Reid in getting things done, like appointing Ambassadors.

I have extended way too much respect your way.......I am embarrassed for you.  First, the president appoints ambassadors, and second, the senate confirms those ambassadors.  You are a child not knowing the difference that President Obama's appointed ambassadors are not getting CONFIRMED, and then you chastise the president for not getting things done, like appointing Ambassadors......stick to cutting and pasting.....you simply do not have the intelligence to comprehend the simple concepts, and discuss the same in a semi intelligent manner.  This was my polite restrained response....here is my less than polite response:

OK, you impolite brain dead fool. Confirmation, fine and dandy, I used the wrong word. So you spend mega bandwidth wasting time typing that up?

And you still can't comprehend Reid was asking Obama for help getting them CONFIRMED and got no cooperation from the disengaged president.

You know, the point of the article.

What an idiot.

And you still can't comprehend Reid was asking Obama for help getting them CONFIRMED and got no cooperation from the disengaged president.


What exactly can the President do when co-conspirators pledged not to pass legislation, confirm appointments, or do anything in government which may be perceived as a success for the President. Tell me what he should do? As to Harry Reid being frustrated and not understanding the resistance to simple confirmations.......well of course he is frustrated, every American is frustrated....racism is insane and harmful, but alas the President or Senator Reid can do nothing to stop the same........but if this was a specific ambassador which was a bad fit for a country, and the President had to make some calls to convince some Senators that the candidate was a good man or woman....yes, I would agree that he is disengaged......no this is an across the board action which was pledged when the President took office......it might as well have happened in a closet with white robes hanging on the wall.