Obama executive omissions leave some allies angry

Advocates for gay rights, immigration reform want president to go around Congress on their issues the way he has with others
Associated Press
Jan 30, 2014

 

For some White House allies, the long list of executive actions President Barack Obama announced in his State of the Union address was marred by a few glaring omissions.

Gay rights advocates are seething over Obama's refusal to grant employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians working for federal contractors, safeguards they have been seeking for years. And some immigration overhaul supporters were disappointed that he did not act on his own to halt deportations, which have soared during his presidency and angered many Hispanics.

On both issues, White House officials say the place for action is in Congress, where successful legislation would be far more sweeping than the steps the president could take by himself. But work on an employment non-discrimination bill and an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws is stalled on Capitol Hill, leaving advocates perplexed as to why their calls for executive action did not fit into Obama's vow to act "whenever and wherever" Congress will not.

"In the absence of congressional action, an executive order that prohibits discrimination by contractors is a tailor-made solution to the president's expressed aims," said Fred Sainz, vice president of Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay advocacy organization. Sainz said his frustration with the White House's inaction on the issue was "growing by the day."

Ben Monterroso, executive director of the immigration organization Mi Familia Vota, said: "The president said he is going to use executive orders to act where Congress fails, and we expect him to do the same with immigration reform."

The criticism is particularly striking given that it is coming from two constituencies that have reliably supported the president. More than 70 percent of Hispanic voters backed Obama in the 2012 presidential election, and the gay community has consistently praised him for his unprecedented support.

For gay advocates, the frustration that followed the State of the Union was compounded by the fact that the president announced a minimum-wage executive order that in many ways mirrored the action they are seeking. The order raises the minimum hourly pay for new federal contractors from $7.25 to $10.10. Obama cast the move as an opportunity to make at least some progress on the issue while he pushes Congress to pass legislation extending the minimum to all workers.

Gay rights proponents have asked Obama to sign an executive order prohibiting discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. At the same time, they want Congress to pass the broader Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which has the backing of the White House. That measure passed the Senate last year but is stalled in the Republican-led House.

Heather Cronk, co-director of the organizations GetEqual, said Obama's declining to sign the executive order means he is "actively choosing to permit discrimination against LGBT workers."

Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the executive actions the president outlined in Tuesday night's address were not an exhaustive list of his plans for this year. But Carney also cautioned that he was not implying there would be any future action on the LGBT order.

While leading gay rights supporters were largely united in their reactions following the State of the Union, the view among immigration advocates was more fractured.

Some of those seeking an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws fear that unilateral action by the president would upend the fragile legislative maneuvering on Capitol Hill. A Senate-approved bill is languishing in the House, but GOP leaders are currently working on another set of immigration principles to secure the national border and extend legal status to many of the estimated 11 million people already in the U.S. illegally.

But other immigration backers say there is more that Obama can — and should — do immediately, regardless of what's happening on Capitol Hill. Their demands center in particular on deportations, which has hit about 400,000 annually during Obama's presidency, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In 2012, Obama suspended deportations of some of the "Dreamers" — immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children. Advocates, as well as some Democratic lawmakers, want the president to expand that order to cover those children's parents and other immigrant groups.

Lorella Praeli, advocacy and policy director for the group United We Dream, welcomed Obama's renewed call in the State of the Union for passing comprehensive legislation, but she still singled out the president's resistance to take executive action to end more deportations.

"While he's willing to take action singlehandedly on other political issues, he so far refuses to stop deporting people who would be granted legal status and a chance for citizenship under legislation he champions," Praeli said in a statement.

The White House argues that not only would such unilateral action destabilize the debate on Capitol Hill but it also could be difficult to legally defend.

Comments

There you go again

Oh no, you mean Obama has disappointed another group (or two) with his broken promises? Say it ain't so!!!

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

Homosexuality is learned and can be unlearned, it simply is a choice.

Race and gender are not optional lifestyles, unlike homosexuality.

deertracker

I disagree! Certain sexual behaviors are learned but I don't think preference is learned. I choose to be heterosexual because I prefer women. That's just the way I was born. Race can be manipulated by who you choose to procreate with but gender is what it is.

Dr. Information

so deer, what about the person who was married, has children of her own, then later divorces for another woman? Oh let me guess, gay evolution?

deertracker

I can only speculate but perhaps due to the fact that being gay was/is unacceptable, she chose a life that was more socially acceptable until she could no longer live that lie!

coasterfan

Thinkagain: Republican ideology is learned and can be unlearned. It is simply a choice.

In the case of gay issues, it simply requires that the Republican cast off 1950's era misunderstandings about the causes of homosexuality, and to acknowledge everything we've learned on the topic through the 40 years of scientific study since that time.

Once you actually KNOW the science, you'll realize that homosexuality is not a choice, not an optional lifestyle. It used to be thought that the world was flat, until science proved otherwise. With regard to gay issues, thinkagain is a member of the Flat Earth Society.

Darwin's choice

You're a gay, fathead, democrat cheerleader. But it was an aquired stupidity.
And with all the blowing you're doing to obama, you should know about being gay.....

