« Romney & Iowa | Main | Iowa »

Monday, January 02, 2012


larry kurtz

So, Ken: the Times is a yellow rag until it suits your premise, then it's a font of wisdom?

Welcome to 2012, earth haters. The President will angle with you like the worms you are.

larry kurtz

Vice President Joe Biden is the President's link to Congress. Did you ever take civics before you became a failed red state wonk, Professor?

Donald Pay

"One of the jobs of the President is Chief Legislator."

Uh, no. Which Federalist Paper are we citing for this statement? Which Article of the Constitution provides the Executive Branch with legislative authority?

Do you realize, KB, that excessive alcohol consumption destroys brain cells? Put down the bottle, go to rehab and we'll see you in thirty days.


Yeah, the President actually has almost no Constitutional responsibilities, certainly not any substantial legislative ones.

His only real legislative power is to receive laws that were passed by Congress and review them. He can then either sign them into law(or do nothing and allow them to become law), or return them to Congress with his objections noted. Then it is up to Congress to re-pass the bill over his objections (with 2/3rds voe by both houses) or to scrap the bill (and possibly start over anew).

Article II Section 3 is pretty succinct in regards to the President's relationship with Congress:

"Section. 3.

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."

He's the Chief Executive. Nothing more. His duty (in respect to Congress) is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", not to act as their leader and make sure they doing their jobs.

To be fair, the only reason he has been so absent in the legislative process for the last year is because he no longer controls both houses of Congress. He can't just give marching orders to them when the Republicans control the House. I wish he would have been as absent in his first two years in office.

He certainly hasn't been absent in over-stepping his Constitutional limits in pretty much every other aspect, though.

Here's a good book that shows how the Presidency has been perverted into something that would make the Founding Fathers recoil. We've basically turned it into the kingship that they fought so hard to break away from.


Ken Blanchard

Larry: nothing prevents a prostitute from attending church on occasion.

Larry and Donald: I will try to make this as simple so it doesn't go over your heads. The power to veto a bill is the power to vote against legislation (equivalent to the difference between 1/3 and a bare majority in either house). The power to vote against legislation is, focus please, a LEGISLATIVE POWER.

The President's role as Chief Legislator is a commonplace of American political thought. See this document C-SPAN Classroom: http://www.c-spanclassroom.org/pdf/ws_rolesofthepresident.pdf. Under the heading "Chief Legislator" you will find this description:

Role: Though the president cannot make laws,
he can voice his own ideas and opinions to
Congress while they draft legislation. He does
this through speeches promoting his agenda
and by meeting with Congress to discuss

Note please the words "meeting with Congress." You could go to scholastic.com and see the "seven roles for one President" article. See role #5: Chief Legislator, under which you will find "Inviting members of Congress to lunch in the White House."

The Times article is, in its understated way, scathing.

Ken Blanchard

DDCSD: I think the evidence that you present clearly contradicts your interpretation. President's routinely propose legislation and use the prestige of the office to try to move it through Congress. Perhaps President's shouldn't do this, but that would be novel. Obama might have warned us in advance that he was going to depart from the norm.

Your statement that "the President actually has almost no Constitutional responsibilities" is very helpful. If true, it would certainly explain Barack Obama.

Donald Pay

So, what Senators and Congressmen should Obama insist on meeting with today, KB? And, while you've got the free time, why don't you make out a schedule for meetings for the next 5 years, because if this is all you Republicans can carp about Obama will have no problem being re-elected.

So, how many should he meet with and where? What should he propose to them for legislation? I expect you have diddely squat for suggestions, which shows this is about as useless topic as you can concoct. But I think you should nail down exactly what will make you happy, and we can run it by the President. After all, you know it all, and your ego must be rubbed. We just wouldn't ever want the President to meet with anyone, KB. They have to have your stamp of approval. We wouldn't want you going into a full blown seizure if Obama would happen to invite the "wrong" Senator or Congressperson to meet with him.

Bill Fleming

I happen to agree with KB on this one, although I would perhaps not treat Congressional members in the genteel, deferential ways he suggests. I think I might instead be tempted to whip them like rented mules.


Hmm... I thought The Times was a lying liberal wad of t.p. And Now you're using it as a reference to bash Obama?

Ken, every time something went wrong in your life, Obama wasn't there. Is he to blame for all those failures as well?


I read the article when it came out, was it last week? One of the things I was wondering is whether Obama is starting to act a lot like Nixon? I was only about 13 or 14 when Nixon resigned, but I recall he spent a lot of time as a recluse.


It is simple. Obama's numbers go up the more he stays away from the job and is out of the public eye.

This is the reason Obama never really quit campaigning among his base. His base likes him better when he is campaign mode. So naturally.....as we move closer and closer to the election Obama's number's will come back up, but probably not to the levels he had in 2008.

It is becoming more clear though, that Obama is in real trouble and the media isn't going to be able to save him.

Obama's base represents a natural minority in this country.....and these people will be the only people that ride Obama to the bitter end no matter what he does or doesn't do. Since Obama has no real positive note to run on in 2012, it will all be Blood-Sport gotcha politics with the media riding shotgun. That strategy is not going to play well in the public for the Left this time.

