The night Barack Obama broke my heart
Barack Obama on Tuesday.
There’s a giant glob of oil in my Kool-Aid.
Like many of the young voters who helped catapult Barack Obama to the White House, I have a growing sense that the President (my President) is hopelessly out of touch, no matter how many twitters, Facebook posts and email newsletters he sends my way. Minutes after the President’s first Oval Office address, like clockwork, I got my pep talk email from Mitch Stewart, Director of Organizing for America, subject line: ”Japhy, will you stand with the President?”
Mitch and I are great friends, even if the relationship is a bit one-sided. Mitch emails me every time the President has a major policy address or is about to pass some major legislation and he reminds me of how awesome Barack Obama is (“The President presented a vision of a future where we as a nation are not held hostage by our dependence on fossil fuels”) and then Mitch asks me if I’ll sign a petition saying, ‘Yes, I think Barack Obama is awesome.’ If I do sign the petition, I’m asked nicely if I’d like to donate to the DNC, which I never do because I’m poor and hate political parties.
But I like Barack Obama. Or, at least I used to.
We Obama supporters get a bad rap from well, most everyone. While it was fashionable for about thirty seconds back in 2008 to be all into ‘hope’ and ‘change’, most folks jumped ship as soon as it became apparent that Obama was not capable of magically transforming the world overnight. Whether it’s the gays (“Taking a reasoned consensus building approach to repealing DADT is homophobia!”), the progressives (“Where’s my reeducation camp for Dubya?”) or independents (“Surprise! We changed our mind!”), the Obama coalition of voters have been surprisingly quick to abandon the President, as he leads the nation through crisis after crisis.
A brown pelican is mired in heavy oil on the beach at East Grand Terre Island.
Then there’s the one group that has been with him from the start and which, for the most part, is still with him: Young voters. No president in recent history has enjoyed such popularity with the 18-29 set and they’ve continued to support the President, even as older Americans have abandoned him.
You could chalk youth support of Obama up to naive delusion, but if you do, you’re probably an old person. Despite the evidence of Justin Bieber and the popularity of the Twilight series, most young Americans are not idiots. We know that changing the course of the country requires sustained attention and effort. It’s young college graduates who are facing the brunt of a failing job market. It’s young men and women who are the ones sent off to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We’re all too aware that we’re the ones who are inheriting a nation whose economic, environmental and energy policies have led to a situation where up to 60,000 barrels of oil are spilling into the Gulf of Mexico everyday.
So naturally, for those who have stuck by him, Obama’s speech on the BP disaster, his first address from the Oval Office, would be a big fucking deal. Here’s a crisis that seems as tailor-made to Obama’s policies as 9/11 was to the hawks that circled above the Bush White House.
The spill, the result of deregulation and our country’s unsustainable addiction to oil, ought to crystallize to the American people what Obama has been saying all along, which is that the role of good government is to assert authority over private enterprise when their actions are so great that they affect the public at large. When your oil or your mortgage-backed security come lapping up at the American people’s front door and threatens to endanger all of us, then we, the people, become shareholders, too.
Here was Obama’s big chance to lay it all out to the American people. Here was the moment for our community-leader-in-chief to roll up his sleeves and tell America, how, we, the people, would get ourselves out of not only this immediate crisis, but lay out a vision for how we could pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and move into a greener, cleaner tomorrow.
Instead, we got an 18-minute litany of toothless platitudes delivered with all the obligatory cheer of a 5th grade book report. If judged by the standard of ‘I have to make a Really Big Speech now because there’s a Really Big Crisis happening’, then I guess Obama’s address was somewhat okay. If you’re judging the President on his command and knowledge of the situations well as his ability to provide a specific course of action as well as the motivation to make it happen, however, then last night’s speech was an absolute failure.
It’s not that we expect Obama to go stand on a pile of oil-soaked dead birds and shout at us via megaphone. Though if there’s one thing the current President might learn from his predecessor, it’s that imagery matters; the most outstanding image of Obama in this crisis has been him eating shrimp on a Alabama dock with advisors.
Still, watching Obama down po-boys is a lot less discomfiting than listening to him say “I want to know why” the Deepwater rig failed and The Mineral Management Service (MMS) was asleep at the wheel in regulating the rig. It’s as outrageous and disingenuous as listening to the oil execs tell Congress that there’s someone else to blame. This President needs to realize that his job is not to observe and consult, but to lead.
At the end of the day, the boss of the MMS is Barack Obama. At the end of the day, the person charged with the safety of America’s people and land is Barack Obama. That role cannot be fulfilled with a panel of experts, nor Nobel prize winners, nor commissions. Put another way, you do not change the world by saying, “I urge the Commission to complete its work as quickly as possible.”
Thick oil in the northern regions of Barataria Bay in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana
The President’s defenders will argue, as they always do, that criticism of their efforts is so much media bloviating. They’ll argue that in the pursuit of good copy, their critics ignore the reality that the reality of the spill is too complicated for a sound bite. Fine, but the administration has had 58 days and counting to get it right and they still haven’t come close.
At some point, hopefully soon, the President needs to take responsibility for the disaster. Last night was his chance to do that, but instead he only distanced himself further, putting the disaster in the hands of BP, government bureaucracies and blue-ribbon panels. Most bizarrely, he asked nothing of us, the American people; even George W. Bush asked us to go shopping after 9-11.
In effect, the President has told those who voted for him, “Thanks for electing me, but from here on in, I’m going to rely on experts.” It’s a puzzling approach for a man who ran on bringing people into the governing process. Obama intoned the dark days of World War II in his speech, but somehow he, like most of D.C., seem oblivious to the fact that despite all the partisanship and bickering, if you call on the American people in a time of crisis, they will respond.
