HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So why didn't he do this ...

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:39 PM

 

So why didn't he do this 8 years ago?

or 2 or 4?

72 replies, 3684 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 72 replies Author Time Post
Reply So why didn't he do this 8 years ago? (Original post)
B2G Jan 2016 OP
still_one Jan 2016 #1
randys1 Jan 2016 #3
still_one Jan 2016 #6
H2O Man Jan 2016 #7
randys1 Jan 2016 #10
H2O Man Jan 2016 #13
B2G Jan 2016 #5
YvonneCa Jan 2016 #8
randys1 Jan 2016 #17
YvonneCa Jan 2016 #31
Recursion Jan 2016 #2
B2G Jan 2016 #4
Recursion Jan 2016 #25
MohRokTah Jan 2016 #9
still_one Jan 2016 #20
Orsino Jan 2016 #22
Le Taz Hot Jan 2016 #11
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #34
randome Jan 2016 #51
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #66
world wide wally Jan 2016 #12
yeoman6987 Jan 2016 #33
world wide wally Jan 2016 #35
yeoman6987 Jan 2016 #39
world wide wally Jan 2016 #43
Kingofalldems Jan 2016 #46
liberal from boston Jan 2016 #72
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #36
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2016 #42
hughee99 Jan 2016 #55
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2016 #59
hughee99 Jan 2016 #70
Kingofalldems Jan 2016 #48
ChisolmTrailDem Jan 2016 #14
B2G Jan 2016 #16
ChisolmTrailDem Jan 2016 #19
Hekate Jan 2016 #15
B2G Jan 2016 #18
Hekate Jan 2016 #40
karynnj Jan 2016 #21
LanternWaste Jan 2016 #23
fredamae Jan 2016 #26
lunatica Jan 2016 #24
Recursion Jan 2016 #29
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #37
Eleanors38 Jan 2016 #49
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2016 #58
TM99 Jan 2016 #27
Fumesucker Jan 2016 #47
KittyWampus Jan 2016 #28
steve2470 Jan 2016 #30
snooper2 Jan 2016 #32
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #38
steve2470 Jan 2016 #44
JoePhilly Jan 2016 #54
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2016 #67
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2016 #71
BeyondGeography Jan 2016 #41
LittleBlue Jan 2016 #45
randome Jan 2016 #52
LittleBlue Jan 2016 #62
steve2470 Jan 2016 #53
LittleBlue Jan 2016 #64
MuttLikeMe Jan 2016 #57
LittleBlue Jan 2016 #63
Proud Liberal Dem Jan 2016 #50
JoePhilly Jan 2016 #56
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2016 #61
JoePhilly Jan 2016 #65
FSogol Jan 2016 #68
matt819 Jan 2016 #60
Bucky Jan 2016 #69

Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:40 PM

1. You sound like John King on CNN, its all "Obama's fault".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:43 PM

3. Certain folks will NEVER support Obama. Even though he is one of the most

successful presidents of all time


http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

Given the obstruction one could make an argument for top 3 most effective of all time.

But remember, lots of folks dont like Obama, never have, would not matter AT ALL what he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:45 PM

6. Yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:48 PM

7. Valid point.

Thank you for this.

I think it is extremely important that we contact our elected officials (state & federal) and express our strong support of President Obama on this. (His "opposition" certainly will be actively working to derail his efforts.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:51 PM

10. Even better point, thanks for reminding me, gonna contact my House rep now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:54 PM

13. Thank you!

I hope that all of the good people on this forum do!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:44 PM

5. No, I think it's obvious he wanted this done

 

and more from day one. How is that blaming him?

I'm just asking why it couldn't have been done sooner is all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:49 PM

8. You need to follow Congress...

...on CSpan instead of sound bite/ headline news. Congress and NRA lobby have been blocking every action he proposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YvonneCa (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:56 PM

17. Easier to instantly blame Obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:19 PM

31. It's a trend...

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:42 PM

2. The gun stuff, you mean? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:43 PM

4. Yeah

 

Genuinely curious.