Darwin's choice

Isn't Larry Davis jealous of you?

rbenn

If gay men don't like women, then why are they attracted to men that act like women?

JudgeMeNot

LOL.

Dr. Information

rbenn, Ive always asked that question and never got a response. Lesbians cannot actually have intercourse with any private parts. So if they have to buy the fake goods to strap on, why not go for the real thing? If they are concerned about boobs, I see many men out there that have man boobs. Same goes with a man. A man cannot have sexual intercourse with another man. Men have no respective counterpart. An anus is for exit only, its to go poop with and thats it. It makes no sense at all and futures the discussion that being gay is more of a choice than something you are born with. I think to many men and women are shot down in life that they turn the other way fearing the past and seeing if liking the same sex is easier.

IslandDweller

This is a ridiculous discussion. Homosexuality is NOT learned and it's NOT a choice. I know science is lost on Republicans, but pick up some books and learn something. Better yet, go talk to some gay people. It's not something they choose. In fact, many of them even tried to live heterosexual lives in order to "fit in," which only led to depression and even physical ailments.

mimi's word

Think Again-So by your statement it could be surmised you learned how to be heterosexual and that could be un learned as well than correct?

44846GWP

Put your horns back in your head, bigot.

ladydye_5

Well you could say RACE is a choice also. If you CHOOSE your partner(of a different race) you could technically CHOOSE the race of your offspring. THINKABOUT THAT!


This should really P*$ $ some people off.

Dr. Information

There he goes again. Stomping over the constitution and congress to push his agenda. A real leader we have here (insert MAJOR sarcasm).

coasterfan

You shouldn't have a problem with it, considering the most recent Republican president completely stomped on the Constitution with his Patriot Act. You are aware that all of the current NSA spying is the direct result of The Patriot Act's 180 degree shift in 200+ years of how we interpreted the 4th Amendment, correct? I chuckle that some conservatives actually blame Obama for something Bush did (they seem to have a penchant for that, don't they?)

Darwin's choice

Troll! People are fed up with the crap you continue to spew! Your boy king is a failure, you can't un-ring the stupid bell your clanging.

rbenn

You really need to look who penned the pre cursor to the patriot act, Mr Joe Biden it was called the omnibus anti terrorism act so dems had a hand in it.

KnuckleDragger

Umm, the patriot act was a legislative act, voted for and passed by Congress. It did not originate from an executive order. Go back to school coaster you need to brush up a little.

JudgeMeNot

toaster likes to spin the facts.

Dr. Information

coaster owned yet again. Can you seriously be any more unintelligent coaster?

grumpy

Re: "
You shouldn't have a problem with it, considering the most recent Republican president completely stomped on the Constitution with his Patriot Act. You are aware that all of the current NSA spying is the direct result of The Patriot Act's 180 degree shift in 200+ years of how we interpreted the 4th Amendment, correct? I chuckle that some conservatives actually blame Obama for something Bush "

I assume you know that the patriot act was reauthorized by a majority dim senate and signedto extend in 2011. The NDAA was also enlarged and extended several times under obama thus further eroding 4th amendment rights.

I chuckle when some progressives actually blame bush for expanding and extending these powers of gov't when ignoring obama for doing the same thing. Does someone else doing a stupid thing make it OK for the next guy to do the same and even expand and extend the stupid thing? As long as they can point and say he did the stupid thing first and we have no choice but to continue to do the stupid thing. I guess when you are shown it is stupid, you feel it should be continued. This is what passes for being smart in a progressive mind. Thanks for being an example of progressive thought process. You even brag about it. How enlightened of you to laugh at extending and expanding stupidity under obama. Is this part of that hopey changey thing you voted for?

The Big Dog's back

pooh, deflect, deflect, deflect. Don't you get tired of that?

grumpy

First he says the the patriot act is stupid and that bush was a fool for getting it passed and signing it. Then he says how smart obama is. Obama expanded and extended it's life as it was written to have an end date. Obama and congress passed and extended the same patriot act, while expanding what and who can be eavesdropped on. In what way is doing so not more stupid than doing it in the first place?

It is worse when you know it was wrong and you vote for it to be strengthened and extended for more years. Yet you want to claim it is bush's fault for making obama and congress pass and expand it. It was bush's fault up till obama and congress passed it the second time. Then it became obama's baby. He could have stopped it, the dims in the Senate could have stopped it and the repubes in the House could have stopped it and been hero's. What did they do? They passed it and obama signed it. They did the same thing bush did, the stupid thing. Obama seems to like many of the same things bush did. Most of those things were the wrong things. Obama the third bush.

Donegan

Didn't you vote for change? For normal people with a brain "He did it first" Is not a valid excuse. I blame Obama for the continued policies which no one liked when Bush wrote them in, You obviously like these policies. Tell us why you do not like Bush again?

The Big Dog's back

You didn't make any noise when the white guy bush did all those things and more.

Donegan

Always with the race thing. Yes i opposed Bush when he was in office, He pushed tons of bad legislation that hurt civil rights. You must have approved of them because you defend the guy who keeps renewing them. Or is that because he is a black guy?