If only someone — anyone — would make the call. We’re waiting.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
All that and I still don’t understand what you want him to do. You don’t want him to worry about getting the optics right, but then you turn around and criticize him for not getting the optics right. You want him to “call on the American people”, but call on them to do what?
Obama’s neither a geophysical engineer nor an energy expert, and neither are you. He’s the nation’s top executive faced with a Congress where the minority party has identified universal obstructionism as the path to political power. You’re a guy who blogs on the internet. I’m a guy who reads it. Out of the three of us, approximately none of us are even remotely qualified to mitigate the nation’s worst environmental disaster or switch our energy economy over to power sources that don’t require oil extraction. And it’s likely that, in the past 30 years, we’ve completely crippled our political system’s ability to respond to crisis in any way but to transfer money to the rich.
We need a lot more than the ridiculous Village bromides you’ve regurgitated above. A lot, lot more. More, it’s likely, than any politician – even a President – can deliver. The President is looking to the experts because it’s expertise we need right now. Maybe you should follow his example. We don’t need a safety blanket and we don’t need Henry V – we need a fucking solution to these incredibly enormous problems.
Well, first off– I like your style. And I think we’re mostly in agreement that the government has been stripped of its ability to respond to crises thanks to deregulation and an ironclad belief in the power of the market.
As to what I’d like Obama to do: At the very least, it would have been nice to hear the President set forth a specific policy agenda to move us off of oil dependency– say, in ten years — and then call on Congress to enact it these policies now.
Hell, I would have taken a strong defense of his stalled climate bill, which he barely mentioned. I would have liked to see the President call for a gas tax that would fund alternative energy initiatives.
I would have liked to see the President call on the American people to make changes in their lifestyles– a line like, “In the long-term, we can solve this long-term crisis by creating a national program that will reward innovation that moves away from oil, but in the short term, we can save billions by investing in public infrastructure and making use of existing systems. Take a bus, car-pool. Make your home more energy efficient. Our resources our precious, not eternal. Energy independence begins in the American home.” This is a nation that rationed towels during World War II. You and I may not be experts, but we are consumers. Now’s the time for us to become smart consumers, to realize our everyday actions have global consequences.
Something like that might have been nice.
In response to another comment. See in context »The problem with your logic on the “energy conservation begins at home” is one crucial issue… Where is the alternative? We have no alternatives for fossil fuels when it comes to travel. Here in Seattle, sure we have the bus system which is horrid, the light rail which doesn’t cover enough ground and taxis which cost an arm and a leg. When you really think about it, we have not had a major scientific break-through in many years. Offer an alternative that is cost efficient and affordable for all and it’ll take off like wildfire. Sure these words are great but without substance to back them up, they are hollow. I also think Obama needs to be tough and quit coddling these corps. So far I see no better than what BUSHCO did for LA during the Katrina fiasco. Before you go off on me let me tell you that I was there when the Valdez hit the rocks and lost tens of thousands of dollars from lack of fish availability. 2000 miles away and three months later we still had to destroy fish because of oil on them. No sir, this disaster is the worst eco disaster in history. The southeastern seaboard has been rendered helpless and uninhabitable for the next 100-200 years and it’s my belief that after BP cleans this up they are not allowed to do business here until the coastline is back to normal.
In response to another comment. See in context »Well, Carter tried the whole “make sacrifices” approach and we know how that turned out for him.
In response to another comment. See in context »I know JC and BO is no JC.
At least Carter had some self respect to go back to. I cringe to think of what the Obama Center may get up to…
In response to another comment. See in context »Loyalty to Obama because he is not one of the “bad guys” is defeatism. There is one word in your stunningly well-written article that is pivotal in this discussion: leadership. Barack Obama is a good man. He is smart as a tree full of owls. He is gifted in many ways. He is a likable and has a pleasant sense of humor. He means well. He is not a leader. This does not mean the opposing party has a better plan of attack. They do not in any way. The absence of leadership ability is not an issue of ideology.
In response to another comment. See in context »I do agree leonkelly! He doesn’t have a leadership charisma, he is sooo flat and lacks inspiration to really takes a charge and do something.
After 60 days of gushing oil, he is taking a walk on the beach looking like some bureaucrat that was snatched from his office against his will.
And all of the time, he is looking SOOOO LOST!
I just hope the whole world will not slip in the the kaos, without meaningful leadership from USA.
I don’t think he likes his job any more, he would like to leave and do something else, he looks like he had enough.
Poor thing, all lost in Oval Office.
In response to another comment. See in context »He doesn’t have a leadership charisma
I’m sorry, are we talking about the same guy? Barack Obama? The guy who electrified the 2004 DNC with his keynote address? The “hope and change” orator who inspired record turnout and was elected by the most votes ever cast for a presidential candidate? The guy who was accused by his opponents, even, as being qualified for the office only by his intense personal charisma?
I think when you say “lacks leadership charisma”, you’re maybe thinking of his opponent, Senator “That-One” McCain.
In response to another comment. See in context »At the very least, it would have been nice to hear the President set forth a specific policy agenda to move us off of oil dependency– say, in ten years — and then call on Congress to enact it these policies now.
And when Congress picks up that call and answers “No”, which would be the inevitable result, what are you going to say?
Are you going to give the President the credit for trying? Or are you going to describe the Senate’s rejection of any constructive action as Obama’s failure of “will”? (As was universal among pundits when it looked like HCR wasn’t going to happen.) He’s the President, not the Green Lantern – there’s no provision in the Constitution for passing legislation just because the executive really, really wants to.
we can save billions by investing in public infrastructure and making use of existing systems. Take a bus, car-pool. Make your home more energy efficient. Our resources our precious, not eternal. Energy independence begins in the American home.
