Wait, the President can actually do somthing(s) to advance progressive causes

[MadHound]

It has been said here time and again that Obama can't do anything to advance progressive issues without Congress.

The Center for American Progress, and a lot of knowledgeable progressives, think otherwise.

"Concentrating on executive powers presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage. Instead, the administration can focus on the president’s ability to deliver results for the American people on the things that matter most to them:

* Job creation and economic competitiveness
* Educational excellence
* A clean energy future and energy independence
* Quality affordable health care
* Consumer protection
* The home foreclosure crisis
* Accountable government delivering results at lower cost
* Sustainable security for the nation"

<http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/11/executive_orders.html>

I suggest that everybody reads the full report. Then please, please, stop thinking that this President is powerless to do anything. He isn't, he simply chooses to be powerless.

[BzaDem]

1. What's amazing about criticisms of Obama is that Obama is doing much of what is in that report.

Or, to the extent that some of the things in the report can't be implemented until later, he preparing to execute the power the moment he has it.

For example, on the Consumer financial protection bureau, that can't do anything to affect consumer protection until July 2011 (when the agency is officially activated). But he has put Elizabeth Warren in charge of staffing, setting up the agency, transferring other powers to the agency, etc. On top of that, he actually did it in a way that would avoid Senate Confirmation (which would be impossible for Warren). She is already setting up the bureau in a way that minimizes any chances for industry capture under future Presidents. The CFPB is definitely going to be as a huge victory for the middle class once it gets up and running, and they start writing rules.

The problem isn't that he isn't executing the powers that he has. The problem is that a few people will be perpetually unsatisfied with him executing the powers that he has. So much so that they will literally make up new powers and pretend Obama has them, and then criticize him for not executing these made up powers.

[MadHound]

2. Irony, you are doing it right

If you would bother to read the full report, you would find that Obama isn't taking these actions, that is why the CAP published this report.

I suggest you go read the report, see exactly what Obama isn't doing, and what he could be doing, then get back to me.

[BzaDem]

3. Just read the section on consumer protection, and it advises Obama to do exactly what he is already

doing. (It actually doesn't even claim Obama isn't doing what they suggest.)

[MadHound]

5. And what about the other sections?

Repeal of DADT, openness and transparency in government, education, etc. etc. This isn't a report of what Obama is doing, it is a critique of what he could, and should, be doing. That you're trying to claim otherwise, that this is a report of what Obama is already doing simply shows how far out of touch you are.

[BzaDem]

12. Here's what the report said about DADT in a nutshell.

"If Congress does not repeal DADT in 2010, the president and secretary of defense should work with the service secretaries to issue regulations that explicitly retain gay and lesbian servicemembers."

I fully expect Obama will use the stop loss statute if repeal fails in 2010, and I have been saying so for some time. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9553567#9553719 , http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9364829#9366198)

Of course he hasn't yet done this, because that would end any chance of legislative repeal. Stop loss is really not that great of an option. It will temporary stop discharges so long as we continue calling up reserve forces, but as soon as that stops, he'll have to discharge them again. It also won't allow previously discharged soldiers to re-enlist.

So legislative repeal is a much more preferable solution to stop-loss. But as I have been saying, IF repeal doesn't happen in the lame duck, I expect that he might very well start issuing stop loss orders. That is entirely consistent with the report. The report says he should use stop-loss IF repeal fails, not prior to determining whether or not that happens.

I know less about transparency/education policy than other issues, so I'll let others speak to that effect. But on the other two issues that I know more about that you mentioned, the report does not bring up new powers that it suggests he should have used but declined to do so. The report is actually remarkably consistent with what I have been saying about executive power.

[MadHound]

17. Mmm-hmmm sure it is,

As I said before, irony, you're doing it right.

I'll simply let people read the report, then compare it to what you've stated in the past, and let them make a judgment.

But I will point out that this report is on what the president should be doing, not what he has done. But then again, a fifth grader could figure that out.