It seems this could have been done a long time ago once it was clear the pukes weren't gonna play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:11 PM

25. I suppose he could have, but none of it is terribly consequential

This is more of a show of intention than anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:50 PM

9. It would have cost too much political capital.

 

Now, with a year left in his administration, he has precisely zero fucks left to give about political capital and can do as he sees fit to benefit the most people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:02 PM

20. That is the political reality. Conservative groups are already grouping to challenge its legality,

and even though it should pass Constitutional muster, it would be distorted and manipulated for electoral purposes. Look at the ACA as an example. The republicans refused to provide an alternative, or even participate. In fact, many were saying at the time, there was no need for health care reform.

There is no doubt in my mind that if the President brought this up in his first term, the republicans without a doubt would have started the impeach process. Nothing else would have gotten accomplished.

Whether we like it or not, timing is critical in the real world

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:06 PM

22. Clearly.

Mass shootings have begun to be less fine and dandy in the eyes of the populace. There's also the political value of doing things in stages, thus highlighting the inertia and corruption of Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:52 PM

11. It wasn't politically expedient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:28 PM

34. How is it "politically expedient", now? eom.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 05:05 PM

51. Your question went down like one of these.

 


[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 06:13 PM

66. I'm probably on that poster's ignore list ...

 

As,I ask too many questions like that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:53 PM

12. I think he talked about this 2 years ago, and 4 years ago, and 6, and 8

But, yes. He gave Congress too many chances to shoot it down till he was forced to sign an executive action.
But keep in mid that the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive action too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:27 PM

33. In 2009, he had the entire congress

 

I think he could have passed anything quite frankly. Certainly more then his EOs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:29 PM

35. And Republicans would never dream of using the filibuster, would they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:32 PM

39. So what. He still had 60 votes even for a short time

 

Filibuster could have been voted down and passage of gun control law of the land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:45 PM

43. Even if it wasn't his first priority then, it has been for the past 5 years.

That is progress, at least. A whole lot more than I see in most politicians

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 04:36 PM

46. And you would have been against it. So why are you critical

of Obama for not advocating for something you are against?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 07:42 PM

72. Myth of the filibuster proof of Democratic Senate

Paragraph from post below is a perfect summary of myth of the filibuster proof of Democrat Senate: "The claim that Obama ruled like a monarch over Congress for two years ó endlessly intoned as a talking point by Republicans ó is more than just a misremembering of recent history or excited overstatement. Itís a lie.

Itís meant to represent that Obamaís had his chance to try out his ideas, and to obscure and deny the relentless GOP obstructionism and Democratic factionalism heís encountered since Day One.

They seem to figure if they repeat this often enough, youíll believe it."

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:29 PM

36. Not is NOT true.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:43 PM

42. He had a majority for all of 72 days. You think every Democrat would have signed on to gun control..

in 2009? I've got news for you. Democrats have gun humpers as well. To hear Obama's critics tell it, he should have cured all the nation's ills in those 72 days. Of course, you can say anything sitting there at your keyboard smokin' a Pall Mall, but governing is much harder than you make it sound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 05:19 PM

55. If you don't believe he could have gotten it through congress even then,

and I think you're right, then would you agree it's not the republicans fault he can't get it now?

People like to pretend like gun control is a republican vs. Democrat issue, but it's really not. It's a republican and some Dems vs some other Dems issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #55)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 05:30 PM

59. The blue dog caucus has been all but decimated. Joe Manchin remains, but he wasn't there for those

72 days in '09. Even he tried to get some form of gun control, and as you know it died in the Senate. I have no hope that there will ever be any real meaningful gun control as the NRA has a vise like grip on the Congress, and anything this POTUS does will be immediately undone should a Republican take the White House in '16.

I can understand Republicans using that "he had a majority in 2009" talking point, but a well informed "Democrat" knows it to be a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #59)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 07:13 PM

70. What the talking point does is illustrated a flaw in one common argument used by some Dems.

It's not specific to guns, either.