Well, were you asleep for a year or something? We did all that in the stimulus bill. Millions for public transit. Millions for more energy-efficient homes.
Obama’s been calling for energy conservation for three years, now. The response from the punditry was derision. Remember the tire gauges? Why should he expect it to have any greater effect today?
Now’s the time for us to become smart consumers, to realize our everyday actions have global consequences.
Now is the time? Sorry, friend, ten years ago was the time. Where the hell have you been? We’re long past the point where bringing your own grocery bags is going to save the Earth, because while some of us were double-glazing our windows and wearing sweaters in the winter, industry was wasting a hundred times as much energy as we were saving. We’re no longer at the point where changing your light bulbs out is going to do anything; we need rigorous regulation and a heavy tax on carbon use to incentivize alternatives. But we’ve succeeded in structuring the rules of the Senate as to make regulatory action completely impossible.
In response to another comment. See in context »Justin I am amazed myself how is that possible, but Barak Obama is no leader anymore, he is NOT inspiring, he is depressing, flat and without any substance.
Maybe he accomplished his goal to be a President and that is it.
I would love to see Clinton as a president now, he would be down in tne Gulf from day one, scrubbing the oil in rubber suit, for sure. That is leadership, not this Obama sleaze..
In response to another comment. See in context »Barak Obama is no leader anymore, he is NOT inspiring, he is depressing, flat and without any substance.
That is truly the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. No substance? The substance of his first year and a half in office has been the most ambitious and successful of any modern president. The stimulus? Health care reform?
Remember how successful Clinton was at health care reform? Yeah, exactly. Clinton’s good for a photo op but his sole policy legacy was “triangulation” – another word for his systematic capitulation to the right.
And, look, I’m sorry but what the President needs to be doing is not scrubbing oil off a beach. For one thing, he’s not trained to deal with hazardous waste. There are trained, expert personnel for that. Obama’s job is to be the nation’s chief executive, not everybody’s Black Father. His job is to enact an agenda, not solve your daddy issues and coddle your hurt fee-fees. That’s what therapy is for.
In response to another comment. See in context »1. *usually* in general agreement with your level-headed thoughts, just one; but could not disagree more with your reverse carping…
In response to another comment. See in context »2. think japhry’s assessment of the speech, situation, and saint obama’s performance thus far, are spot-on…
3. *FURTHER* -as was apparent to those of us without our koolaid goggles on- saint obama was/is/will be a status quo/power elite toady…
(…in 3-2-1: ‘wait until *next* term!’
uh huh, you betcha! *wink*…)
4. *forget* about some sort of progressive-ish president, administration, executive branch, kongress, judiciary, or *ANYTHING*: they have not risen to the status of law-abiding, fair-minded, justice-seeking citizens !
they have NOT revoked or reversed ANY significant aconstitutional civil liberty horror of the bush/cheney klavern (and before, as far as that goes); IN FACT, have often affirmed or EXPANDED said extra-constitutional practices ! ! !
WTF?
not to k-k-k-konspiracy-bait: but is there a reason *WHY* saint obama and krewe dare not act otherwise ? ? ? (assuming they wished to do so…)
is it the same reason zionists get away with murdering people, anywhere, anytime, for any/no reason ? ? ?
does it have anything to do with certain incidents on nine one one ? ? ?
hmmmm
given that *that* subject is radioactive, i guess such a foolish theory will go untested… i’m sure that is all very natural and all…
i’m -like- so-o-o-o sur-r-r-r-e…
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Since no airplane was available to crash into the rig…..rumor is Obama was seen on the rig planting the explosive that blew it up…Obama’s 911
He had me (heartbroken) at “The Genius Larry Summers is my new Economics Advisor”. You are just the latest to swoon in sorrow. Join us at the Liberal Wallflowers – a new hip dive on the seedy side.
Yes, Larry Summers. That did it for me too.
In response to another comment. See in context »Not surprised that Obozo blew it. He couldn’t lead his way out of a wet paper sack.
Here’s my heartbreak story. Under the Foreign Affairs tab, I emailed thewhitehouse.com to beg the President not to support lifting the ban on commercial whaling. I got a response! It was, “Thank you for your thoughts on the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.”
Mr. Grant,
While I am less than thrilled about what the Obama administration has accomplished so far (which is infinitely more than the Palin-Cain administration would have accomplished). I am very unhappy about how he is handling human rights issues and government transparency. However, his response to the horizontal oil is not one of his great failures. This is why: What the hell can he do about it? I don’t mean what can he do to prevent a future disaster, there plenty he can do about that. I don’t mean what can he do to punish BP for their many misdeeds, there is plenty he can do to about that as well. I mean that there is not a god-damned thing he as President of the United States can do about the actual leak itself. Posturing and sounding righteous is about all he can do right now. Nothing like this has ever happened before. No one has ever blown up an oil drilling platform and broke off the pipe at 1,500 meters of water over 100 km out to sea. No one has done anything even close to this. No one knows what to do – no one.
Should oil companies be drilling gigantic wells in the middle of ocean when they don’t actually know what they are doing? No. Should we be trying harder to transition away from fossil fuels. Sure. Should BP be punished in every way imaginable (that is within the law). Of course. All of that is beside the point. From a strictly mechanical, physical perspective, from a perspective of actually stopping the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, there is quite simply nothing Mr. Obama or the Federal Government can do. It is just that simple.
1. um, NO, it is ‘not that simple’, in many ways, on numerous levels…
In response to another comment. See in context »2. from the most basic fact of just how much oil is leaking out of just how many breaches, is something that has been obscured, fudged, and stymied from day one… IN BP’s OWN (bullshit, lying, at that) safety/response manuals, etc, THEY emphasize the importance of defining how big the leak(s) are, their origin, etc, so that appropriate response levels can be ascertained and mobilized…
the gummint/obama could have CERTAINLY jawboned and/or legally insisted that BP give access to the info/video, etc they had for either gummint experts and/or consultants, etc to analyze…
3. IN SPITE of the mild rebukes recently, the WHOLE gummint response has been to minimize and ameliorate BP’s practices (WHICH ARE ABYSMAL), and just treat it as an act of dog…
he COULD HAVE taken control and/or nationalized BP (or at least credibly threatened to do so) to FORCE THEM to respond all out, settle claims, etc…
4. instead of being forced to lie, the scientists on the research vessel who found the underwater plumes could have been supported…
obama/krewe did that all on their own…
5. he COULD HAVE sent the national guard… oops, guess they are busy elsewhere killing poor brown people we don’t care about…
6. HE could have ACTUALLY -you know, as in REALLY- had a fucking moratorium on this deepwater shit, but that was all a bullshit show, wasn’t it ? yeah, how committed to that were they…
7. he could have supported -if not actually campaigned for ! imagine that !- leahy’s bill which would allow the stupid dead/wounded oil rig workers (*ALREADY* victimized by the unsafe working conditions BP had, *ALREADY* victimized by BP lawyers as they got off the boat from the explosion, *NOW* to be victimized by being renumerated under an antiquated ‘high seas’ law which may allow BP to get away with paying $1000 to some of the dead victims…
yes, you read that correctly: under the ‘high seas’ law (which the platform was, since it was more than 3 miles out *AND* is classified as an ocean-going vessel), BP might be on the hook for a whole $1000 (to cover funeral expenses) for some of the dead…
geez, i guess it *does* pay to run unsafe oil rigs…
8. he *COULD HAVE* done a whole raft of things, from the bully pulpit to legal maneuvers which could improve -if not replace- BP’s miserable performance…
9. i was personally disappointed that a rumor i heard before the speech -that he was going to propose a WPA/CCC type jobs/rebuilding america program- did not even have a ghost of a mention…
yet another missed opportunity for saint obama…
10. were i not to be tired of typing, i could go on with another handful or more of valid reasons to doubt their good intentions, and look squinty-eyed at whatever actions they take…
obamabots, reboot and revert to the last know stable configuration…
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
He’s just so ineffectual. It’s like someone breathed life into the worst characature of a Democrat from the 90’s and made him President. All egg-headed thinking and speaking with no doing and an obsession with preventing any kind of displeasure in anyone, anytime (which, of course, is making everyone hate him). He’s the anti-Bush with the same net result. Where Bush would act without thought, Obama thinks without action.
There’s hundreds of federal employess he could hold accountable. There are dozens of plans of attack he could enumerate. There are limitless creative political action he could take to punish BP and force EPA compliance. He could have aircraft carriers towing oil booms on his command, but instead we get mealy mouthed explanations of terrible complexity and never-ending commisions and consultations.
All this growing frustration, and he still takes no action. Not a single, token firing. No call for volunteers to scrub beaches. No ultimately futile but motivating showcase of American industrial might. Just more speeches.
This is what lost me. Obama is smart, charismatic and nuanced. But he is a complete political moron.
Hello Oria Bjorklund,
You wrote:”Not a single, token firing.” Well actually you are incorrect, the head of the MMS was fired.
You wrote: “No call for volunteers to scrub beaches.” The vast majority of the oil is not on beaches, it is out in the ocean. There are already people cleaning-up the beaches. BP is going to pay for it.
You wrote:”There are limitless creative political action he could take to punish BP and force EPA compliance.” Punishing BP, while important, will stop the leak. The oil rig, the now horizontal Deepwater Horizon is in international waters, beyond the power of the EPA to enforce the Clean Water Act. EPA can only act once the oil enters the “territorial seas” of the US.
In any event this is all beside the point. You can rant and rave all you like, but the point is to stop the leak and there is nothing you, I, or the POTUS can do about it.
In response to another comment. See in context »Also – this oil is hazardous waste by the time it reaches a beach; it’s actually fairly dangerous to clean up. People have to be trained to handle it, because it’ll poison you simply by getting on your exposed skin.
And you’re right, this isn’t like Prince Edward Sound where the ship ran aground near shore; comparatively little of the oil has actually made landfall.
In response to another comment. See in context »He’s just so ineffectual.
Stimulus – passed. Health care reform (his signature campaign issue, and the traditional kryptonite of Democratic presidents) – passed. Lily Ledbetter Act – passed. Gays in the military – about to happen. Global Gag Rule – lifted. Predatory credit cards – regulated.
In a year and a half Obama has amassed a truly unprecedented record of legislative success, but idiots like you think he’s “ineffectual.” I guess it’s true that a black guy has to work twice as hard to be considered half as good. I’m not saying you’re a bald racist, but when suddenly the most successful policy agenda in American history isn’t good enough, you kind of have to wonder what’s different about this guy that accounts for the double standard.
You remind me of the Judean People’s Front guys in “Life of Brian”: “All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”
I mean, just yesterday Obama succeeds in an astounding $20 billion concession from BP – an escrow setup that’s going to prevent BP’s liability for the nation’s greatest economic disaster reduced to chump change after twenty years of litigation – and you morons are complaining that he didn’t invent flying cars during his speech.
There is something truly wrong with you dipshits.
In response to another comment. See in context »Sorry, I’m no racist teabagger, I’m that other breed of American who dares criticize Obama – the disappointed arch-progressive.