[BzaDem]

19. With respect to DADT, the report says what he should do IN THE FUTURE. Not what he should have done

in the past. It specifically says its recommendations apply ONLY if repeal fails in the lame duck session. As I'm sure you are aware, unless Obama has a time machine we don't know about, he can't do something "after the lame duck session is over" before the lame duck session is actually over.

I would love people to compare the report to what I've stated in the past. It is entirely consistent, and if they did so they would see through your inaccurate statements about the report.

[MadHound]

25. SHOULD DO, YES THAT IS WHAT I"VE BEEN SAYING!

Geez, light dawns over Rock Mountain.

[BzaDem]

29. Many of its recommendations cannot (or should not, according to the report) be acted upon now.

The report is often about the future, not the present.

[MadHound]

35. And some of it is about the present also.

Good bye, once again all you're wanting to do is get involved in semantic arguments, rather than a serious discussion.

[BzaDem]

38. You are using the report to criticize the president, when the report does not imply that.

That is not semantic at all. That is a fundamental problem with your post.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bettyellen]

45. no you implied he "chooses to be pwerless" and so doesn't do any of this

which is untrue and there IS no other context.

[patrice]

7. The internet is a very convenient place for pretenders. The only way to differentiate them from peop

le who are genuinely involved is to look for authentic balance in their comments. But then, too, perhaps there really is a majority of people who habitually think only in over-simplified terms and are, hence, unaware of it.

[MadHound]

11. And John Podesta is now a pretender?

Hoooo-K there, I suppose that Clinton's Chief of Staff isn't balanced or knows what he is talking about.

[BzaDem]

15. The issue isn't that John Podesta is a pretender. The issue is that you are mischaracterizing the

report.

[MadHound]

18. You are pegging that irony meter time and again in this thread.

Like I said upthread, I'll let the people read the report and let them decide.

But again, let me point out, this is a report of what Obama should be doing, not a report on what he has done.

[BzaDem]

20. "this is a report of what Obama should be doing" You can say that over and over again,

but just because someone says something over and over again doesn't make it true. If someone were to assert the Earth is flat as many times as you have made your statement, the Earth wouldn't all of a sudden become flat.

On Consumer protection and DADT (the two sections I have read so far, one of which YOU brought up), the report does NOT say what Obama should have done. It says what Obama SHOULD DO in the future (after the lame duck session, after July 2011 for the CFPB, etc).

[MadHound]

23. THANK YOU, FINALLY!

Yes, it is a report on what he should do, should be doing, you finally get it, hallelujah.

[BzaDem]

26. I have been saying that throughout this entire thread. YOU are the one claiming it is about what he

"should have done" or "should be doing at this particular moment" (and using that to criticize him).

But in the sections I have read so far, it is not AT ALL about what he "should have done." They only recommend action be taken on their suggestions in the FUTURE (after specific events).

[MadHound]

31. Oh, geez, and there I had some hope for you, nevermind

Please, go back and reread my posts. I've been, like the report itself, been using only the past or future tense.

[BzaDem]

33. "He isn't, he simply chooses to be powerless."

Those are your words, directly from the OP. You are saying Obama chooses to be powerless, because he is not already doing what the report asks.

EVEN THOUGH what the report asks often CAN NOT BE DONE (or should not be done, according to the report) now or in the past. Only in the future, and often after specific dates.

[MadHound]

37. And again you are taking statements out of context

And simply playing semantic games. Goodbye.

[patrice]

47. The issue is that all kinds of pretenders come on here and bitch about the President and don't DO

shit besides.

If you don't GET that he isn't going to do anything for anyone who doesn't do what they CAN for themselves, you're just frakking CLUELESS.

Empty demands are childish!

You MUST earn collaboration or you WILL be treated like a child.

[patrice]

4. Is the President the only one who is responsible for making change happen?

Is there anyone else who is responsible for the changes we need? What are they doing?

We're operating at a deficit, with a big national debt, is he supposed to do something for nothing? What will happen once he leaves office if he does do something for nothing?

