Q:Re; Boehner v. the White House - He's not suing over the AHCA, he's suing because the President used his executive authority to delay implementation of the employer mandate portion of the law. In short, *LOTS* of folks asked the administration to delay that bit and the WH agreed. This is basically the exact same thing President Bush did by delaying portions of the Medicare part D rollout. The difference of course is Bush wasn't black or a Democrat.
I stand corrected. I wish Congress would start using 20th century verbiage in their bills (I know it’s the 21st century now, but I’d be happy if Congress would at least move up to being only one century behind).
You bring up a great point with Medicare Part D, though. That rollout, under George W. Bush, had a very shaky rollout as well, with extensions and delays of its own as Bush reacted to the issues that cropped up. And he didn’t go through Congress, either. And this is 2004-2006, so people can’t use the whole “there was outrage but you just didn’t hear it because the internet wasn’t around yet” excuse as to why there was no major outcry back then — there was some, but nowhere near as much as there is over Obamacare. No threats of impeachment (if Democrats couldn’t get together and impeach Dubya over the lies that led us to war — which, granted, a lot of them voted to support in the first place — then there probably wasn’t much desire to impeach him over providing prescription coverage to senior citizens who otherwise couldn’t afford it).
And as far as Republicans were concerned it was “socialism” that they could agree with (probably mostly because it was aimed specifically at seniors, who traditionally vote Republican). But you’re right — there are a heck of a lot of similarities to the rollouts of Medicare Part D and the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). And your last sentence leads me to want to repeat a challenge I’ve offered before (and received zero responses): if it’s not because he’s black, then what is it? Because this stuff was fine when the white guy did it, but a black president does the exact same thing and Republicans shit their pants.
I’d love to hear an explanation that isn’t “because he’s black” or “because he’s the enemy” or “because I can’t support anything he does” or ”because he’s a Muslim” (which wouldn’t matter anyway if you weren’t a bigot) or “because he’s from Kenya” (which also wouldn’t matter even if it were true, since his mother was a U.S. citizen — it’s the same reason John McCain was eligible to run even though he was born in Mexico and why Ted Cruz can legally run in 2016 even though he was born in Canada, and the only Democrats who will protest will probably just be doing it to show you how stupid birthers have made themselves look for the past six years).
Is there any Republican out there who can give me an actual reason why things that were OK when past presidents did them are evil when Obama does it?
Resolved, That the Speaker may initiate or intervene in one or more civil actions on behalf of the House of Representatives in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction to seek relief pursuant to sections 2201 and 2202 of title 28, United States Code, and to seek appropriate ancillary relief, including injunctive relief, regarding the failure of the President, the head of any department or agency, or any other officer or employee of the United States, to act in a manner consistent with that official’s duties under the Constitution and laws of the United States with respect to implementation of (including a failure to implement) any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including any amendment made by such provision.
That’s Section 1 of the Committee Discussion Draft [pdf] of the Republican resolution to sue President Obama.
I’m not great with the legalese, but I think it says that they’re suing Obama for implementing Obamacare, which they say was unconstitutional (despite the fact that it was passed by Congress and the Supreme Court found it to be in line with the Constitution two years ago), and they are also suing him for not implementing parts of Obamacare, which is apparently also unconstitutional. The old “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario.
What I take from this, and I could be wrong (again, legalese not my strong suit), is that since Congress refuses to do its job, Boehner thinks the President should also not do any governing despite the fact that it’s what he was elected to do.
We’ve reached a whole new level of kindergarten politics. This is a Republican temper tantrum that will go down in history.
And with this article, you get a perfect example of the relationship between Republicans and President Obama.
First, the recent history of moves like this (bolding mine):
Presidents of both parties have used executive authority to protect public lands and waters. President George W. Bush created what was at the time the world’s largest protected marine area in 2006, protecting 140,000 miles of water off the Hawaiian islands from commercial activity.
Bush was Republican, right? Yes, of course he was. So Obama doing the same thing that Bush did should be praised by Republicans, right? Oh, no, I forgot…Obama is a black socialist Muslim from Kenya, so him doing the exact same thing is evil, according to the right wing.
Again, bolding mine:
Representative Doc Hastings, Republican of Washington and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement: “Oceans, like our federal lands, are intended to be multiple-use and open for a wide range of economic activities that includes fishing, recreation, conservation and energy production. It appears this administration will use whatever authorities — real or made up — to close our ocean and coastal areas with blatant disregard for possible economic consequences.”
(I’ll note here that United States Presidents have had this authority since 1906, when Congress passed The Antiquities Act of 1906 and Republican President Theodore Roosevelt signed it into law.)
