Chris Matthews Show: Is Obama Abdicating Too Much Power to the Hill?
Chris Matthews frames his question for this week's panel around the GOP talking point that President Obama is letting Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Rahm Emanuel run the show and that he's ceding his power to "tax and spend" liberal Democrats. Our favorite little concern troll Erin Burnett tries to say that this is going to hurt Obama because Congress' ratings are so bad. Even Tweety gets forced to call her out for it and reminds her that their ratings are actually going up, not down. Her lame response is that their poll numbers are still lower than Obama's.
Andrew Ross Sorkin tries to say that President Obama has been on the road campaigning for his ideas so much that he isn't actually making any decisions and letting Rahm Emanuel make them for him.
There are a ton of other things that could be picked apart from this segment but here's what gets my goat after watching it. When did we ever hear any criticism of Bush and just who his "brain trust" was? When did we hear any criticism of how the Republicans spent money when they were in charge?
We just went from a guy who spent the first two months of his presidency on vacation and clearing brush at the ranch to one who could potentially be one of the most intelligent and hands-on presidents in the history of the country. As an outside observer, what I see is a President who is highly involved in the decisions that are being made and who knows how to bring in all parties, listen to what they have to say and then makes a decision.
So what do we get from the Villagers? Obama is taking orders from Nancy Pelosi and he's not running anything. Really?
The other thing is I wonder is if any of these people would ever care to remind viewers of something they should have learned in a third grade civics class. We have three co-equal branches of government. President Obama is not ceding anything. He does not write the laws. The Congress does. He can sign them or veto them but he alone cannot get anything done. What in the hell do they think he's supposed to do?
I know we had a President who thought he was some sort of dictator and a compliant Congress willing to rubber stamp anything he wanted, but that's not the case now. We've got a hair-slim majority in the Senate and if President Obama does not work with them, absolutely nothing will get done. Tweety and his panel need to lay off the Republican Kool-Aid.
3 separate but equal branches of government.
Also, someone should have pointed this out to GW and Cheney.
should point it out to a couple of the bloggers here. God knows, Ive tried to.
and you believe the delusions too.
There are NOT three separate but equal branches.
Read Presidential Directive 51 and see who is on top.
has been upheld by the Supreme Court, right?
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
if it hasn't been tested, then its the law.
tell me when someone has standing will ya.
So let's say that Obama rescinds the directive.
At some later point there's a President who is facing something s/he views as a catastrophe, and decides to issue Presidential Directive 63- which contains the same wording as Directive 51- and enforces it immediately. Blame Obama if he's not the President who issued directive 63?
A Presidential Directive that has never been tested is a scrap of paper. You want to prevent any such directive from being tested, get Congress to pass legislation that bars such action.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
You're answering every other comment in about 2 seconds....
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
your argument is hypothetical. we lived under the shadow of 30-minute annihilation from soviet ICBMs and we didn't need this architecture of government.
a tyrannical structure is the same, whether it is left or right.
I was opposed to this when Bush issued it, and I'm opposed to it now.
You are trying to draw me into an argument based on presidential personality. I will not bite.
This is about the law, and what is a blatant disregard for the Constitution.
And this part wasn't theoretical at all:
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Presidential Directive 51 isn't hypothetical. Congress won't do squat about it. Tell me an executive order or PD that they've gotten reversed or undone?
You base your premise on the fantasy that some future or current president won't abuse it.
sorry. I am not willing to risk that.
That says when I get pissed at you, I can punch you in the nose.
Then I decide that's not right, and rescind it with Andy K Directive 2.
Then you start pissing me off again and I issue Andy K Directive 3, which says I can punch you in the nose.
But there's a law that says it is illegal for me to punch you in the nose. If there wasn't, it would be legal for me to punch you in the nose.