He has gotten a few compromised bills passed, but even that is a stretch, as he relied on congress to craft those bills. It is more accurate to say those bills were passed on his watch. He talked a BIG game, and has yet to deliver on 1/10th of his promise.
He won’t use the bully pulpit, he won’t stand and fight the GOP smear machine, he relies on commitees and congress to fight his battles – and when in doubt he does nothing. He refuses to own the dialogue, and in this media-consumed day, that is a terrible failing. He’s ineffectual, so deal with it.
Healthcare was a compromised debacle. I have employer-provided healthcare, which sucks, and I am now forced to keep this terrible excuse for healthcare forever, without real hope for any sane and modern altrernative as enjoyed by every single other modern nation.
The $20 billion concession was a good get, I will concede, but that was after my initial comment.
In response to another comment. See in context »You know I love you to death, Japhy. And have to say, this is well written as always. But I really don’t get what’s got yer knickers in a twist.
OK, you wanted Obama to turn this specific speech into the Rosetta Stone of liberal/progressive governance, wherein he would link the obvious and tangible disaster in the Gulf to the broader evils (and they are evils) of laissez-faire/de-reg/Reganomics bullshit.
But that’s not what such speeches are for. They are intended to address specifics and to focus attention and to “step up.” I think he stepped up – to the specifics.
FDR’s “nothing to fear but fear itself” came at a time when he could have CLEARLY argued that the forced “non alignment/innocent bystander” approach to the growing war in Europe that was FORCED on FDR by the GOP and conservative Dems was directly responsible not only for Pearl Harbor, but for facist advancements around the world. But FDR didn’t use his fireside chats – and that speech specifically – to teach a course on liberal foreign policy/involvment vs. isolationsim. He just addressed the specifics, rallied the people, and braced them for the future, with generalities.
Would I have loved an Obama 45 minute soliloquy on the ridiculousness of conservative governance that got us here? Hell ya. But come on, why the hell would you expect that? And it seems that you did, or else you wouldn’t have had your heart broken.
Broken hearts heal. Let’s judge Obama by the ACTIONS that he takes henceforth to heal the Gulf and this nation’s sick addiction to ever-depleting oil.
I did not support either candidate in the last Presidential election (in fact, I don’t vote so I guess that means I don’t support any candidates, ever), but I enjoyed telling my friends who supported Obama that if he won, he would disappoint them in ways they can’t imagine being possible (which for some reason seemed shocking to them and entirely realistic to me). There are many people who now make excuses for all the promises Obama has broken, so I applaud you for stating that he has broken your heart (personally, I would use less romantic language since we are talking about a guy who you presumably entrusted with something as serious as making society better, which he has failed to do, but I will take the romanticism over excuses any day).
Are you also bothered by the fact that the Iraq War still continues, the war in Afghanistan has been escalated, civil liberties abuses begun under Bush still exist today, etc.?
I have to be honest when I say that supporters of Obama, who continue to support him despite the fact that he has not done what he said he would do, really make me question whether they actually care about the issues they claim to care about. Because if caring about those issues were most important to them, then it should be easy to point out when an individual has failed to do what the supporters wanted (after all, it’s the issues that matter, not the person or personality claiming to enact them). But when supporters spend most of their time defending/supporting someone who didn’t even do what they wanted… it unfortunately starts to question the integrity of those people who supposedly want to make the world a better place.
Are you also bothered by the fact that the Iraq War still continues, the war in Afghanistan has been escalated, civil liberties abuses begun under Bush still exist today, etc.?
Sure. But it seems to me to be pretty obvious that, if Obama couldn’t solve these problems, it’s because they’re unsolvable. Again – we’ve structured our government such that it doesn’t matter who you elect President, the obstructionist agenda of the political minority will always win out. The only way actual governance can happen is if the minority party decides it can, and it turns out that there’s literally zero political advantage to be had in them doing anything but saying “no.”
We were going to close Guantanamo. Where did that stall? The Senate. We were going to have civilian trials for detainees. Where did that stall? The Senate. We were going to draw down in Afghanistan and Iraq. Where did that stall? The Senate.
The problem – literally, the obstacle to every solution to every problem facing the nation – is the Senate, and the unattainable 60-vote supermajority necessary for literally every action.
In response to another comment. See in context »Justin I can’t believe that you really think if Obama is not able to solve something, it is unsolvable?????
Are you serious?
He is just a human being with limitations and less and less real and true qualities to take on problems like Gulf.
I liked and respected Obama and I have recognized his talents, but he did reached his limitations. He is just not working out any more, maybe he is not brave enough to take on GOP or some other “forces” in murky political waters in Washington, i would not know.
He is done some good, but you have to realize that IT IS NOT ENOUGH, he had so much more power in his hands, people on his side and majority in Senate and he still has lots of power but, in my opinion, he is spinning around, not being able to use that power in a right way.
But I guess $20 billion will help you to feel better, I would like to see America ready to act, do something to stop oil, get engaged, but Obama inspired us to sit, watch how oil is taking over the Gulf and ask for more money…
Gotcha ya Daddy Obama, I just hope BP will not go bankrupt just before you foot them with the bill and you end up asking America to go and volunteer in cleaning the Gulf sometime in winter, that would be just tragic!
In response to another comment. See in context »He is done some good, but you have to realize that IT IS NOT ENOUGH, he had so much more power in his hands, people on his side and majority in Senate and he still has lots of power but, in my opinion, he is spinning around, not being able to use that power in a right way.
Please be specific and cite from the constitution the power the President has to have legislation pass cloture in the Senate just because he really, really wants it to.
In response to another comment. See in context »Where in the Constitution does it say the government can pass healthcare reform? Or regulate credit cards? Or pass a stimulus?
We disregard that document for just about everything the government does, so frankly, we might as well just let the President pass legislation without the Senate… because he really wants to, or for any other reason he deems appropriate.
I don’t understand why after everything the government has ever done to disregard the Constitution for the last who knows how many decades, you now bring it up regarding some rule about how to properly pass legislation. Really?
Personally, I have no use for the Constitution (I never signed it and neither did anyone else alive today), but if you bring it up at least be consistent with your argument.
In response to another comment. See in context »Where in the Constitution does it say the government can pass healthcare reform? Or regulate credit cards? Or pass a stimulus?
Article 1, Sections 1 and 8. It’s an amazing document. Why don’t you try reading it sometime?
In response to another comment. See in context »Weak. Very weak.
If according to you Article 1 Section 8 references healthcare, credit cards, and stimulus packages, then I’m not sure why you’re having such a fuss about the President requiring the Senate to pass legislation.
Again, try to be consistent. If you can make up sections in the Constitution pertaining to healthcare, credit cards, and stimulus packages, feel free to advocate what you want when it comes to the method for passing legislation as well (or if you believe that you aren’t making up the aforementioned sections, please feel free to quote them for me).
In response to another comment. See in context »If according to you Article 1 Section 8 references healthcare, credit cards, and stimulus packages
I didn’t say that it referenced those things. But Article 1 Section 8 is the section of the constitution that empowers Congress to pass legislation.
Again – which part of the Constitution empowers the President to override a Senate veto? Which part empowers him to have legislation passed simply because he really really wants it?
In response to another comment. See in context »I can’t figure out if you’re trying to be funny or if we are reading different documents. Article 1 Section 8 does not simply empower Congress to pass legislation (the section would not be as long as it is if your description were correct). Article 1 Section 8 lists a number of very specific things that Congress can do, among them is the ability “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers…” So unless regulating credit card companies, passing stimulus packages, and passing healthcare reform has anything to do with those foregoing powers that were listed prior to that statement (most of which relate to foreign policy and legal issues), they are no where to be found in that document.
Since you support things that are no where to be found in the Constitution (I presume you support them because you will argue that they aren’t prohibited anywhere in the Constitution), I don’t see why it’s a problem for you to support a President passing legislation without the Senate, since that prohibition is no where to be found in the Constitution either.
I am simply recognizing your desire to make up the rules as you go along, and telling you to exercise it as much as you please. Why would you want to hold yourself back unnecessarily?
In response to another comment. See in context »Article 1 Section 8 does not simply empower Congress to pass legislation
Art 1 Sec 1 empowers Congress to pass legislation. Sec 8 defines the circumstances and applications under which it can pass legislation.
So unless regulating credit card companies, passing stimulus packages, and passing healthcare reform has anything to do with those foregoing powers that were listed prior to that statement
Well, it does. Congress can pass “stimulus” – which is just another word for appropriations – under its power of the purse. Congress can regulate credit cards and health insurance because they engage in commerce between states.
All the things you’ve mentioned are well within Congress’s constitutional authority. What’s not within the President’s is the passing of legislation.
So precisely what “powers” do you think he has that he hasn’t used? This is your claim we’re examining, not mine.
“Sec 8 defines the circumstances and applications under which it can pass legislation.”
Right. So I would like you to point out for me under what part of Section 8 do the 3 examples I keep giving, fall under. Since any of those parts that you might pick will have nothing to do with the 3 examples, I want you to then describe what activities the government is not permitted to engage in and tell me why those are prohibited if we could easily throw them under the same sections as the activities you claim are permitted.
“Congress can pass “stimulus” – which is just another word for appropriations – under its power of the purse.”
Stimulus is not appropriations. Find me a historical document that says it is. “Power of the purse” is a cute phrase used with elementary school students, but it is also inapplicable and not found anywhere in the Constitution. You correctly pointed out (this time) what the purpose of Section 8 is. I am now asking you, using your own stated definition, to show me which category those 3 examples fall under.
“Congress can regulate credit cards and health insurance because they engage in commerce between states.”
Is this the big answer to the question I keep asking? So creative. You must be a lawyer. If the government hired contract killers to roam the U.S. and kill people, that too would qualify as commerce between the states, and therefore should also be perfectly fine. This is why I appreciate creative interpretation so much. I just don’t understand why you aren’t exercising yours to its fullest potential.
“All the things you’ve mentioned are well within Congress’s constitutional authority.”
Under your definition, everything is well within the Congress’ constitutional authority because there is not a single activity that does not involve commerce and movement across states (whether it is the final good/service being bought/sold, or an input for that final good/service). It is so ironic to me that you are trying to strictly interpret your loose interpretation. I’m just trying to get you to loosen up to the logical conclusion of your claims (which is that any interpretation works).
“So precisely what “powers” do you think he has that he hasn’t used?”
All the powers that any person could think of, based on your creative interpretation of the Constitution.
I don’t mind whether a person chooses to interpret the Constitution based on what it says, or if a person chooses to pretend it says something that it doesn’t (as long as they’re honest about which one characterizes their statement). What I do mind is when a person claims their policy idea is supported by the Constitution, when that idea has absolutely nothing to do with anything written in the document. If that person would just admit they are playing pretend, then it wouldn’t matter to me. Or that person could say that he believes in X and that he simply doesn’t care what the Constitution says (or doesn’t say) about it. That would be the honest thing to do.
I’m now convinced that you would make a great criminal (if you were one, not saying you are one) because somehow in the court room you would find a way to explain to the judge that robbery and murder are actually entirely permissible, and that he simply didn’t realize that was the case when the law referred to “XYZ.” His dumbfounded expression in response to your statement is pretty much equivalent to my own expression when I read your “Constitutional justification” for my 3 examples.
In response to another comment. See in context »Stimulus is not appropriations.
That’s exactly what it is – Congress using its discretionary budgetary power to purchase things.
So I would like you to point out for me under what part of Section 8 do the 3 examples I keep giving, fall under
I did that already. Discussion isn’t going to be possible with you if you’re unwilling to even read what I’m writing.
Under your definition, everything is well within the Congress’ constitutional authority because there is not a single activity that does not involve commerce and movement across states
There are actually a large number of activities that don’t involve any interstate commerce whatsoever, which is why the interstate commerce clause doesn’t empower Congress to do anything they like. But it’s certainly the case that Congress is empowered to regulate health insurers and credit card companies due to their substantial interstate activity.
All the powers that any person could think of, based on your creative interpretation of the Constitution.
And what are those powers? Please be specific.
I’m now convinced that you would make a great criminal
Well, that’s fair. I’m now convinced you’re the most useless person I have ever met, with the capacity to succeed at absolutely nothing but wasting people’s time.
In response to another comment. See in context »“That’s exactly what it is – Congress using its discretionary budgetary power to purchase things.”
When Congress spends money on war, that is appropriation. It is not stimulus any more than my purchasing toothpaste is stimulus. Stimulus is the idea of stimulating something that presumably needs stimulating. There is no stimulus that takes place under ordinary circumstances. But setting stimulus equal to appropriations is some good loose interpretation, which you are very good at.
“I did that already. Discussion isn’t going to be possible with you if you’re unwilling to even read what I’m writing.”
I wasn’t sure if you “did that already” because your argument was so weak. This is why I asked in my previous post if that was the big answer to my question.
“There are actually a large number of activities that don’t involve any interstate commerce whatsoever, which is why the interstate commerce clause doesn’t empower Congress to do anything they like.”
Like what? Why? Please be explicit. I am not asking what Congress is de facto prohibited from doing here, I’m asking based on your interpretation (healthcare and credit cards are meant to be under the commerce clause) what Congress could possibly be prohibited from doing. Why wasn’t my contract killer example something permissible under the commerce clause? Those contract killers are being paid to cross state boundaries and they presumably need to eat and sleep in different states, all of which is commerce that is taking place across state boundaries. So what’s wrong with it?
“But it’s certainly the case that Congress is empowered to regulate health insurers and credit card companies due to their substantial interstate activity.”
Stating it is so does not prove anything. I have history on my side (Founders claiming the government should do almost nothing, and the revolutionary war fought over the fact that they didn’t like their previous government, which did too much). I’m not sure what you have on your side other than cherry-picking what you think is permissible and what you think is not permissible.
“And what are those powers? Please be specific.”
The President passing legislation without the Senate, would be one example. “After all, it isn’t prohibited in the Constitution and the methodology outlined in the Constitution doesn’t necessarily have to be the only one. Maybe under the commerce clause it could be argued that the economy needs some stimulating which is for the general welfare and so if the Senate won’t allow a stimulus to be passed, the President should just do it without them.” How does that sound?
“I’m now convinced you’re the most useless person I have ever met, with the capacity to succeed at absolutely nothing but wasting people’s time.”
I don’t think it is wasting people’s time to point out your selectivity about interpreting one part of the Constitution to the T, and interpreting another part of it… any which way you like. I just want you to feel comfortable to interpret the whole thing any which way you like so you are consistent in your beliefs.
I still don’t know why you don’t see that you could interpret anything you want out of the Constitution, based on how loosely you are interpreting it now. If you were alive 100 years ago, would you say my 3 examples were permissible? My guess is the societal norms at the time would prevent you from thinking that way. The fact that the Constitution continues to be interpreted differently with every passing day is proof that one could read what one wants out of it as long as enough time passes, despite what the document explicitly says and despite what the people who wrote it said about it. So all I’m saying is just give up the I-want-to-stick-to-the-Constitution-sometimes charade and don’t bother sticking to it at all. It’s sometimes so restrictive and unpleasant anyway, right?
In response to another comment. See in context »It is not stimulus any more than my purchasing toothpaste is stimulus.
But you purchasing toothpaste is stimulus, because your demand for toothpaste stimulates toothpaste manufacturers to put toothpaste factories into production and hire workers to mix and package toothpaste.
During a recession, demand for goods and services drops as consumers “tighten their belts” in response to layoffs and such. As demand drops, employers respond by shutting down production and laying people off. This is the “paradox of thrift”. Under these conditions, the government can forestall depression by replacing some of the lost demand, by buying things.
Spending is stimulus, that’s the entire point – the economy lost more than a trillion dollars of demand for goods and services, and the point of the stimulus is for the government to make up for some of that lost demand by increasing its own demand.
Like what?
Like commerce activities that begin and end within a single state. Like activities that are not commerce.
“Interstate commerce” strikes me as a fairly well-bounded term. Is it just that you have no idea what words in English means? That seems to be your main problem, here.
So what’s wrong with it?
What’s wrong with it, what? I don’t understand your question.
I’m not sure what you have on your side
I have the plain text of the US Constitution, two centuries of legal precedent, the agreement of every court in the land, the agreement of every legal scholar, the United States House and Senate which passed these laws, and the President of the United States of America who signed them into law.
In other words I have the factual position that Congress can legally regulate health insurers and credit card companies, and you’re an insane person who can’t face reality.
I still don’t know why you don’t see that you could interpret anything you want out of the Constitution, based on how loosely you are interpreting it now.