There is one little catch to this. If the country, especially business get a sense that Obama is out, the economy might start coming around fairly quickly, and by the election the economy could look better than it has since 2007. Obama would get the credit for this, allow him something to run on, and strengthen his base, keep some of the independents and discourage economic criticism from the Right which in turn may affect Republican turn out, giving Obama a slim victory. Let's all just hope the country is not dumb enough to allow this to happend.

Bill Fleming

Jimi, it's interesting that you have all those opinions.
Too bad they don't match reality:


The problem with those polls is they show Obama against different candidates now. The Republicans are beating the hell out of each other and I do not doubt this is adding to the negatives on their side. However, if the Republicans do rally around the nominee and define Obama as he is, those polls are likely to change. Even John McCain was leading Obama until the financial mess it the fan. That is the problem with polls this far out.



I got one word for you...."Sampling."

You more than anyone may want to do some research into the underbelly of poltiical polling since you're always awfully quick to trot out polling as if it were reality. If I formed my opinions strictly from political polling I would have beleived that Dewey would have beat Truman, Gore would have beat Bush, that 911 was an inside job, the JFK assasination was a conspiracy, that Hillary would have won the 2008 Primary, and Wall Street is solely to blame for the financial crisis.

If you are going to strictly use polls to support a position then you have to at least acknowledge the opposition polling and offer some analysis as to why the polling does not represent support for your particluar position all the way across the board.

How powerful can a poll be that shows Obama winning against a particular candidate when during the same time periods you have other polling results showing:

"from ABC News/Washington Post highlights “a fed-up public,” which “is greeting election year 2012 with a razz for the government, a jeer for incumbents and a wearying sense of economic frustration”.

According to the poll 31% of Americans are downright angry with the way the federal government works--a record in polling dating back to 1992. And, if we add in those who are merely dissatisfied, the total soars to 80%--one point from its high 19 years ago. Now 74% believe that "the country’s headed seriously off on the wrong track — not a number that bodes well for incumbent presidents." As to historical significance, regarding a president's re-election, a year before the 1992 election, during the last downturn [not] anywhere near this severe, 72% said the country was on the wrong track; a year before the 1980 election, 77% said so; and, a year before the 1976 vote, 71%. Those results presaged the one-term presidencies of George H.W. Bush (R), Jimmy Carter (D) and Gerald Ford (R)."


"A staggering 89% of Americans now say the economy is in 'bad shape'."

And, 61% of respondents disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy, with 48% strongly disapproving. And particularly worrying for the White House, the vast majority of Americans now believe their personal economic situation is getting worse, with a mere 13% say they’re better off now than before Barack Obama took office; nearly three times as many say they’re worse off. Two-thirds worry about being able to maintain their standard of living; 31% are “very” worried, a new high in the last four years.

Fewer than half, 43%, are confident they’ll have adequate resources for retirement, the fewest in ABC/Post polls back to 1996--down dramatically from 68% near the height of the boom, in July 2001, according to Gardiner."


The bottom line for me seems to be that Americans acknowledge the importance of electing a Black man to the Presidency, and they like the way he looks and believes he is a good speaker, but has a different vision for America that requires fundamental change which the overwhelming majority of American's roundly reject. There is no question the "Bradley" effect is in play, and there is no question that the economy, or business in general, refuses to take any risk until a clear vision is advocated that sets taxes on a long term basis and controls the size and reach of government. All the things that the Obama team wants to use to Social Engineer the civilization and create a Command and Control economy. These are the things the public are really scared about......not the color of his skin like the usefull idiots of the left like Larry, try to make everyone believe.

Bill Fleming

Whatever, Jimi and DuggerSD. I was just responding to Jimi's assertion that Obama is sunk which of course just his opinion. Of course the polls will change come election time, but for now, there isn't a shred of evidence that any GOP candidate has a chance of beating him.

Also hilarious to see you note that the reason polls are showing that Obama will defeat every GOP candidate is because they are all campaigning against each other. In other word, Obama doesn't have to campaign. Those clowns are all so bad they're defeating themselves. Too funny.

Donald Pay


KB has been criticizing Obama for meeting too many real Americans, rather than playing the DC parlor game with Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan. See, this is the meme the rightwing echo chamber decided to crank up when the Tea Party decided to play chicken with the American people. KB is nothing if not a rather lame and consistent part of the echo chamber. In a few weeks (days, maybe) he's going to be apoplectic because Obama is out in Ohio and other states meeting with real Americans. He's going to be wondering why Obama isn't playing footsie with Boehner or McConnell, and is going to be accused of "doing nothing," of "campaigning, not governing." It's all so utterly predictably boring. I can write the next two months of this blog without much effort.


Bill, it is all over. Here is a story that should tell you what is coming. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.5d4866e77b6f7d7b4a432c8d01267956.9a1&show_article=1 Read it and weep.

Bill Fleming

Dugger, that's excellent.

Donald Pay

I can hear KB's keyboard right now. Get ready for "The Man Who Was There To Make Recess Appointments," and lots of mock outrage.

Ken Blanchard

And I can hear Donald punching his excuse app. The President has policies that he wishes to see passed into law. No? To get them passed into law, he has to have the cooperation of the House and Senate, no? To get them passed, he might have to spend some time actually talking to the leaders of those two houses, no? Am I going too fast for you Donald? Apparently so.

That's what leadership looks like. Refusing to talk to the other side because they're idiots or stubborn or both is what someone does when he is not fit for the job. The President is such a man.

The comments to this entry are closed.