[BzaDem]

6. No, but he is (usually) solely responsible for making change happen in the executive branch.

So while I disagree with the OP that he hasn't been making change in the executive branch, he does have this responsibility.

[MadHound]

14. Umm, I think you had better broaden that scope of yours,

The President is actually responsible for making change, or the lack of it, happen in the entire country, not just the executive branch. That is, after all, what Obama ran on. Not to mention that presidents have been making change, or the lack of it, happen in this country since it began.

[BzaDem]

16. No, actually, he isn't. Just because presidents have made change in the past with different Congress

does not mean that Obama is responsible for the failures of the current Congress to cooperate.

Just because some people know so little about our Constitution that they thought Obama was somehow making a commitment to overstep his authority and sideline Congress does not mean that Obama is responsible for not doing so.

Just like Obama would not be responsible for not passing progressive legislation if Republicans held 2-1 majorities in both houses, he is not responsible for failing to pass progressive legislation when there aren't the votes to overcome a filibuster. In today's Senate, 59 votes is about equivalent to 0 votes.

You sound exactly like someone who blames all teachers for the failures of each of their students, even if they didn't cause some of the failures.

[MadHound]

22. Umm, stop reading for speed and start reading for content

The president is responsible for bringing about change, or the lack of it. With or without the cooperation of the Congress. Other presidents have brought about change without the cooperation of Congress because they used the powers of the executive branch. What you are arguing for is exactly what this report is arguing against, namely that the president is helpless without the cooperation of Congress. He isn't, and frankly he needs to start using those executive branch powers of his quick, otherwise we're all going to suffer.

[BzaDem]

24. Bullshit. I specifically AGREED that the President is responsible for using executive power.

You are the one claiming my focus is "too narrow," and that I should also hold the President responsible for non-acts of Congress. That is the part of your argument that is inaccurate (in addition to your inaccurate summary of the report).

[MadHound]

28. No, what I'm disagreeing with you on is that you want to limit the scope

Of the President's ability to effect change to only the executive branch, which is patently false. The president can, and has, bypassed the Congress to effect change throughout the country time and again.

[BzaDem]

30. Maybe we're just confused over definitions? When the President bypasses Congress and does it in a

legal fashion, that is using the executive branch. I absolutely agree he is responsible for whether or not he does that (provided that he does not overstep his authority).

I only disagree that he should be responsible for the legislation that arrives to his desk, regardless of the makeup of Congress. I also disagree that he should be responsible for not overstepping his authority (such as by not defending laws by Congress already upheld by higher courts).

[MadHound]

39. And we're not talking about legislation here, so please stop trying to make this into a discussion

About legislation. This is about Obama using the powers of the executive branch to bring about change. Please stay on topic.

[BzaDem]

41. You are the one that responded to my post DEFENDING you by saying I needed to "broaden my scope."

Please take your own advice about staying on topic.

[xultar]

32. Well then WTF difference does it make if we have a Progressive...

or someone whom we ASSSUME as a fucking progressive in the WH anyway.

what I see here is people making fucking excuses. Excuses. Excuses.

So basically a president can't do shit if they are a progressive. But we bitched and moaned about Biden or Hillary, and the others not being progressive enough.

If progressiveness and following a progressive agenda is something a president can't do then WTF do we care WTF gets in.

[MadHound]

34. Are you sure you responded to the right post?

Because I'm not making excuses for anything, but rather stating what the president could, and should be doing:shrug:

[xultar]

46. I'm sure I didn't I'm trying to be incognegro on DU here @ work sorry.

[BzaDem]

36. Do you understand the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition?

A progressive president is NECESSARY to get progressive legislation. But that does not mean it is SUFFICIENT to get progressive legislation. There are many other factors that must happen to get progressive legislation (or any legislation), many of which are outside the President's control.

A lack of a progressive president means no progressive legislation will be signed. But having a progressive president does NOT imply the converse -- it does not ENSURE that we will get progressive legislation. MANY THINGS have to go right for that to be true. We do not live in a parliamentary system.