The thing is, I can say it and say it and say it, but, until I punch you in the nose, my directives are nothing but talk.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
when you can get Congress to reassert its Constitutional levels of authority and not to defer to the executive branch, and not participate in its coverups,
then you might have a legitimate counter-claim.
but the Congress in the last years has been cowed into doing nearly whatever the executive wants.
and Obama has followed the Shock Doctrine strategy in pushing his legislation.
And while you're at it, criticize Obama and Krugman for being Keynesian in their views, and blame the majority of the Congress for having the same views.
BTW, I see how you're trying to change the subject now. Brilliant!
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
your comment is very telling. I should blame the Congress for accepting a diminuative role right?
but don't blame the President/presidency for grabbing the power?
is that your argument?
?
Back to your original meme- I don't like what's in Directive 51, either. But a simple override by Obama doesn't prevent it from popping up again. That's been my point all along. You are screaming for a half-measure. If you're going to be so fucking shrill, be shrill for the full-measure.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
You called him brilliant. Now that's funny.
I see you are adopting the GOP tactic of name calling rather easily.
without contributing anything substantive to the discussion.
again, a GOP method.
It's not to brilliant to keep running the same argument into the ground.
My theory is absolutely airtight.
You're saying that Obama can rescind Bush's directive. You're proving my point. If Obama can override Bush, any future President- or Obama himself- can override any any past directives.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
your argument is circular, and based on an unconstitutional view.
it depends on the benevolence of a president to rescind the authority of the Presidency over the Congress.
something that shouldn't even be considered.
and most - MOST- of Bush's policies and interpretations have been adopted by Obama.
In case you haven't noticed, or perhaps you've selectively ignored, Obama has been defending key Bush officials, such as Yoo, and Rumsfeld.
But hey, he doesn't allow the use of "enemy combatant" anymore, right?
sometimes you are smart...
this time is not one of them.
disprove my argument.
I can prove mine with citations from MSM and liberal sources.
to undo the machinations of boosh/chainey.
Some stuff you can't make up!
and he doesn't already have the power?
If BushCo can issue the orders by means of Executive Orders,
then by definition,
Obama can over-ride them.
If he really wanted to.
But I think, that Obama, and his handlers, secretly covet them.
and if the Supreme Court upheld this executive order, that would make it right?
not the president strong>The screed of the repubs about 'doing too much' are said and repeated by those that offer NO SOLUTIONS AND NON WORKABLE EDITS!>
.
Of course we all know...
... It's not a political show if it isn't focused from the (R)ushpublickin' POV.
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
Matthews and all are just trying like the republicans, to stay relevant. Chris makes up a question and then everyone talks. Chris asking the question doesn't make the question real, it just gives him something to gab about.
This is kind of like the question, When did you stop beating your wife?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Acting like a Republican isn't a good way to stay relevant.
Tell that to Matthews. By asking this question he's acting like he is the grand master of politics. According to him he knows more about all things politics than god does. He and Joe Scarborough know more than anybody about everything. Or so they say. Big egos looking for attention.
The republicans want attention but all they can get is the bad kind. So what do they do? They fault everything Pres. Obama does hoping something will stick to the wall.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
"Chris makes up a question and then everyone talks. Chris asking the question doesn't make the question real"
____________________
While Chris may ask the question, I doubt that he picks the broader topic. That is done for him by his corporate overlords.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
This is funny folks:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Cheney_Obama_ha...
This coming from a man who helped our country get into a needless war which turned the world against our country. Yeah, Dick you tell us all about safety. A-hole!
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
How this guy is allowed to speak this Kind of Crap ON TV (CNN)Today!
before coffee was ready here at my motel. Felt like walking to 7-11 and getting a six-pack instead.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
PDB
Some stuff you can't make up!
I was surfing CNN and they had a poll. "Do you think Dick Cheney is right......" 29% agreed with Cheney, 71% disagree.
This is not so funny.
How can he be said to have made America "less safe?"
He, Obama, is following most of BushCo policies since he took office.
So he may have "tweaked" some policies, but they are, for the most part, going on as usual.
And I can back that argument up with pages of MSM and so-called Liberal citations.
Let me cite what Cheney Just said:
In his latest scrapping of Bush policies, Obama on Friday dropped the "enemy combatant" designation for terror suspects and vowed to draw on international law for his administration's detention policy at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
"I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11," Cheney insisted. "I think that's a great success story. It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles."
"President Obama campaigned against it all across the country<" Cheney continued. "And now he is making some choices that in my mind will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack."
So what you would do Genius:
Teminate the CIA, The Militar Industrial Complex, AIPAC and Support for Israel, Close down the Federal reserve etc. In other words a Drastic revolution etc IN ONE MOUNTH.?
He don't want to die so soon!
Did you forget that the "Enemy Combatant" label was also for people like you and me?
batteries just freakin' Run Out already??!!!
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
Matthews And The Trollettes. Useless, the lot of them. They serve absolutely no useful purpose. It's unbelievable that they find a sponsor and utterly sad that this is considered valid by the mainstream population.
Some people are just having trouble making the adjustment back to a democratically elected Republic. Relax it'll be OK.
Is this a genuine spelling mistake or as childish as "democrat"?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dem...
better this way.
Yeah, I'm working from memory from this morning, but that was just weird. They might be factually correct, Obama's not making any decisions, Rahm and Nancy are running the whole gov't. But I kept waiting for them to cite any kind of news report or quote or tabloid rumor. "Yeah, we were working on the budget and the President was giving a speech at the Rotary Club, so Rahm made all the decisions."
After watching this segment, I couldn't figure out if there was such a quote I'm not aware of, or if this is just the result of muttering about the water cooler. Or if it's totally made up. That Barack Obama should take an interest in government is not a complaint that would have occurred to me.
Unless I missed it though, he did live up to NBC's ban since Friday on mentioning Jon Stewart.
Obama's "abdicating power?" I think you mean, SHARING power as is CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED.
Jesus, Tweety was apparently so comfy with the dictatorship of the last 8 years, that he's forgotten what an actual Democracy looks like.
Not only is Congress a co-equal branch of government, but the Founders regarded it as "first among equals." They NEVER intended for as much power to be concentrated in the Executive as Cheney and his anti-liberty forces tried to accumulate.
In my opinion, Obama hasn't given back ENOUGH power yet. That BS wiretapping crap is still going on, and needs to stop like YESTERDAY.
Not to mention Presidential Directive 51.
Obama aides shift their rhetoric on economy
Take up theme of sound fundamentals despite bashing idea in campaign
almost sounds like:
John McCain told reporters, “Our economy I think, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times.”
and eerily similar to this:
"I think the system basically is sound, I truly do," Bush said.
There's a giant difference between saying:
"We're going to apply sound fundamentals to an economic system that's been BROKEN by morons who were clueless about economics."
And saying:
"Despite the looming train wreck that's hitting you directly in the pocketbook, we maintain there's no problem, now look away, pay no attention, nothing to see here, and BTW, did you know Obama was a secret Muslim?"
Obama at least has a degree in Economics from Columbia, whereas George Bush never met a business he couldn't drive drunk into a ditch.
Drinking and driving don't mix.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
an important fact, if it made any difference. Obama could have an honours degree in space shuttle technology and it would make no difference, if CONgress controls what bills are introduced and sent to him for signing.
If the president wasn't out talking to us every day, they would whine because he wasn't. If he sounds too gloomy about the economy they complain he's too gloomy. If he sounds like he has hope for the economy they say he shouldn't be so hopeful. They are like staving dogs, they'll try to eat anything they can find.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
That seems to be the MSM's newest motto--rather than helping (Heaven forbid), all they seem to be able to do anymore is nitpick & tear things down. Now, if they behaved the same way during the Bush years, then it'd be expected...but the didn't.
Why is it when we needed the MSM to actually scrutinize an administration, they instead gave'm a pass, and then when we need the MSM to help explain situations to the masses, they do the opposite & simply mouth the opposition's talking points?
These clowns will drive the country right off a cliff as they puff up their own pompous sense of self-importance.
TEAR DOWN THIS WALL, between the administration and "WE THE PEOPLE."
Instead of blaming Matthews for playing the devil's advocate poorly; Heather acts as if "Tweety" has written these talking points himself.
"A pound of FLESH!" one astute Commenter wrote in a previous thread.
Heather.. What is it that gives you such a hard on about Chris Matthews? Instead of analyzing the points in which Obama has control or not, you decide to go after your favorite middle aged man again and again and again.
"Tweety and his panel need to lay off the Republican Kool-Aid."
I often hear the Kool-Aid line from hard line republiscum. Are we any better or different when WE use it?
Devil's Advocate poorly, you said I made you sick called me a shriveled old hag and said I needed to 'RESTRACT my labia' whatever the hell that means. Said I had a black and white view of the world, and a load of other crap that clearly showed you had no understanding of my post, which was in no way lengthy or complex.
SO it's only ok to criticise this bunch when we do it your way, eh Mr 'progressive liberal?'
Tell you what. Start your own gd blog and show us how it's done, oh wise one.
It's fake 'progressive liberals' like you who run around telling others how to express themselves as progressives, and don't follow the rules that they lay down that make me sick.
me-oww!
Well said, Miss Kitty--this pathetic pissant is a sycophantic chump of a cretin wingnut lamely attempting to pass himself off as an actual brain-endowed progressive...but you nailed him, darling!
Bravo! /:-)
tweety is just a fucking idiot
who takes his
ideasordersfrom the gop can of silly putty.
when I read others acting like timmeh ever takes time out from being a fucking hackjob lackey for the repugs. the so-called 'smackdown' against Ari f-liar was actually delivered by Olberman. Tweety let Ari run-on and run-on about boosh. I really don't want to read anymore about tweety being anything but a fucking partisan hack whose 'moments of lucidity' are brief and who may occasionally lapse into 'truthiness'. That's it.
Some stuff you can't make up!
Tweety is not smart and just a GOP follower. President Obama scares all the GOP because they thought once they were finished with Bill Clinton who is educated it was a good run for 8 years with stupidity and Bushisms. Now President Obama is not only educated but wise and Pelosi and Reid were put in check on day one. Rahm knows how to deal with the DC sharks and that's why the GOP was so upset when he was named by Obama. Cramer was just the last nail for CNBC as Santelli brought out what was really going on with CNBC. Tweety will go the way of Tucker Carlson soon because as these idiots drink the GOP kool aide GE is losing big money and China is watching closely.
From time to time Chris tricks us into believing that he is a real news intervierwer, but we need to look at his track record. Mostly, he cares about being in the club. He continually sucks up to the likes of Boehner and Delay and gives them pass after pass. Sure, occasionally he nails an interview with some hard pushback, but only when there is no risk to being disfavored by the boys club. He does not stand on truth, principal or advancement of the country, instead, he pulls out a topic for the day no matter how feeble or tilted away from the truth it might be.
According to the Constitution the bulk of American political power is SUPPOSED to be in Congress.
And when times were good under President Clinton, the repugs tried to spin it as being because of ray gunn, or because THEY were in charge of Congress at the time.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
the Constitution is piece of toilet paper.
used toilet paper.
all three branches of government are corrupt.
"this would be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship."
How can someone run one point into the ground about the centralization of governmental power whilst simultaneously arguing all branches of government, including presumably state and local, are corrupt?
This isn't discussing politics, it's throwing a tantrum.
Now I remember why I typically have TBT on my ignore list.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
showing what Bush did in his first few months to what Obama has done. The differences are stark. It should also let the air out of GOP's tires.
C&L has a vest video collection that would be most useful.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
Comments are closed on this entry