It's not difficult to find Dems who will argue that some piece of legislation isn't passed because of republican obstructionism, but also say that same issue is a top priority (guns, single payer health insurance, environmental legislation, closing Guantanamo, etc...). The idea is, if you point to a period of time where republican obstructionism wasn't an issue and see what the priorities actually were, it's clear that at least one of those two arguments isn't true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 04:43 PM

48. How often do you post this right wing meme?

Seems like every week to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:54 PM

14. Have you been living in the wilderness, or what? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:56 PM

16. Nope, been right here.

 

If it was about politics and not better gun control, then so be it. Although that's a horrible reason for inaction all of these years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:02 PM

19. He's not a dictator. He's spoken of the sames common sense gun regulations several times...

 

...throughout his presidency, and after each and every mass shooting, as well as a few times when the shooting wasn't a massacre.

The difference this time is that we are seeing a leader who, despite having little power to do anything about it without a bill on his desk, has had enough and gave an empassioned speech, fueled by more and more tragedy and the resulting frustration, anger, and heartbreak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:54 PM

15. Congress passes laws. Executive Orders are good only for the term of office of the President...

I think setting up National Parks is the exception to the rule.

President Obama's legacy regarding urgent business he could not get past this GOP-infested Congress is going to be fragile. If the next president is a Democrat, they will let his EOs stand. If the next president is a Republican, well when you hear them on the campaign trail bloviating that they will overturn this or that item on their first day in office, they really can do that with Executive Orders.

The whole reason Obama tried so hard and so long to get Congress to do its damn job is that THEY MAKE THE LAWS. Laws which cannot be overturned by the whim of the next person who becomes president.

If you want a good example of this, google for "Global Gag Order." I'm personally well-acquainted with this one because I am a lifelong supporter of women's health care and Planned Parenthood. This particular issue has been a political football since probably the Reagan years. Republican presidents reinstate in on their first day in office. Democratic presidents banish it on their first day in office. Neither can get it through Congress, so the show goes on. The only people who suffer are women overseas who get pregnant from rape and cannot even be told where to go to get help ("gag order"}. Who cares if their village stones them to death, right? Just look it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:58 PM

18. And THAT is why I don't hold out much hope for this.

 

It won't even be tested in the courts he leaves office.

Which makes 2016 all that more important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:33 PM

40. It will be an excellent start. It is up to us to elect a Dem president and a Dem Congress in 2016.

President Obama will hit the campaign trail sometime this year to help elect the next Democratic president and other Democrats. His own legacy is at stake.

Also, as has been noted elsewhere, he has no more fucks to give.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:06 PM

21. I could give you why not after the bill written after Newtown failed, but not 8 years

It was only after the bill written by 2 Senators with A NRA ratings failed, that it was completely obvious that no legislation could pass.

That is important as legislation is stronger than what he can do through executive action.

Politically, this is a set of great steps -- that might be hard to reverse. The licensing is not even an executive order, but putting together an interpretation of the laws already on the books. Many other points involve working with the industry to do research on various ways to make it harder for someone who does not own the gun to use it. (Here, the real question is whether gun owners will consider this a plus or minus. If it is a plus and there were a way to make the cost very low to add it, then the market alone will support it.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:07 PM

23. Why didn't he reference the victims from Sandy Hook prior to them being victims?

"So why didn't he do this 8 years ago?"

Why didn't he reference the victims from Sandy Hook prior to them being victims?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:11 PM

24. Mass shootings weren't very prevalent 8 years ago

Except in Chicago and in other poor black communities and he'd actually been working on it before he was President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:17 PM

29. What's your basis for claiming that?

Mother Jones has a methodology that shows that "mass shootings", by their definition, have increased in frequency in recent years. That methodology also said there have been 72 mass shootings in the US since 1982 (and 84 in Europe during that same period).