Right, I mean it’s my “loose interpretation” where I interpret “power of the purse” to mean the power to spend money, and “interstate commerce” to mean commerce that happens interstate. Whereas, your “strict interpretation” of the Constitution abjures Congress from using any of the powers specifically delegated it by the Constitution, and empowers the President to do literally all of the things he’s legally prohibited from doing by that same document.
Sure.
If you were alive 100 years ago, would you say my 3 examples were permissible?
There were no such things as credit cards or health insurers 100 years ago, you idiot.
In response to another comment. See in context »“But you purchasing toothpaste is stimulus, because your demand for toothpaste stimulates toothpaste manufacturers to put toothpaste factories into production and hire workers to mix and package toothpaste.”
The issue isn’t what constitutes stimulus, the issue is whether stimulus is an appropriation that the Constitution lists as permissible. Since we agreed that Section 8 lists the permissible appropriations, and you can’t point to stimulus being one of those appropriations, I don’t see how stimulus is an acceptable appropriation. We could argue over the meaning of stimulus, which is a perfectly fine argument, but it has nothing to do with the Constitution. We should be arguing over appropriations, which are explicitly listed in the Constitution.
“Like commerce activities that begin and end within a single state. Like activities that are not commerce.”
The number of commercial activities that begin and end within a single state are close to 0. Even if you think of an example like a local guy who cuts your lawn in exchange for money, that necessarily involves the use of a lawnmower which most likely was made outside the state (and if the lawnmower wasn’t assembled outside the state, then one of the bolts in the lawnmower was). The number of activities that are not commercial are also close to 0. Even telling a child that they need to be in bed by a certain time means that they won’t be awake to watch television or any other number of commercial activities. So practically speaking, there is no restriction to what interstate commerce can regulate, under your definition. I have no problem with the English language, the people who wrote the Constitution were clear on what the wording of the Constitution meant. And regulation of all commercial activity was not one of those meanings.
“What’s wrong with it, what? I don’t understand your question.”
My example of contract killers hired by the government. Under interstate commerce, there is nothing wrong with government creating them and regulating them (the contract killers) if it deems them for the general welfare and they cross state lines (interstate commerce).
“I have the plain text of the US Constitution, two centuries of legal precedent, the agreement of every court in the land, the agreement of every legal scholar, the United States House and Senate which passed these laws, and the President of the United States of America who signed them into law.”
The plain text of the Constitution does not mention a single word about the activities you claim are permissible, so plain text you do not have (unless maybe “post office” is a secret word for healthcare, credit card companies, and stimulus). Agreement of every court in the land is no more convincing than that of the courts of any other country which condone any/every destructive activity that their governments might choose to take part in, whether or not their legal codes say it is fine. Courts are composed of humans so their opinions are no more special than yours or mine. If Congress and the President passing laws is also an example of what supports your view, then I hope you never issued a single constitutional complaint about anything that George The Dumber did when he was President (although something tells me you found at least some of the things he did objectionable on constitutional grounds despite the fact that they might have been properly passed, and I would probably agree with you that they were objectionable except that you can’t be selective about when you want the Constitution to apply and when you don’t want it to apply). But yes, I am taking a guess about how you felt towards George The Dumber.
“Right, I mean it’s my “loose interpretation” where I interpret “power of the purse” to mean the power to spend money, and “interstate commerce” to mean commerce that happens interstate.”
“Power of the purse” is not found in the Constitution. I thought I addressed this as simply a phrase that elementary school students like to use. The definitions you use are not what the writers of the document intended, based on what they wrote. That’s why I keep telling you that your creative interpretation is fine, as long as you label it as such. Why are you so hesitant to admit that you want the Constitution to permit things that the creators of the document never wanted. Those creators have been dead for over 200 years and I promise they won’t get mad at you for scoffing at the Constitution. Just be open about the scoffing rather than looking for anything in there that might support your latest and greatest policy idea.
“Whereas, your “strict interpretation” of the Constitution abjures Congress from using any of the powers specifically delegated it by the Constitution, and empowers the President to do literally all of the things he’s legally prohibited from doing by that same document.”
Not at all. Congress can do all the things listed in Article 1 Section 8. They relate to war, duties, the post office… everything in Section 8! But they can’t do anything not listed in Section 8.
“There were no such things as credit cards or health insurers 100 years ago, you idiot.”
Thank you for clarifying. Your response is actually what I refer to as “historical arrogance” in which technological advances make arrogant people assume that legal documents based on principle (as opposed to technology) are no longer applicable, as if human nature has all of a sudden changed. Credit has existed for centuries, so the invention of credit cards as a means of using credit is nothing special. Similarly, health has been a problem for centuries and 100 years ago not everyone had healthcare, so the idea of everyone having healthcare is nothing special either. My point was that whether policies are legally acceptable has become a product of the social nature of the times, despite the fact that the Constitution was never written as dependent upon the times but rather dependent upon human nature and basic principles. As long as human nature does not change, there is nothing new under the sun. As long as there is nothing new under the sun (remember, believing in this statement requires relinquishing historical arrogance, which is often difficult to do), there exist no special items that the Constitution “forgot” to address or items that require fancy word manipulation/interpretation in order to make them addressable.
100 years from now the courts, legal scholars, and Congress will consider the things you currently believe as permissible (then again they do so already!), in addition to lots of new things (some of which you of all people might even consider unconstitutional right now!). But ironically, it is your current open interpretation that creates the path for future broader interpretations (like those that will come in 100 years), and eventually interpretations that don’t even mention the Constitution at all. I’m just trying to speed up the process of your admitting that you fundamentally believe the Constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean, irrespective of your claims that “clearly” universal healthcare is covered by the Constitution but “clearly” the President passing legislation without the Senate is not.
In response to another comment. See in context »