Obama again not leading on the issue. Gang of 8 senators (4 Dems, 4 Republicans) announce their own plan a day before Obama supposedly would unveil his. Now he's not going to offer a plan at all. Most of you know how I feel about it. It's a free country, why not let anyone in who wants to be here? We can move from state to state without papers, why not from country to country? Citizenship is a wholly different thing than being a resident. Whatever process congress decides for becoming a citizen is how it should be. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...n-plan-focuses-on-illegal-immigrants/1872827/
HAHAHA Obama is a few days behind and he's doing a terrible job! Oh Denny, you're ridiculous sometimes.
It's typical, though. When he went out on the road talking up "his" health care plan, he: 1) never offered a plan, 2) talked about thing in "the plan" that never became reality (public option). Or this gem: [video=youtube;6jJvkkNmR_8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6jJvkkNmR_8[/video]
He's not really leading on it or "his" health care plan (or Guantanamo or a lot of things, frankly). But in the end this is the kind of legislation his administration will be remembered for. And really, given how much the right in America really despise him, it's probably not a bad idea for him to take a back seat. The last thing a Republican congressman wants to face in a primary is somebody on the right challenging him on following "Obama's [insert topic] Plan." It's a lot easier for that congressman to sign on to legislation that's labeled "a bipartisan plan" that Obama happened to sign (lucked into). In the sausage making that is American politics, leadership and the horse races seems far more hyped than actual results.
I think republicans are in campaign trouble if they support anything resembling amnesty. It did wonders for W's popularity and for McCain's as presidential candidate. On the other hand, if Romney had won the same % of hispanic voters that W did the 2nd time, he'd be president Romney right now. Sorry, mook, but the great society wasn't a gang of 8 plan that came out of congress. It was LBJ taking the lead with a vision. The vision thing is really important in a leader. Sadly it's lacking in this president. If you think I'm right wing and despise him, think again. My gripes with him have been almost exclusively on fiscal matters. In this case, I want him to lead and take it further than just plain amnesty, but to recognize fences not only keep people out but keep people in. I am not alone in thinking Obama doesn't lead well nor go far enough. Plenty on the left feel the same way about him.
I agree, and congress decided decades ago. It would be nice if our President would enforce our laws rather than pick and choose which ones he likes and which ones he ignores.
It was a different era then. Republicans in solidly Republican districts didn't have to worry about fringe right wingers beating them in primaries back then. If I'm a Republican politician wanting to pass meaningful immigration reform, the first thing I tell Democrats is to make sure Obama keeps quiet. If he's in front, it will fail. Period. Because there's no way that Republican wants to be running against a Tea Partier in the next primary who says he followed Obama's plan. It's heresy. Districts are so badly gerrymandered and the right has gone so far right that the only threat is in the primary. If Obama could pass a bill that magically cures cancer, and if he's the one grabbing headlines, then Republicans would vote against it purely out of self-interest. You may see that as a failing on Obama's part. Whatever. It's the way things are. It's the way things have been for a couple years now. It's the way things will be at least for another election cycle or two. Get used to it.
I don't think you despise him, btw. I understand why you want to see him lead. A lot of us would like to see a world where he could be out in front on this. I'm very far left, but I also understand the basic dynamics of elections right now, and I think Obama does too. A lot on the left (and you, apparently) think he's a bad leader out of laziness or stupidity or timidity or lack of innate leadership quality. You all may be right, but I don't think so. You don't get to where he is being stupid, lazy or timid. Sometimes leadership has to happen behind the scenes. Sometimes you don't get to hog the glory, you don't get your name in the papers. Sometimes you don't do anything but nudge a little here, push a little there, and show up for the photo op. If you look at Obama's history, there's not much evidence of brilliant, headline-grabbing leadership (aside from his famous big picture-type speeches). But those lofty speeches set a theme and maybe get politicians and voters thinking. The rest is kind of up to them. Which is about all America is willing to put up with in presidential leadership. Anything more seems to quickly devolve into demagoguery.
mook W led and bigtime. He got pretty much anything he wanted passed, and with plenty of Democratic votes. It wasn't so different a time. I think you're also misjudging what's extreme right wing. Reagan led and got amnesty for illegal immigrants passed. The bashing of illegal immigrants cost republicans California (GHW Bush won it), and it's been a mainstream republican position since the late 1980s. Not extreme, but mainstream. If you want to classify the position as foolish, I won't disagree.
A good read (the whole interview), mook: http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two? REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
He's an obvious liar. I admire him to some degree for being so blatant about it, yet still having people believe in him. Reminds me of when my 7 year-old tries to lie her way out of something that is obviously known. Obama ran on deficit reduction in 2008, and people bought it. Obama ran on the harms of spending reduction in 2012, and people bought it. He threw out a "tax the rich" straw man to distract people, but the reality is that "plan" does nothing to reduce the deficit nor spending. A skilled liar, and a very good one. Most pathological liars have a tell, but this guy just lies like he's and actor reading a piece of fiction off a sheet of paper to the audience. Er...
inheriting surpluses. post 911. housing bubble. tea party. great recession. don't tell me it's not different.
It's still post 911 (Gitmo still open? Leadership failure.). He did not inherit spending TARP sized spending above the budgeted amounts beyond 2009. There is no excuse for $trillion deficits in 2010 thru the present. Washington Post fact checker agrees: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...9bfbcd0-077e-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html Republicans have notoriously been all for or all against whatever issue. Tea Party didn't change that. Obama turned a Clinton 2000 sized recession into something much worse. Obama's chief of staff said "never let a crisis go to waste" for the obvious reason: lie and scare people so we can recklessly spend whatever we want.
BTW, there were no Clinton Surpluses. You can see from the table here that the national debt increased every year of Clinton's presidency. http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/a/National-Debt-by-Year.htm