A different definition of mass shootings, which doesn't exclude victims of color, produces much higher numbers of them, but also loses the ability to say they are more common now than before; by that metric (ie, "mass shooting" simply as literally "more than 3 people shot" mass shootings have been declining in frequency for two decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:31 PM

37. Mass shootings weren't very prevalent in Chicago ...

 

and other Black Communities, today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 04:55 PM

49. "Mass shootings" is a recent definition. What is your data prior to this...

 

5 years? 10 years? 20? Is there any data suggesting these shootings "weren't prevalent 8 years ago?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 05:28 PM

58. Nor are they now...

 

...unless you conveniently redefine the term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:14 PM

27. Look behind the obvious.

 

Obama has zero to lose in his last year putting these forward.

They can be turned over in parcel or whole by the next President which is only a year away.

This is an election year. Democrats obsess and are riled up by gun control rhetoric. Hell look at DU the last few days. A significant portion of the posts are about the damned idiots in Oregon with constant fiery speech about white men with guns.

You can lead Democrats with gun control the same way that the GOP leads their voters with 'unborn children'. Planned Parenthood was a gold mine for them like Oregon is for Democrats.

The current front runner has a mixed history with her rhetoric on guns so this will give her cover if she is the choice in the GE.

It is just a big fucking game. And most of us fall for it daily as if it is really going to change our culture. Real change takes decades and real change of a culture which enshrined personal property and the protection of it with force if necessary in the 2nd Amendment will likely never be changed the way most anti-gun idealist hope for.

But it sure plays well on the stage in an election year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 04:40 PM

47. White men with guns will be the last ones a crackdown on guns will effect.

There is a total disconnect between the DU rhetoric surrounding policing and the rhetoric surrounding gun control, as if someone other than the police are going to be enforcing more stringent gun control regulations.

Absolutely guaranteed to get more minorities shot and sent to prison by the same cops and prosecutors shooting them and sending them to prison now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:16 PM

28. The fall-out would've possible hurt the passage of Obamacare etc.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:18 PM

30. better late than never, jesus christ nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:19 PM

32. just to piss you off apparently - Thanks Obama

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:32 PM

38. LOL. eom.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:46 PM

44. well done! :)) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 05:17 PM

54. + 1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 06:21 PM

67. ^^^ THIS ^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 07:20 PM

71. ROFL

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:37 PM

41. And where are my truffle-soaked baby duck's testicles?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:49 PM

45. Because it's 100% posturing

 

When they fail to pass congress or are struck down by courts, he won't be around to feel the sting.

He's the ultimate style over substance president. Legacy and all that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #45)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 05:08 PM

52. You are so clueless.

 

It's posturing to try and make changes for the better? Congress passes the laws, in case you've forgotten that. The President has limited authority to do things on his/her own.

'Posturing'. Pfft!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #52)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 05:55 PM

62. Legacy building won't help anyone

 

These proposals have absolutely nothing to do with the mass shootings he pledged to fight.

Which is why it's 100% posturing. He just doesn't want anyone to say "why didn't he do anything about guns while he was in office?" He can say he did. Although not until he was a lame duck and Republicans controlled congress.

If he was genuinely interested in this, this would have come when we controlled both houses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #45)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 05:10 PM

53. you're so wrong, and at least no matter he's trying to do SOMETHING

He's been trying for years, and Congress keeps blocking him. Yes, he should do nothing. That's the ticket!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Reply #53)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 05:59 PM

64. So the solution is to try desperate EOs 9 months before he's irrelevant

 

None of which will stop crime, all of which have just driven up gun sales and gun stocks. Sounds like a winning strategy. What could go wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #45)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 05:23 PM

57. That's exactly what Fox News said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MuttLikeMe (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 05:57 PM

63. Wouldn't know. I don't watch Faux.

 

Why would you give them ratings by watching? You're just making Roger Ailes rich.