[MadHound]

8. Umm yes, he is responsible for making change happen, in fact that is what he ran on.

Yes, there are others who have the same responsibility, but the fact of the matter is that Obama has more power at his disposal to make real change happen than a singular member of Congress.

As far as doing something for nothing, I'm not sure what you're saying there. If you're stating that he should get compensation for doing his job, well he does, $400,000/yr and lots of perks (and a great pension plan even if he does do nothing and is a one term president). Not to mention a lot of these initiatives will either cost nothing, or actually generate jobs and revenue in the long run.

[laughingliberal]

10. +1000 nt

[laughingliberal]

9. K & R nt

[xultar]

13. WTF people. The House could have passed a bill with the PO in it.

But the WH admited that they intentionally made the ike Romney's to get it passed.

The WH could have told Harry Reid to stuff it and vote on a bill with the PO in it and then we'll meddle with the bill to make it a republican bill.

[ProSense]

21. The point of that report is to

show what the President can do over the next two years in the face of Republican obstructionism. It points out that some of the legislative achievements laid the groundwork for further action:

<...>

In addition, the key legislative accomplishments of President Obama’s first two years in office, most notably health care and financial reform, now need to be implemented effectively. Both the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act require hundreds of separate rule- makings and other agency actions to implement the legislative framework.

The public has made clear its disgust with Washington’s ways—the same sentiment that helped to bring President Obama to office. It would be a welcome relief from watching legislative maneuvering to see the work of a strong executive who is managing the business of the country through troubled times, doing more with less, each day working to create a stronger economy and a more effective government.

The Obama administration, of course, is already using the capacity of the presidency to drive change in the public and private sector. For example, it promoted the forma1tion of Skills for America’s Future, a new public-private initiative in support of the president’s goal of 5 million more community college graduates and certificates by 2020. At the recent White House Community College Summit, convened by Dr. Jill Biden, industry, labor unions, community colleges, and other training providers made commitments to help put this initiative into action.

Similarly, President Obama’s recent trip to India provided an opportunity for him to win agreements that will bring significant economic benefits to U.S. firms and American workers. Trade transactions were announced or showcased, exceeding $14.9 billion in total value with $9.5 billion in U.S. export content, supporting an estimated 53,670 U.S. jobs in the production of aircraft, energy generation equipment, advanced machinery, and telecommunications services, among others.

There is much more the president can do. The list below of ideas from the Center for American Progress’s policy experts offers just some of the many possible actions the administration can take using existing authority to move the country forward.

<...>

It just goes to show that it was important to achieve the legislative victories when the window of opportunity was open.

[xultar]

27. WTF...WAIT. Isn't that why everyone wanted Obama in the first place...

because Hillary wasn't a progressive and Biden wasn't progressive enough to advanced progressive causes...
So now people are saying well it is o.k. because a president can't do it anyway?

FUCK ME....WTF!

[ProSense]

40. I don't think that was it.

There were differences. What a President can do has nothing to do with what a President will do.

[Forkboy]

43. "What a President can do has nothing to do with what a President will do. "

You got that right.

[PufPuf23]

44. We need a WPA/CCC/CETA and Job Training Partnership Act type programs

in general.

Seriously, I could list at least a dozen region wide (where I live) green programs that would have short term benefit cost positive and high present net worths. Industries and production to user networks could be started public and privatized rather than the privatization of activities for the general welfare that belong in the public commons.

Most are off the table or out of existence by bureaucracy, cronyism, and institutional bias; not imagined at present because of the corporate and politically polarized nature of the world; and globalization. Niches in the local economies become less economically viable and corporate outlets drag capital out of smaller economies to be concentrated in the financial centers of the world. The result is less production, less demand because of fewer viable jobs or professions, less innovation, decreased local ecologic sustainability, debasement of existing gene pools, greater risk of sector (potentially cascading) collapse, etc.

[madrchsod]

48. we sure do...there`s a lot of us with a lot of experience...

that are sitting around doing nothing.