PirateBacker1975

I'd really like to know just what parts of the Constitution he is stomping all over. If he was, I'm sure the Republicans would take it right up to the Supreme Court (which they have tried already!). Face facts, you're wrong and you're in the minority.

By the way, this president has used executive order less than any president in the last 150 years. Another fact that I'm sure you're not hearing on Faux News.

JudgeMeNot

So does that fact prove he is not a failure?

The Big Dog's back

They (right wingnuts) can't cite anything in the Constitution that he has stomped on.

Donegan

He reserves the right to kill citizens without a speedy public trial. Please try again.

Steve P

The unaffordable health care, he keeps changing the requirements that congress passed, ever hear separation of powers, typical fat left loon.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

How about the fact that the Supreme Court ruled against him saying that, for some reason, the president can't decide and declare when Senate is in session. It's almost like they have to do that themselves. But, what does Senate know when walking in the shadow of our Great Leader?

Also, his actions can't be brought before the court until he actually commits the acts. To be fair, it also means the feckless Republicans have to do anything more than simper and whine in their corners. But considering how pitiful a party it is at all let alone as "the opposition party" we may as well have a monarchy.

SamAdams

Never mind what any of us think of discrimination (it's wrong, for WHATEVER reason) or illegal immigration (every last criminalien among them should be deported). The bottom line here isn't the issue but rather the constitutionality.

Our illustrious Dear Leader proclaimed in front of Congress, the country, and the world that he'd bypass Congress if he didn't get his way. That, boys and girls, is effectively treason against the Constitution of the United States itself. By all means, lobby Congress for or against discrimination law expansions. Get on the phone and call your Representatives to tell them amnesty would devastate our economy and that criminals shouldn't profit from their crimes. Let Congress debate, dither, duck, or decide the matter. That's what it's SUPPOSED to do!

For the Executive Branch to usurp the powers of the Legislative Branch is illegal, unconstitutional, and a very, very, VERY bad thing. Disagree because you're TOTALLY with Obama on this one? Fine. Imagine, then, if you can ANOTHER President — one with whom you have serious issues (George W. Bush comes immediately to mind as far as some here are concerned) — who would use and ABUSE the same powers. Suddenly the authority of an absolute autocracy doesn't sound quite so attractive, DOES it...

coasterfan

Apparently, it's not seen as treason, since his predecessors used the same Executive Action to bypass Congress. Actually, Obama has resorted to that option even less than most recent presidents.

I think Obama's point is obvious: Congress ISN'T doing what it's supposed to do. It's not news that they are the most intransigent Congress of all time, passing LESS THAN HALF of the legislation as the "Do Nothing Congress" under Truman.

You are right about Bush. He definitely did a very, very bad thing by lying to the American people about WMDs in order to get Congress and the American people behind him with regards to an unnecessary war in which thousands of Americans died. Obama, on the other hand, is considering policies which actually help Americans.

There's the difference: in one example, our president lied to us and Americans died. In the other, our president is simply attempting to help Americans, and it's pretty obvious that no one is going to die if he gets his way. In the case of the ACA, many Americans lives will be SAVED. So your comparison is weak and inappropriate.

At the end of the day, Obama has tried to play the game through normal channels for FOUR YEARS, but Republicans have ground the process to a halt - even when Obama offered sensible compromises. Please let us know what his other options would be. He is definitely not the problem here...

Darwin's choice

FOOL !

Blowing obama again and again just proves you're gay.

JudgeMeNot

LOL.

mimi's word

Darwin-Could you possibly leave a post that is something other than name calling and attacking others...

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

That would be nice as that behavior does nothing to advance a conversation. As much as I harp on Big Dog for doing the same, it's appropriate to throw my hat into this arena, too. Jabs and clever wit/sarcasm here and there is fine, but ceaseless name-calling is a waste of time and convinces nobody of a position.

The Big Dog's back

Time to polish your halo sappy, oh yee who does no wrong.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Oh I am not a saint by any stretch of the imagination my friend, but I also felt like I was being disingenuous if I only lambasted YOU for posting name-calling and obscene references. I get tired of seeing constant, offensive jabs no matter which "side" posts them. But, thank you for haranguing me in my stepping up to YOUR side and admonishment of a "CONserviTEAtardPUBElickan". Did I spell that correctly? Since I don't really use names like that here I don't think I spelled it correctly.

Sheesh...

Darwin's choice

Don't like them? Tough! Don't read them!

I don't like the daily barrage of trumpeting the failure in the white house by the same three or four here, regardless of the topic!

I'd say the same to you.....

mimi's word

I have ONE TIME called someone out for being a jerk. I also state comments on the site without calling them derogatory names like gay and blowie. Most of the time you do not state ANY point just call names. You also do not leave any point!!! I could care less if you like Mr. Obama, his choices, his administration, his speech, his ideas, HIS ANYTHING!!!! Just state what it has to do with whatever you want to say! But by calling someone a blowie and gay you not only demean yourself but also your whole idea.

Darwin's choice

Screemy mimi...go jump in the lake.

Your shortsided search for posts of mine on this site shows how incredibly shallow you are. I've been posting at large here for years, and feel the need to post an encyclopedia of an answer or comment (hero dude) is ignorant. I can convey what I think in a few short jabs. Since I'm obviously getting to you, their working. And, again, please feel free to ignore my comments, because I surely laugh at yours.