Have some consideration for the rest of us and turn off Murdoch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 05:05 PM

50. You seem to assume that he can get around to everything in a prescribed amount of time

Why don't you just be grateful that he decided to do this *sometime* during his Presidency? It's sort of like Chuck Schumer complaining that President Obama focused too much on health care during his first two years and didn't do x, y, z, etc. instead He's POTUS. He has a ton of obligations and can't get to everything all at once and I'd sure rather him do something right than just slap something together and push it out just for the sake of doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 05:19 PM

56. Why didn't Obama do EVERYTHING 8 years ago!!!!!

Damn Obama ... not doing everything on day one like he was supposed to!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #56)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 05:46 PM

61. Can you believe the ignorance coming from people who claim to be well informed? A favorite talking

point of the rightwing is that "he had a majority in both houses". There are majorities, and then there are veto proof majorities. It's been pointed out time & again that he only had that for "72 days", and yet it's repeated ad nauseum by "informed" people who should know better.


The Myth of the Filibuster-Proof Democratic Senate

September 11, 2012 by Andy Cohen

Republicans have magically, mystically turned 72 days into two full years.

Weíve heard it over and over and over again. Mitch McConnell has gleefully used it as a cudgel. Congressional Republicans typically canít wait to get their mugs on camera to tell America just how inept Congressional Democrats are in order to aid their case that they should be put back in power. After all, Democrats couldnít get anything done even with a 60 vote, filibuster-proof majority in the United States Senate during the first two years of the Obama administration. Democrats had almost complete control of the Congress to go with the newly inaugurated Democrat to take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and they couldnít manage to address the major issues of the day.

It sounds good and it surely gets the far right wing base riled up. But it has very little basis in reality. That hasnít stopped Republicans and their official media apparatus, Fox News, from repeating the nonsense.

Remember that Minnesota Senatorial election in 2008? The one that pitted former SNL writer/cast member and Air America Radio host Al Franken against Republican incumbent Norm Coleman? That race dragged on forever, resulting in several challenges and recounts until the Minnesota Supreme Court finally concluded on June 30th, 2009, that Franken was indeed the winner. Franken wasnít sworn into office until July 7th, 2009, a full six months after the 111th Congress had taken charge.

But even thatís not entirely accurate, and the Dems didnít have a consistent, reliable 58 votes. Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy was terminally ill with a brain tumor, and could only muster up the energy to vote on selected legislation. His presence could not be counted on, and thus his vote in the Senate could not be counted on. During the first year of the Obama presidency, due to his illness Kennedy missed 261 out of a possible 270 votes in the Senate, denying the Democrats the 60th vote necessary to break a filibuster. In March of 2009, he stopped voting altogether. It wasnít until Kennedy passed away in late August, 2009, and an interim successor was named on September 24th, 2009, that the Democrats actually had 60 votes.

And even then the 60 vote supermajority was tenuous at best. At the time, then 91 year old Robert Byrd from West Virginia was in frail health. During the last 6 months of 2009, Byrd missed 128 of a possible 183 votes in the Senate. Byrd passed away on June 28, 2010 at the age of 92.


http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/


Next time you hear someone at DU making that claim, just know that it's a rightwing talking point, that's been adopted by this President's foes, on the left (allegedly) & the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #61)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 06:01 PM

65. Yup ...

... I've been pointing that out here on DU for 6+ years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #61)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 06:35 PM

68. +1, Well said. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 05:39 PM

60. You might have heard of one of the other branches of government

Congress. It's their reponsibility to create and pass legislation on all sorts of things. Gun control would have been one of those things if fully one half of Congress were not bought and paid for, cheaply I might add, by the NRA and gun manufacturers.

When it became painfully clear that Congress would fail to act (see also, Guantanamo Bay), the President took action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 06:57 PM

69. 8 years ago the national opposition party hadn't just invested 7 years of scorched earth politics

Democrats, when they're not in the White House, act like the loyal opposition; they oppose what they can but don't try to derail all legislation. They allow the administration to actually administer the executive branch.

Republicans, when in opposition, do everything possible to ratfuck the process. They're first loyalty is to party, not nation. So the public ends up with a good deal more to be bitter about when Democrats are in power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread