FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
I have to say, this is an obvious slippery slope.
I have to say, this is an obvious slippery slope.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
Putting aside the silliness about equating this to a Castro-type dictatorship, GW Bush DID apply this sort of leadership. In particular he was adept at implementing a policy until the courts told him to stop. Generally given his stubborn nature that was the SCOTUS (not being able to detain American citizens at his whim, forcing GITMO detainees to have legal representation, etc). If Obama is doing something unconstitutional, there is a remedy which is to sue him in federal court. Given the litigious nature of the modern conservative movement (see the Clinton years for example) I'm sure if anybody thought they had a leg to stand on they'd be waiting on the front steps for court to open so that they could get the ball moving. As best I can tell this is perfectly legal whether you agree with the particular President doing it.
Regarding whether this is right or not, or what the Founding Fathers would want, I doubt they would have expected filibusters to be mounted so often. In fact Itch McConnell has launched more than any other minority leader in history. Govt by executive order is a direct result of this, so too bad if conservatives don't like it. Maybe with a little more cooperation Obama wouldn't need to use recess appointments to nominate low level employees to the Treasury for example. You reap what you sow I guess.
Putting aside the silliness about equating this to a Castro-type dictatorship, GW Bush DID apply this sort of leadership. In particular he was adept at implementing a policy until the courts told him to stop. Generally given his stubborn nature that was the SCOTUS (not being able to detain American citizens at his whim, forcing GITMO detainees to have legal representation, etc). If Obama is doing something unconstitutional, there is a remedy which is to sue him in federal court. Given the litigious nature of the modern conservative movement (see the Clinton years for example) I'm sure if anybody thought they had a leg to stand on they'd be waiting on the front steps for court to open so that they could get the ball moving. As best I can tell this is perfectly legal whether you agree with the particular President doing it.
Regarding whether this is right or not, or what the Founding Fathers would want, I doubt they would have expected filibusters to be mounted so often. In fact Itch McConnell has launched more than any other minority leader in history. Govt by executive order is a direct result of this, so too bad if conservatives don't like it. Maybe with a little more cooperation Obama wouldn't need to use recess appointments to nominate low level employees to the Treasury for example. You reap what you sow I guess.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
Rover is right that this doesn't approach a Castro type situation and likely won't soon, but it's also apparent that Rover is fine with it as long as it implements policies he likes. The old saying that "the end justifies the means" is very applicable.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
exactly my point. Why is it so wonderful when Obama does it? I seem to remember you disapproving of the Bush unilateralist approach. Or were you cheering for it then too?
For the ten millionth time, one party is no more noble than the other.
anyway, fashionable as it is to say everything under the sun is "Bush's fault", he's fortunately not in the running. So for the thinking people: is there any reason to think that Romney would have more respect for the constitutional limits on executive power than Obama has shown?
exactly my point. Why is it so wonderful when Obama does it? I seem to remember you disapproving of the Bush unilateralist approach. Or were you cheering for it then too?
For the ten millionth time, one party is no more noble than the other.anyway, fashionable as it is to say everything under the sun is "Bush's fault", he's fortunately not in the running. So for the thinking people: is there any reason to think that Romney would have more respect for the constitutional limits on executive power than Obama has shown?
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
Actually, one party is. You sound like the lamestream media trying to balance everything out even if one side is ridiculous.
Again, there is an easy remedy for this. Take it to court. If the courts say no, and Obama STILL does it then that's a problem. Show me where this has happened? During the Bush admin the Dem senate did not launch nearly as many cloture motions, so you're wrong when saying the parties are the same. They're not. One uses obstructionism far, far more than the other and the facts bear that out (again, look at the cloture motions). This is as plain as the nose on your face so I'm not sure why you're having trouble admitting that. If you want to say "well each side does this" sure...but that's like saying a guy with 10 DUI's on his driving record is the same as somone with one speeding ticket. Yeah they both broke the law but one is far worse than the other.
exactly my point. Why is it so wonderful when Obama does it? I seem to remember you disapproving of the Bush unilateralist approach. Or were you cheering for it then too?
Actually, one party is. You sound like the lamestream media trying to balance everything out even if one side is ridiculous.
Again, there is an easy remedy for this. Take it to court. If the courts say no, and Obama STILL does it then that's a problem. Show me where this has happened? During the Bush admin the Dem senate did not launch nearly as many cloture motions, so you're wrong when saying the parties are the same. They're not. One uses obstructionism far, far more than the other and the facts bear that out (again, look at the cloture motions). This is as plain as the nose on your face so I'm not sure why you're having trouble admitting that. If you want to say "well each side does this" sure...but that's like saying a guy with 10 DUI's on his driving record is the same as somone with one speeding ticket. Yeah they both broke the law but one is far worse than the other.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
Thinking people? That would require folks like Rover to go beyond spouting the party line. That's got long odds written all over it.exactly my point. Why is it so wonderful when Obama does it? I seem to remember you disapproving of the Bush unilateralist approach. Or were you cheering for it then too?
anyway, fashionable as it is to say everything under the sun is "Bush's fault", he's fortunately not in the running. So for the thinking people: is there any reason to think that Romney would have more respect for the constitutional limits on executive power than Obama has shown?
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
OK, given that the average Democrat is pure of heart and strives to do good. The average Rupugnican is evil and wants to stomp on puppies. Now does it automatically follow that in 2013 a theoretical President Romney will have less respect for the constitution than President Obama has shown the past 4 years? That's what I was wondering about. I'm already well aware of your party preference.
Or should I just concede that such a metric would be impossible to predict and go with gut emotion (distrust of Romney, in my case) like everyone else?
OK, given that the average Democrat is pure of heart and strives to do good. The average Rupugnican is evil and wants to stomp on puppies. Now does it automatically follow that in 2013 a theoretical President Romney will have less respect for the constitution than President Obama has shown the past 4 years? That's what I was wondering about. I'm already well aware of your party preference.
Or should I just concede that such a metric would be impossible to predict and go with gut emotion (distrust of Romney, in my case) like everyone else?
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
Agreed on this. Executive orders is an area of big concern. Frankly executive orders and politics in the supreme court is the kind of overreach that (along with special interests) is why I put govt disfunction at the top of the list in terms of challenges this country faces. I think the executives order piece is also something that unfort each side is open to using (Romney said he'd use one on day one).
On the deficit...it comes down to spending. The key here is not just how much spending...but where to make the cuts and how the cuts should be made. I'm a fan of A) cuts to the military before cuts to education B) massive reorganization of some of these specifically our military to be for efficient going forward as the nature and purpose for war has changed. I think spending would be a wash...but not sure that Romney is willing to make the hard decisions on the military.
Been trying to wrack my brain as to what are the key concerns of a second Obama term. I guess for me the top concern with a second Obama administration would be a lack of encouragement for business to get out there and export to these massively growing overseas economies. I think this is the top economic opportunity...and one that Romney may or may not drive home in some manner.
exactly my point. Why is it so wonderful when Obama does it? I seem to remember you disapproving of the Bush unilateralist approach. Or were you cheering for it then too?
anyway, fashionable as it is to say everything under the sun is "Bush's fault", he's fortunately not in the running. So for the thinking people: is there any reason to think that Romney would have more respect for the constitutional limits on executive power than Obama has shown?
Agreed on this. Executive orders is an area of big concern. Frankly executive orders and politics in the supreme court is the kind of overreach that (along with special interests) is why I put govt disfunction at the top of the list in terms of challenges this country faces. I think the executives order piece is also something that unfort each side is open to using (Romney said he'd use one on day one).
On the deficit...it comes down to spending. The key here is not just how much spending...but where to make the cuts and how the cuts should be made. I'm a fan of A) cuts to the military before cuts to education B) massive reorganization of some of these specifically our military to be for efficient going forward as the nature and purpose for war has changed. I think spending would be a wash...but not sure that Romney is willing to make the hard decisions on the military.
Been trying to wrack my brain as to what are the key concerns of a second Obama term. I guess for me the top concern with a second Obama administration would be a lack of encouragement for business to get out there and export to these massively growing overseas economies. I think this is the top economic opportunity...and one that Romney may or may not drive home in some manner.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
Parties have no nobility, they're vote-generating machines.
But parties do choose certain narratives, and sometimes they choose really skeevy ones, to appeal to the worst characteristics of people. Insofar as a party makes a habit of this (or not), you can say there a correlation between nobility and affiliation, even if it's brief, and even if it's accidental because the party has arrived at the high (or low) road by calculation and pandering.
Lately the GOP's been in the sewer (and it's paid off for them). It won't last forever, but ignoring it is pure partisan blindness and false equivalence.
Parties have no nobility, they're vote-generating machines.
But parties do choose certain narratives, and sometimes they choose really skeevy ones, to appeal to the worst characteristics of people. Insofar as a party makes a habit of this (or not), you can say there a correlation between nobility and affiliation, even if it's brief, and even if it's accidental because the party has arrived at the high (or low) road by calculation and pandering.
Lately the GOP's been in the sewer (and it's paid off for them). It won't last forever, but ignoring it is pure partisan blindness and false equivalence.
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
I appreciate your ability to see things in black and white, but the problem for the current day GOP, not the days of yore, is that all of the rational ones are being purged out of the party. About 15 years ago a guy like Bill Weld, my former governor, could speak at the GOP convention. Forget about a speaking slot at the convention nowadays, you can't even find a sitting GOP governor with his moderate credentials anymore. Like him they've been kicked out of the GOP. So yes, current Republicans are by and large nutjobs as the reasonable ones either run for the exits (Snowe) or are shown the door (Lugar).
To that end, there would be no need for Romney to govern by executive order because The Boner and Itch will be doing the governing for him. He would be the weakest GOP President since Ford, and weakest of any since Carter. He would spend the first four years signing any legislation that came before him in a bid to avoid a crippling primary from the right (think DeMint or something). This would include unconstitutional measures such as allowing pharmacists to deny birth control for example, re-litigating gay rights issues, and fresh detainees sent to Gitmo, all of which would end up before the SCOTUS. So yes, he would have the same so-called disdain, just without the justification of a Congress openly trying to stop anything from getting done.
I appreciate your ability to see things in black and white, but the problem for the current day GOP, not the days of yore, is that all of the rational ones are being purged out of the party. About 15 years ago a guy like Bill Weld, my former governor, could speak at the GOP convention. Forget about a speaking slot at the convention nowadays, you can't even find a sitting GOP governor with his moderate credentials anymore. Like him they've been kicked out of the GOP. So yes, current Republicans are by and large nutjobs as the reasonable ones either run for the exits (Snowe) or are shown the door (Lugar).
To that end, there would be no need for Romney to govern by executive order because The Boner and Itch will be doing the governing for him. He would be the weakest GOP President since Ford, and weakest of any since Carter. He would spend the first four years signing any legislation that came before him in a bid to avoid a crippling primary from the right (think DeMint or something). This would include unconstitutional measures such as allowing pharmacists to deny birth control for example, re-litigating gay rights issues, and fresh detainees sent to Gitmo, all of which would end up before the SCOTUS. So yes, he would have the same so-called disdain, just without the justification of a Congress openly trying to stop anything from getting done.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
You're far too kind. I'm pretty sure Romney has come right out and said he'll keep military spending at double-war levels, whether it's driving our debt to the moon or not.
I'm not concerned at all about how the feds will "encourage" businesses to invest here or there. We already have too much of this sort of thing going on (see: Government Motors, Solyndra, etc.) and they all end badly. If there's money to be made legally in that area, businesses have already analyzed whether they want in or not.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
I fear you are right with this vision. Romney might actually be a robot created in Koch Laboratories.
There are moderate GOP governors like our own, Rick Snyder, a business exec who decided on a party to run with based on what party needed a candidate. Socially liberal, fiscally commonsense. Of course the recall effort started on day 2.
(It has since been dropped)
My point was that it's a lot easier to be a moderate GOP in a (rust belt) state than in Washington, so it is still possible for governors if not US Senators.
I fear you are right with this vision. Romney might actually be a robot created in Koch Laboratories.
There are moderate GOP governors like our own, Rick Snyder, a business exec who decided on a party to run with based on what party needed a candidate. Socially liberal, fiscally commonsense. Of course the recall effort started on day 2.
(It has since been dropped)My point was that it's a lot easier to be a moderate GOP in a (rust belt) state than in Washington, so it is still possible for governors if not US Senators.
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-...over-mere-24-million-solyndra-networks-ignore
Speaking of Solyndra, it looks like U.S. taxpayers will lose over 95% of their investment in the bankrupt company, while private equity firms, including one with connections to Obama, will only lose 50% of their investment:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-...over-mere-24-million-solyndra-networks-ignore
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
which illustrates the problem with over regulation (however well intentioned). At one point Obama was sending out $10,000 rebates of taxpayer funds to buyers of Chevy Volt, while ignoring the competitors equivalent products... while he and the unions had the main ownership stake in GM. Not sure if this is still going on. But it illustrates why the government should not over regulate by picking companies to endorse.
which illustrates the problem with over regulation (however well intentioned). At one point Obama was sending out $10,000 rebates of taxpayer funds to buyers of Chevy Volt, while ignoring the competitors equivalent products... while he and the unions had the main ownership stake in GM. Not sure if this is still going on. But it illustrates why the government should not over regulate by picking companies to endorse.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
You got me.
Personally I don't see 'govt motors as a failure' but rather a success in terms of saving an industry and accompanying jobs that now looks pretty darn good. Solyndra was bad news...but ownership of environmental technology could well be the next HUGE sector that the US could own. See smog filled pics of major coastal China cities for evidence that this technology will become a need rather than a luxury.
I do see exports as the top economic opportunity...how it gets done, what the govts role is its encouragement, and its effectiveness is another story.
You got me.
Personally I don't see 'govt motors as a failure' but rather a success in terms of saving an industry and accompanying jobs that now looks pretty darn good. Solyndra was bad news...but ownership of environmental technology could well be the next HUGE sector that the US could own. See smog filled pics of major coastal China cities for evidence that this technology will become a need rather than a luxury.
I do see exports as the top economic opportunity...how it gets done, what the govts role is its encouragement, and its effectiveness is another story.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
Alone, it didn't end too badly but there's an enormous moral hazard. When Obama seized the company, he gifted a good part of the ownership to the UAW. The UAW, of course is a major fundraising arm for his re-election so you know exactly where GM's profits are going now. Morally speaking, it's no different than the various Venezuelan industries that prop up whats-is-name.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
Note also that the leading proponents of executive power on the Court were appointed by Republicans. The best security for limited government is divided government, but neither party has shown any compunction about trying to push the branch they control at a given time to obtain their ends. Romney comes out of a corporate environment in which there is no democracy, the Decider in Chief says jump and everybody else says how high. That's not a mentality conducive to preserving Constitutional protections designed to thwart power. Even if Romney had respect for the Constitution, and I don't think there's any compelling reason to believe he does, like all business leaders he would find checks and balances to be inefficient and frustrating.
I think it's mostly a wash. We have come to a pass where neither party (and apparently neither side of the political debate) has much respect for the Constitution when it impedes them, and that's the only time actions matter. The right talks a good game, but it's been decades since they respected a principle of law that opposed their agenda. They've been spun up to believe that anything that goes against them is by definition illegitimate. That's the opposite of rule of law.
The other thing about Romney, touched on below, is his extraordinary weakness. The pressures that will be exerted upon him by his ideologically extreme advisors will be severe, and, just as with Dubya, the man does not have the fortitude to withstand them. We see this already with his Gumby act on the campaign trail. In office he will always be suspected by the far right, and thus he will always be bending over to appease them to void an attack from the right flank in 2016.
Romney's intelligence and defense advisors are drawn from the same ideology as Bush's, so I think the tendency for all other things to be subservient to their ideology would be asserted very strongly (they aren't coy about this; their foundational principle is that the West, Israel, and America face an existential threat so anything they do is justified).
Note also that the leading proponents of executive power on the Court were appointed by Republicans. The best security for limited government is divided government, but neither party has shown any compunction about trying to push the branch they control at a given time to obtain their ends. Romney comes out of a corporate environment in which there is no democracy, the Decider in Chief says jump and everybody else says how high. That's not a mentality conducive to preserving Constitutional protections designed to thwart power. Even if Romney had respect for the Constitution, and I don't think there's any compelling reason to believe he does, like all business leaders he would find checks and balances to be inefficient and frustrating.
I think it's mostly a wash. We have come to a pass where neither party (and apparently neither side of the political debate) has much respect for the Constitution when it impedes them, and that's the only time actions matter. The right talks a good game, but it's been decades since they respected a principle of law that opposed their agenda. They've been spun up to believe that anything that goes against them is by definition illegitimate. That's the opposite of rule of law.
The other thing about Romney, touched on below, is his extraordinary weakness. The pressures that will be exerted upon him by his ideologically extreme advisors will be severe, and, just as with Dubya, the man does not have the fortitude to withstand them. We see this already with his Gumby act on the campaign trail. In office he will always be suspected by the far right, and thus he will always be bending over to appease them to void an attack from the right flank in 2016.
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
Seems like that would have been the same outcome had normal bankruptcy proceedings been allowed to run their course. The "real" problem was the way they re-ordered the legal precedence: bond holders are supposed to be secured creditors, yet the bond holders were screwed and the UAW elevated. Basically, the government did not "have to" inject money into GM. They did not do so in order to save the company, they merely did so in order to protect the UAW.
Seems like that would have been the same outcome had normal bankruptcy proceedings been allowed to run their course. The "real" problem was the way they re-ordered the legal precedence: bond holders are supposed to be secured creditors, yet the bond holders were screwed and the UAW elevated. Basically, the government did not "have to" inject money into GM. They did not do so in order to save the company, they merely did so in order to protect the UAW.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
That's not true and basically a Hannity vomit diatribe. They needed a loan, bankruptcy or not, and there was NO ONE who was going to borrow the money they needed. They would have went under if they had gone through bankruptcy, UAW or no UAW.
That's not true and basically a Hannity vomit diatribe. They needed a loan, bankruptcy or not, and there was NO ONE who was going to borrow the money they needed. They would have went under if they had gone through bankruptcy, UAW or no UAW.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
I don't know that there would be zero difference today. I have yet to see evidence.
Again, I don't know that this was just a gift to the UAW...I (as I'm guessing others here) would need to have much more info to make that call.
Morally, it is a bad thing to totally bail out an organization...even a critical one to millions of jobs. But this was a unique time in generations and the economy and American psyche was extremely fragile at a critical juncture. I can't imagine ever supporting such a move ever again... but I understand it and with the info I have, very much appreciate the move in this particular case.
I don't know that there would be zero difference today. I have yet to see evidence.
Again, I don't know that this was just a gift to the UAW...I (as I'm guessing others here) would need to have much more info to make that call.
Morally, it is a bad thing to totally bail out an organization...even a critical one to millions of jobs. But this was a unique time in generations and the economy and American psyche was extremely fragile at a critical juncture. I can't imagine ever supporting such a move ever again... but I understand it and with the info I have, very much appreciate the move in this particular case.
- Status