JudgeMeNot

QUIT trying to spin the facts toaster.

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

rbenn

Toaster needs to read HR4655 Iraqi Liberation Act (Clinton era)

The Big Dog's back

So because Dems were misled too, what does that mean judge?

grumpy

Re: "At the end of the day, Obama has tried to play the game through normal channels for FOUR YEARS, but Republicans have ground the process to a halt - even when Obama offered sensible compromises. Please let us know what his other options would be. He is definitely not the problem here..."

You are ,as many biased folks do, forget that dims had a supermajority in the senate, a good majority in the house, for his first 2 years. He brought the repube leaders to the WH and told them we won you lost. After 2 years of such treatment the dims lost the supermajority in the senate, and lost the majority in the house. He has hardly tried to play the game through normal channels as is shown by how obamaScare TAX was puched through. No repubes allowed in writing the final bill, they weren't even allowed in the room, a day to read and understand the 2300+ page bill before a limited 8 hour debate where no amendments are allowed, and rammed through with no repube votes.

Is that how the gov't was designed to "work"? Do you really wonder why they don't wish to pass more bills they don't agree with? There is no reason to pass bills when they are pi$$ poor bills. It is good to NOT pass pi$$ poor bills. Last I checked both houses of congress have held up bills from the opposite house of congress. To say he is not the problem is a joke. He does not even try to pass bills. He makes a suggestion and sits in his office. Clinton and reagan both worked to get bills passed, they talked almost every day to leaders in the opposite party. obama doesn't talk to congressional leaders in opposite party for weeks and months.

The Big Dog's back

pooh, why did the Dems lose the super majority?
"McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

palin's claim that "death panels" were included in the proposed health care legislation was preceded by comments of other conservatives who criticized the same section of the bill.

On July 16, 2009, former lieutenant governor of New York, Betsy McCaughey, a longtime opponent of federal healthcare legislation[3][4] said Section 1233 of HR 3200 was "a vicious assault on elderly people"[5] because it would "absolutely require" Medicare patients to have counseling sessions every five years that would "tell them how to end their life sooner".[6] Conservative talk radio hosts including [7] Rush Limbaugh,[6] Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham repeated McCaughey's claim

grumpy

Re: "pooh, why did the Dems lose the super majority?"

They had a supermajority in the Senate and a majority in the House and could have passed all the wonderful things obama promised when he was running. They needed nothing from the repubes. The repubes had no way they could stop them. What did they do with their unstopable majorities? they told the repubes "we won, you lost" and wasted their time on obamaScare. It took them 2 years to write and pass that and did it on the last day they could have. They could have been passing all the wonderful things obama promised when he was running but they did what? That is why they lost in 2010. They screwed themselves. They could pass whatever legislation they wanted with no repube involved. They didn't, they wasted their opportunity.Much the same as the last time there was a supermajority in the senate, a majority in the house and a president all in the same party. That was under another winner from the dim party... Jimmy Carter. Jimmy has sent several thank you notes to obama the last few years. Obama is taking the sting out of Carters failed presidency.

You want to blame it on radio talk shows whose listeners are mostly in the other party? They couldn't stop the congress from passing whatever they wanted to pass, they needed NO repube to vote with them. They could have passed anything they wanted... all those broken promises that obama made could have been passed and signed into law with no repube involvement, but after they said "we won, you lost" they did what? Took 2 years to write and pass obamaScare and what else? Lost their supermajority in the senate, and their majority in the house. Good job dims. And you blame radio talkers whose listeners are from the minority party? Really? that is sad even from a piddle puppy. Wonderful research you did there. Blame it on pallin and radio talk shows.

The Big Dog's back

Any Senator can block legislation.

anthras

coasterfan says : You are right about Bush. He definitely did a very, very bad thing by lying to the American people about WMDs. Are you saying that Bush lied but no Democrats did ?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Quoted on CNN

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." — President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Quoted on CNN

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." — Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio — from USIA

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." — Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998

Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall Meeting in Columbus, Ohio — From USIA

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." — Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D — MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

See letter to Clinton by Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." — Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Statement by Rep. Nancy Pelosi — House of Representatives website

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Answer to a question at the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." — Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

Letter to President George W. Bush signed by 9 Congressmen, including Democrats Harold Ford, Jr., Joseph Lieberman, and Benjamin Gilman.

" We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002

Online with Jim Lehrer — Public Broadcasting Service

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Transcript of Gore's speech, printed in USA Today

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Transcript of Gore's speech, printed in USA Today

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

U.S. Senate — Ted Kennedy

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

Congressional Record — Robert Byrd

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." —Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

Congressional Record — Sen. John F. Kerry

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. Jay Rockefeller

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Rep. Henry Waxman

"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. Hillary Clinton

"The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

"Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. Ted Kennedy

"There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He has disregarded United Nations resolutions calling for inspections of his capabilities and research and development programs. His forces regularly fire on American and British jet pilots enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south of his country. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons... — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. Bob Graham

But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families.

