- Apr 20, 2009
velo, thanks for the well-thought and researched reply. but before i read the links you provided, i have a few thoughts.
yes, the president does. legislate means to make and/or enact laws. the president's job as chief executive is to enact laws passed by congress. however, the president does have a role in making laws as well. ruling party policy is directed from the white house. one further broader point; i was using legislate as a synonym for "govern" and obama has definitely governed further to the right than he campaigned.VeloCity said:Why is there reason to believe that? And Obama doesn't legislate, no president does.
the phrase may not exist anymore, but the policies and government actions underpinning GWOT are still very much in force. domestic spying, guantanamo, rendition and so on have not gone. have you been through a US airport recently? security kabuki.Well, let's take "the war on terror", which btw doesn't exist anymore - this guy puts it better than I ever could:
i had heard differently. what is your source for this?Yep, they did. The Bush administration initiated that policy after 9/11, giving both the CIA and the military authority to kill US citizens abroad if there was evidence that they were involved in terrorist activities against the US. They never actually carried it out, though. Course, they couldn't find bin Laden, either.
actually, the president has a lot of power to curtail civil rights, which was enhanced by the yoo/addington memos. first, as chief law enforcer, the president directs which laws will be aggressively pursued and which won't. bradley manning is being illegally detained. state laws permitting marijuana use are being ignored. domestic warrantless wiretapping is still the order of the day. again, have you been in a US airport recently? do the words "pepper spray" mean anything to you? the president's job includes protecting citizens from those abuses. second, the you/addington memos which are still government policy and permit the president to do anything during a time of war. war being defined as anytime troops are abroad.No president has the power to unilaterally "curtail civil rights". This isn't a dictatorship. And exactly what civil rights have been curtailed anyway?
i wasn't taking a position against the bailouts. i am merely stating that he continued bush's policies. faced with the same reality, i believe mcsame would have acted likewise, in spite of how he campaigned, mostly because the policies were already in place from the previous administration.Which any president would've have to do for the good of the country. Had nothing to do with it being Obama; he had no choice.
this is just political cover. he has not fought for the middle class. period. the republicans state their position and he tries to meet it instead of trying to get them to meet him.um, no. That was the Republicans.
Obama has always opposed extending the Bush tax cuts, but if he hadn't extended them, then everyone - not just the rich - would've seen their taxes increased, and a recession is not exactly the best time to be hitting the middle class with increased taxes.
"Mr. Obama, who had long opposed extending the Bush tax cuts for America's highest-earners, has argued he had no choice but to agree to GOP demands to do so in order to avoid a tax increase on the middle class."
it is not obvious, therefore he isn't. results are the only thing that count. what may or may not be in his head is irrelevant. he has governed as a centrist republican and left the middle class to twist in the wind.I agree that it's not always obvious, but Obama really has been quite different from Bush, and would've been even more so if not for the restrictions of a poor economy and hostile, do-nothing Republicans in congress.