It shouldn't be surprising that the White House is looking to achieve its domestic agenda by a series of executive orders as has been disclosed in recent days. The idea executive orders represents a nice way of enacting changes that the American people don't want and Congress can't get through.
A few months ago, it looked like nothing could stop Obama from enacting his radical agenda. He had appointed all those "czars" to key positions in the White House and various departments, who would work behind the scenes to do all the dirty work while Obama posed as a moderate. (Clinton did the same thing with his liberal appointments.) Then the public started learning about people like Kevin Jennings, Van Jones and Mark Lloyd-thanks to the blogosphere, talk radio and Fox News-no thanks to the mainstream media. Jones has had to resign. Lloyd and Jennings are still in the administration but under fire.
In addition, the public rose up against the government health care takeover bill and other abuses of big government. The tea parties started, and now the White House knows that it doesn't have public support.
Then that fantastic Democratic advantage in Congress started to chip away. The filibuster-proof majority in the Senate has been lost, and the country is laughing at the feckless Harry Reid and anything that comes out of his mouth. Same for Nancy Pelosi in the House. Democrats right and left are announcing that they are not running for re-election, and voila- the real possibility of a Republican take-back of the Senate is no longer a laughing matter.
Of course, the Republicans have almost a year to screw that up, and they shouldn't take anybody for granted the way they did post-1994. Those active in the Tea Party will be extremely wary of any Republican attempt to usurp the Tea Party movement unless they are prepared to follow their philosophy of smaller governemnt and less spending.
But for now, Obama is reduced to thrashing about in the idea of executive order, and, in the process, increasing charges that he is subverting the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Hello Gary.
I know I've been boycotting your blog for some time now, due to obvious reasons (your complete ignorance, your stubbornness, your constant skirting of tough questions asked of you, etc), but it's a pretty slow day at work today so I decided to stop by and found this gem of a post.
It was just too good to pass up. The shear ignorance and hypocrisy of it all. Let's take a look at the facts, shall we? Go here to see the official government records on the number of executive orders used by each president.
To keep things relatively fair, let's only compare each president's first year in office, since Obama has only been in office for roughly a year. So here are the number of executive orders issued by each President during their first year in office:
Obama: 39
W. Bush: 54
Clinton: 57
Bush: 31
Reagan: 50
So let's see here Gary. George W. Bush signed MORE executive orders during his first year in office than Obama. Yet I can't remember a peep about it from you or your ilk. Or how about conservative idol Ronald Reagan? He had more than Obama, too! I bet you sure were outraged about him, weren't you?
You know Gary, I can't really blame you for not knowing these numbers. That would require you to actually think for yourself and not simply regurgitate whatever it is you heard Rush blathering about on the radio or saw Beck crying (literally) about on Fox News (both of which are NOT part of the mainstream media, despite their thousands or millions of listeners/viewers, of course). It's okay, I understand. I'm just glad I could stop by to help.
Hello Bryan,
Are you having a fousesquawk Jones? I see you covered all the bases. Actually, I pointed out that Obama is floating the idea of using executive orders. You shouldn't rack up the strats before the game is over.
BTW; Since you think I am a homophobe, you might be interested in reading a couple of my recent posts on the subject. One is still on this front page and the other is at
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2010/02/vanderbilt-teacher-says-homosexuality.html
I didn't come here to discuss your homophobia. Any halfway rational person who reads this blog (which is probably limited to Lance and maybe Ingrid) can easily see that you're a homophobe. So there's no need to waste our time with that.
No, what is really interesting is how you can write a blog post like this, be confronted with the facts, with your hypocrisy, and then basically say, "Well let's not jump to conclusions" without a hint of irony or satire.
This entire idiotic post of yours was based off of you jumping to conclusions about Obama possibly using executive orders! How dense can you be?
Dang...I miss Bryan.
Bryan,
First of all, I suspect that you skirted the homophobe issue because like the rest of the politically-correct crowd, you are ready to throw the charge out at anyone who is against gay marriage but don't want to confront Islam's position on homosexuality, a position that is being acted on in places like Iran, where they are being hanged and now even in Europe, where gays are being physically attacked by young Muslim thugs. So you are a hypocrite, Bryan. So you call yourself a defender of gays? Gimme a break! You go on and push for gay marriage, while I speak out against real and deadly violence against these people.
Of course, you don't even want to talk about what is happening right now at your alma mater.
And frankly, Bryan, you are a little bit too personal with your attacks, so as of right now, you are no longer welcome here.
Lance,
You're gonna miss Bryan a lot more because he is finished here.
"I wish I could quit you!"
I thought I'd revisit this to address whether Gary is or is not a homophobe. (The "I wish I could quit you!" line was a reference to Brokeback Mountain and a play on the fact that both Bryan and I have said that we were quitting this blog only to come back.)
Honestly, I don't think that you are, Gary. While I really, really, REALLY can't make any sense of your arguments against gay marriage, and I thought that your reaction against a Harvey Milk Day was a bit knee-jerk, I simply can't put you in the same boat as people who are either openly hostile to gay people, or even the passive-aggressive fundamentalist Christian types who claim that they "love" gays while at the same time comparing them to pedophiles and/or making claims of how they can be "cured".
I would imagine that if you were an employer, you wouldn't even consider a person's sexual preference in the hiring process. Also, I believe your story about the gay guy in your unit (the part about how it didn't matter to you).
Homophobe? I'm not comfortable labeling you with that. Absurdly traditionalist on occasion? Maybe.
Post a Comment