"To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ''a defection agency,' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — Sen. Joseph Biden

Congressional Record — Sen. Joseph Biden

"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. John F. Kerry

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

"Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. — Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. John Edwards

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Your presumption that Congress has some kind of threshold or requirement to pass anything or some kind of minimum of laws is upsetting. I'd rather they sit on their thumbs and keep the crap plugged up that could otherwise spew out and roll downhill onto us masses. Your presumption, too, that President Bush acted alone as an executive or as a member of a party in going into war is laughable. Which subject did you teach in your former profession?

My last issue is that you presume that Senator Reid hasn't stymied any kind of legislation in the senate OR that the President hasn't threatened a veto on laws passed up to it. It's convenient that every presumption and ignored mote of history seems to favor only one party, and that kind of entity-bias will forever taint the points that you make.

Until all of us stand up together and demand a better government, we will be forever relegated to wallow in the cess-wake of an ineffectual, incestuous two-party system of losers, abusers, and retreads.

beepx22

All the executive orders will comeback to haunt the dems when another republican or if we're lucky libertarian ends up in office

coasterfan

Not really. As mentioned above, presidents of both parties have used Executive Orders on many occasions. It's disingenuous for Republicans to feign righteous indignation, when they have done the same thing many times.

Even if that weren't true, does anyone actually expect a Republican (much less a Libertarian) to be in the White House anytime soon? I sure don't, as long as the Electoral College is around... And with their continued fight against Obamacare, they're apparently going to campaign on removing health care coverage for millions of Americans. That's an interesting philosophy: trying to gain votes by taking life-saving coverage away from the very voters your party needs to attract. Good luck with that. :)

Darwin's choice

Godd job blowmaster! Answer all your own posts, it's the best way to keep your believers....moron.

coasterfan

Meanwhile, the American economy grew 3.2% during the 4th quarter of 2013, slightly above projections by economists. I'm sure we'll still hear continue to hear dire predictions from conservatives, which look increasingly silly in face of continued evidence on all fronts that the economy not only continues to improve, but is improving at a more rapid rate.

Home sales up, new home construction up, auto fuel prices down, home heating fuel prices down, unemployment down (except in Ohio, for some odd reason). It's mostly good news, and sure beats the heck out of where we were in 2008, doesn't it?

JudgeMeNot

Gulp, gulp, gulp. Drink up the 0-juice little 0-bamabot..

Steve P

More people on food stamps than any other time in our history, 51% of all Americans receiving some sort of aide from the Federal government another all time high, both facts from the Congressional Budget Office. Home sales & construction up, yes compared to the weakest home market on our history over the last 6 years. Auto prices down, what are you buying? Gas prices down, again from record highs the last 6 years with the highest sustained prices in our history, it was $1.89 when obbie took office. Home heating fuel prices down, better check again the recent prices are up 20-40% from last winter. Unemployment down, only if you don't count the record number of people no longer looking for work, less Americans working full time median wage jobs today than anytime in the last 20 years. All of this is your good news, sorry when the facts bite you.

The Big Dog's back

Why are they on food stamps steve? Who's on food stamps steve? Do some research steve.

Steve P

Why are many on food stamps, maybe because of the left and their entitlement response to garner votes. Sorry once again sorry to confuse you with logic.

The Big Dog's back

So old white people voted for Obama to get food stamps? Really? White kids who receive most of the food stamps can't vote. So enlighten me.

dontknowmuch

Nice twist of the facts. We are paying $1.50 more per gallon for gas than we did on Bush's last day. Home heating fuel is up. It's not all rosy as you proclaim. I am paying more to fuel my car and my house than I did in 2008.

Darwin's choice

Another blowie.....

The Big Dog's back

durwood, is there something wrong with you? Seriously, seek help.

Steve P

piddle pup, never with facts only mindless rants.

The Big Dog's back

Actually that would be you steve. Mindless right wing rants that have no basis.

Steve P

When is the last time you had facts, you always depend on ill rational far left babble.

Darwin's choice

Back on the porch azz licker.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/a...

Remind you of anyone?? Obama is the text book case of failure.
Your cheerleading dog, and people are seeing through the crap!

CAST THE FIRST STONE

What rights should someone get just because they like having relations with someone who has the same x organs. when i go for a interview i dont say oh by the way im not gay. keep it in your own bedroom. I DONT CARE..Having to read this stuff everyday is taking up real news storys. stop it already register and reflector. have a gay page if you want but i dont want this preached to me everyday

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

I chose to be heterosexual when I realized what kind of sexual acts I was going to enjoy.

Show me a study that claims to have proven that homosexual orientation is biological in nature, and I will show you a flawed research design.

For as long as I can remember I have always liked to argue and eat ice cream. Was I born “that way”? The whole concept of free will goes right out the window if you believe all behavior is genetically mandated.

Secretly, you already know that people’s sexual desires are shaped by their social and cultural context.

SamAdams

Re: "I chose to be heterosexual when I realized what kind of sexual acts I was going to enjoy."

Late bloomer, were you? I had no idea what ANY kind of sex was when I decided David Cassidy was awfully cute and that I'd really like to be his girlfriend! (Don't ask what a little elementary school kiddie thought a 20 or 21 year-old man would find remotely interesting about her — but you had better believe that holding hands was as far as my imagination could go at the time!)

In other words, I had ZERO knowledge of sexual acts whether they were those I'd enjoy, or those I'd find repulsive. And yet I never DIDN'T like boys. It ain't a decision. How you LIVE with your sexuality is something everybody chooses. What your sexuality actually IS? Not so much.

deertracker

@thinkagain
How could you know what you would not enjoy if you had not engaged in those acts. You chose to be heterosexual because you prefer women. Technically the act itself is very similar. I do not like peanut butter. What does that really mean? It means I don't like peanut butter but until I tasted it I really did not know even though my siblings loved it. Sex work differently don't you think? Your sexual desire comment makes no sense. When I was a kid my neighbors were gay but I was not and was not influenced by their behavior

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

There is no proof that people are born Homosexual.

Fascinating! Both you and SamAdams, admitting that you believe that something exists, even though there isn’t any physical proof. Who knows, I might just make Christians out you yet.

Our sexual preferences develop, evolve, and grow with us the same way our personalities and likes/dislikes evolve and grow with us.

deertracker

I disagree. There's no proof the devil exists either. No proof immaculate conception happened either. Sexual preferences are not like personalities or develop depending on whether you like broccoli or not. You are born gay or you aren't!

Steve P

EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED:

Teddy Roosevelt: 3
Others Prior To FDR: NONE
FDR: 11 in 16 years
Truman: 5 in 7 years
Ike: 2 in 8 years
JFK: 4 in 3 years
LBJ: 4 in 5 years
Nixon: 1 in 6 years
Ford: 3 in 2 years
Carter: 3 in 4 years
Reagan: 5 in 8 years
Bush 1: 3 in 4 years
Clinton: 15 in 8 years
Bush 2: 62 in 8 years
Obama: 923 in 3+ years!

Dr. Information

Choke on it coaster. Choke on it.

rbenn

the toaster just went kerploooie

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

What should be kept in perspective, too, is that the number of executive orders doesn't equate to what those orders do. While it's an indicator of activity (abusive or not and in this case I'd say more are abusive), the number doesn't necessarily translate to anything in particular. Someone isn't rich because he makes ten deposits of money a day at a bank. What if each of those deposits are a dollar, yet the "poor man" only makes one deposit a day of $1,000.

I can say though that all those trips to the bank (so to speak) are a waste of energy and has people wonder why this eccentric person is doing this habitual and unnecessary behavior.

Dr. Information

My question is, in 5 years what the heck has the 1st lady done. I can think of many great things first ladies have stood for in the past. What is Michelle's? Getting pissed off at a funeral ceremony and getting between her flirting husband and another woman?

Steve P

She leads all first ladies on lavish government funded vacations.

The Big Dog's back

More right wing nuttery from steve.

Steve P

piddle pup you confuse FACTS with you kool aid induced rants, time for your meds.

The Big Dog's back

steve, you haven't posted anything factual yet.

Steve P

Sorry piddle pup I can't bring it down to you intellectual level.

The Big Dog's back

You're incapable at any level.

deertracker

Totally incapable.

OMG.LOL.WT_

Steve P, Snopes says your numbers are bogus. Another source gives these numbers:

President Total Orders Order Number Range
George Washington 8 unnumbered
John Adams 1 unnumbered
Thomas Jefferson 4 unnumbered
James Madison 1 unnumbered
James Monroe 1 unnumbered
John Quincy Adams 3 unnumbered
Andrew Jackson 12 unnumbered
Martin van Buren 10 unnumbered
William Henry Harrison 0 unnumbered
John Tyler 17 unnumbered
James K. Polk 18 unnumbered
Zachary Taylor 5 unnumbered
Millard Fillmore 12 unnumbered
Franklin Pierce 35 unnumbered
James Buchanan 16 unnumbered
Abraham Lincoln 48 unnumbered
Andrew Johnson 79 unnumbered
Ulysses S. Grant 217 unnumbered
Rutherford B. Hayes 92 unnumbered
James Garfield 6 unnumbered
Chester Arthur 96 unnumbered
Grover Cleveland - I 113 unnumbered
Benjamin Harrison 143 unnumbered
Grover Cleveland - II 140 unnumbered
William McKinley 185 unnumbered
Theodore Roosevelt 1,081
William Howard Taft 724
Woodrow Wilson 1,803
Warren G. Harding 522
Calvin Coolidge 1,203
Herbert Hoover 968 5075 - 6070
Franklin D. Roosevelt 3,522 6071 - 9537
Harry S. Truman 907 9538 - 10431
Dwight D. Eisenhower 484 10432 - 10913
John F. Kennedy 214 10914 - 11127
Lyndon B. Johnson 325 11128 - 11451
Richard Nixon 346 11452 - 11797
Gerald R. Ford 169 11798 - 11966
Jimmy Carter 320 11967 - 12286
Ronald Reagan 381 12287 - 12667
George Bush 166 12668 - 12833
William J. Clinton 364 12834 - 13197
George W. Bush 291 13198 - 13488
Barack Obama 167 13489 - 13655...'

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

This article is tragic and shows how schizophrenic our President is. How he deigns which issues he chooses to modify on his own. This is no better than a line of peasants lining up before the king begging him for this or that for their small village. This also illustrates the dangers when you promise equality of outcomes at any cost.

His ego's writing checks our country can't cash and even his own base is irritated that he can't forego Constitutional procedure to forsake all other groups in the name of select expediency. The unacceptable history of government picking winners and losers is "coming home to roost" as I believe a mentor to the President once said.

But, I can't blame a president who just wants to help people no matter who he has to walk over. There is shame in the organizations who are seeking special exemption/protection/status above us mere masses of mortals and beseech a circumvention of our political system. Instead of trying to reach out to the hearts and minds of a populace and go through legitimate channels of lawmaking, campaigning, and outreach they instead want instant gratification by the imposition of their thoughts on other people.

The above is said with no malice toward the general movements that are upset with President Obama. But, just the fact that they think they get some special recognition (in exchange for voting blocs) and the IMPOSITION of their thoughts is insulting and sets back their message as much as other stereotypes hurt their attached populations.

The Big Dog's back

That's the problem sappy. You and your fellow right wingers look at your leaders as kings. You wait to see what they're going to p%$$ on you. Dems on the other hand hold our elected officials accountable. We argue and disagree and hammer things out. You and your minions fall in line. He's doing what the majority of the people who elected him want. Not once, never in the 8 years bush was President did any faction of Repubs come out against anything he did. Dems do question things.

Steve P

What has the dems questioned or refused to pass for your messiah, the dems walk in goosestep while the republicans do have a factional party from the tea party to the moderate center. Name a moderate dem that remains in Washington? The current dems are left of Stalin.

The Big Dog's back

Did you read the article steve?

Steve P

Sure did, his radical left wing supporters want more on two issues, which he will attempt to give them eventually, his dem buddies in congress has followed him in goosestep. You still can't come up with a remaining moderate dem, can you piddle.

The Big Dog's back

A moderate dem. You mean a right wing dem? C'mon pooh, I mean steve, clue me in.

The Big Dog's back

pooh, the tea party wasn't formed until just before the election of 2008 when Obama was leading in all polls.

deertracker

The black guy!

Darwin's choice

Halfrican.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Funny, when in history has a government not become a bladder over the heads of its citizens? You want to talk history, let's bring this up. As far as Democrat discourse? Where is this great Parthenon that these meetings occur so that I may attend?

As for me and my "minions" falling in line? You realize that the Tea Party movement came about because of the last president? Here let's do a minion roll call!

Contango, grumpy, SamAdams, and the many others here I ask you: was President Bush the best, last hope for humanity with flawless economic sense and who would inspire you to undermine your ideals to show cursory solidarity?

I don't care that Democrats question "things". I care they don't question their leadership. I care they don't care about those who don't fit their world view. I care they use garbage words, terms, and pluralities to undermine the beauty and liberty of the individual. I care that they tell people the only way to advance in life is via their programs, "ladders", and that you as a citizen are insignificant and owes their existence to them/government.

Where Republicans do that too, so too do I abhor that behavior. Winning elections is not willy-nilly carte blanc for doing whatever you want to whomever you want.

So with that, where do I meet the Democrat think tank that does what you suggest?

The Big Dog's back

"You realize that the Tea Party movement came about because of the last president?"
Really? Actually, I'm getting tired of educating you because it goes in one ear and out the other. The tea party was formed by a guy named dick armey. Freedomworks. Look it up. Do you remember all the racist signs held by card carrying tea party members? You really are naive.

grumpy

I will let the wiki tell when it started and who started it. Read the footnotes and links to find the original sources. You will se that once again when piddle puppy makes a statement that can be researched it never seems to turn out to be true.

Now if he would tell us where he got his misinformation we could blame that, but since he never does that, we must disbelieve the one who makes the false statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea...

The Big Dog's back

pooh, wiki said the same thing.

grumpy

Re: "The tea party was formed by a guy named dick armey. Freedomworks. Look it up."

Here is the only mention of Armey,besides being identified as a member, in the wiki I linked to.

One attempt at forming a list of what Tea Partiers wanted Congress to do resulted in the Contract from America. It was a legislative agenda created by conservative activist Ryan Hecker with the assistance of Dick Armey of FreedomWorks. Armey had co-written the previous Contract with America released by the Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections. One thousand agenda ideas that had been submitted were narrowed down to twenty-one non-social issues. Participants then voted in an online campaign in which they were asked to select their favorite policy planks. The results were released as a ten-point Tea Party platform.[43][44] The Contract from America was met with some support within the Republican Party, but it was not broadly embraced by GOP leadership, which released its own 'Pledge to America'.[44]

Armey assisted in writing part of the agenda. I am still looking for where Armey formed the tea party, care to point it out? Assisted in writing part of the agenda and being a member of the tea party is hardly the same thing as forming the Tea Party. If this is the quality of your research, or the quality of your thinking, I now understand how you can spout the erroneous crap you do.

Just as an assist, here is the wiki on Armey, you can point out to all of us where he "formed the tea party". Forming the Tea Party would be something that would show up on Armey's wiki. I will be waiting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dic...

grumpy

Your "proof" is an opinion piece that says that Armey is "unofficial leader of the anti-Washington "tea party" movement"? This is ,again, the quality of your research? It didn't even say that he "formed the Tea Party" as you claimed. I am sad to see you get your so called "facts" from a left wingnut mouthpiece. It says volumes about you and what you consider to be facts. How about showing us a link that says what you said, that armey formed the tea party, then you would actually have something that backed your unfounded claim. Even if it was from a left wingnut blog or opinion piece. Can't you find SOMETHING from the left wingnut blogs that back your claims?

Just a suggestion, but when you are at the bottom of a deep hole... quit digging.

Contango

Re: "The tea party was formed by a guy named dick armey."

Read your own article derpy:

"the unofficial leader of the anti-Washington "tea party" movement."

"Leader" NOT "formed."

The term tea party began with Rick Santelli. I saw it live and remember it.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Grumpy beat me to it above with the wiki link. But even disregarding that I am not a member of Freedomworks. I have never sent them money nor do I subscribe to their newsletters. I have never shaken hands with Dick Armey nor do I comment on their forums. Is it so hard for you to imagine that someone can come to a decision on their own by resources they have garnered themselves that isn't told what to think by a group entity?

How can an individual have opinions, successes, flaws, and a functional life outside of a mastermind's plan? Heck, even as a movement the Tea Party isn't consistent. That is the beauty of it! Mien Gott in himmel...

As for the racist signs? Maybe some individual members are! Or, maybe trolls (paid or otherwise) show up to perfectly legitimate functions with offensive signs in order to try and distract from the message at hand which has nothing to do with race? Maybe, because the Tea Party is "open source", some people decide to wear that moniker to somehow advance their backwards way of thinking like a burglar wears a mask or Congressman wears a suit?

I really wish there was a way I could get you to see individual people for who and what they are themselves instead of automatically grouping them into some stereotyped statistic. Or to break you of your reliance on groupthink in order to ration a situation. You aren't the only one here and not the only one of a more liberal mindset either who does that. I've thrown up in my mouth a little every time I see a "Republican" here call all welfare recipients parasites as if they know the lives and circumstances of every single one of them.

Individual human beings, with all their flaws and tragedies, are still beautiful and can contribute more than any political party (right or left) can hope to squeeze out of them or squeeze them into through pandering, broad-swathe statements, and allegations that "I speak for the..."s.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Thank you for the opinion piece. I appreciate it and for the most part agree. I am a choir to which you can't preach enough about this kind of thing. It was a good read and I agree with the final paragraph:

"There are undoubtedly thousands of Tea Partiers who would love to purge Washington of well-connected lobbyists, high-priced political consultants and others who take millions of taxpayer dollars while condemning the lawmakers who spend it. They should take a long look at the leaders and candidates who are driving their movement and decide whether purging begins at home."

In my case, for me and I presume many other individuals, I am not beholden to an organization to tell me what to think or which rabbles to rouse. Yet I will identify as a "tea partier". I do question my leaders and I do so out of respect because I want to know what they know, I wish to discover what influences their decisions, and I want to offer insight into another way in the face of bum legislation.

That being said, and out of curiosity and not petty poking, which Democratic leaders do you question? Why? I will take you at your word that Democrats have these deep, philosophical meetings to hammer things out and question their own leadership. As you have an inside track on this, please tell me about it.

grumpy

.

grumpy

Re: "Contango, grumpy, SamAdams, and the many others here I ask you: was President Bush the best, last hope for humanity with flawless economic sense and who would inspire you to undermine your ideals to show cursory solidarity?"

I have made my feelings known about bush jr. I didn't back him after he was in office for 2 years and disliked him after another 6 months. He is why I haven't voted for a main "party" candidate since 2000, no "patyy" candidate have been worth voting for, and he cured me of voting for the lessor of two pi$$ poor candidates. The patriot act was an abomination and obama had several chances to do away with it. Instead he extended it's life and expanded its reach. Which is more foolish? making it and passing it, or after seeing it is bad to extend it and expand it after seeing how bad it is? Then have followers say bush started the bad thing and never mention that obama extended it and expanded its reach.

grumpy

doubled

coasterfan

Total number of Executive Orders by recent presidents:
Nixon 346
Ford 169
Carter 320
Reagan 381
Bush Sr. 166
Clinton 364
Bush Jr. 291
Obama 167

Now, please tell me again how Obama is doing things any differently than any other president. To me, what is amazing about the above list is that Obama has used Executive Action to bypass Congress LESS than all but one of his predecessors, despite being hobbled by the most intransigent, obstinate Congress in American history.

Seriously, folks. When the opposing party's Speaker announces that their #1 goal is to do everything possible to assure that Obama's initiatives fail, in my book, that makes them the #1 reason for any failures. Since Congress' approval ratings are more than 30 points below Obama's, it would seem that a lot of Americans would agree with me.

Contango

Re: "Now, please tell me again how Obama is doing things any differently than any other president."

Pres. Obama, SOTU, 2014:

"So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do."

I don't remember any recent POTUS threatening that he would use Exec. Orders as a cudgel.

I would NEVER stake this guy in a poker game. He would lose BIG.