President Obama’s speech at tonight’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner
Seriously, watch it, it’s funny as hell.
President Barack Obama ‘s appearance on Zach Galifianakis ’ Funny or Die Web series “Between Two Ferns” is the viral video of the day, but while your friends on Facebook may be laughing, not everyone is into the joke. Especially those on the White House press beat.
John Quincy Adams used to skinny-dip in the Potomac. Calvin Coolidge liked to have Vaseline rubbed on his head while he ate breakfast in bed, and had a mechanical horse installed in the White House. Warren Harding bet the White House’s china collection in a hand of poker, and lost it. Thomas Jefferson kept two bears in a cage on the White House lawn. Lyndon B. Johnson would have people come into the bathroom with him so he could keep talking to them while he peed. (source) Richard Nixon went on Laugh-In to deliver their famous “sock it to me!” line. (video) George W. Bush told a ton of lies to convince people that war in Iraq was a good idea, and depending on who you believe, anywhere from tens of thousands to a million innocent people died as a result. (source)
But a reporter is worried that Obama doing a funny interview is damaging the dignity of the presidency. Right.
I keep seeing people in comment sections of articles (I know I shouldn’t read them but sometimes I can’t help it) complaining that President Obama is going to Nelson Mandela’s funeral when he didn’t go to Margaret Thatcher’s.
Guess who else didn’t go to Margaret Thatcher’s funeral but is going to Mandela’s?
President George W. Bush.
Oh yeah — President Bush is white, so he gets a pass from conservatives — even though for President Obama, it’s evidence of what a terrible (and racist) person he is.
It can’t just be because of political leanings, because Bill Clinton is also in the same boat and I don’t hear anybody complaining about him going to Mandela’s funeral but not Thatcher’s (but again, he’s white).
I mean, if you’ve got another explanation for why it’s OK for Bush and Clinton but not OK for Obama, I’m all ears, but when the double-standard is that blatant, it’s hard to think of another reason for it.
Summary (sort of) of the court case in which three Obama recess appointments were ruled unconstitutional
- Obama: Your honor, all the Senate Republicans did was gavel in and back out of session without actually doing anything.
- Judges: How is that different from when they show up to a full session without actually doing anything?
- Obama: They were in recess. They were just going through the motions.
- Judges: That's all they do when they aren't in recess, so we fail to see the difference.
- Obama: By that logic, nobody would be able to be fired for not showing up to work if they just clock in and then back out every few days.
- Judges: ...Dude, we work for the government. You're in the wrong place if you want to talk about people actually caring about their jobs.
- Obama: But I've used recess appointments 32 times. George W. Bush did it 171 times. Why was it OK for him, but not for me?
- Judges: We're not here to talk about the past.
- Obama: Mark McGwire? When did you become a judge?
- Judges: Nevermind that. We've been here for five minutes, way longer than we planned on working today. It's time to clock out and go home. Pro forma, bitches!
And they’ll keep tweeting through the whole thing to make sure you know just how much they don’t care.
Number Crunch - Tumblr’s President
I crunched some numbers. It’s not a political post (though it is election-related), just statistical, so I’m going to share it here too.
So if any of you are wondering if the tumblr community made a difference in the election, let me present this to you:
In the 18-29 age group, 49.3% of eligible voters showed up and voted (the final tally may be as high as 51% once all votes are counted). Not too many elections ago, according to the census bureau, closer to only 30% of young voters were voting. It’s been rebounding over the past three elections, possibly because of how heavily contested the result of the 2000 election was; nobody wants a repeat of that election, where 537 votes in Florida were the deciding factor between President Bush and President Gore.
The 18-29 crowd made up 19.4 percent of all voters…almost one out of every five.
Obama handily won the young vote, with 59.8% of their votes. Romney received 36.5%.
Tumblr rocked the vote.
Votes are still being counted, but as it stands right now, the vote tally is:
Out of over 118,000,000 votes, the difference is only 2,841,759.
The 18-29 age group accounted for more than 22 million votes.
If young people hadn’t shown up, it would have cost Obama 13,689,416 votes. It would have cost Romney 8,355,580.
This would have made the vote total
I don’t have a state-by-state breakdown of youth voting to know exactly how the electoral college would have been affected, but Barack Obama would have lost the popular vote by 2,492,077 if you hadn’t shown up, tumblr. It’s also possible that up to 80 electoral votes could have swing to Romney, making him the next president with 286 electoral votes to Obama’s 233 (Florida could add 29 votes to either side, but Romney would still win in this scenario).
Barack Obama is your president. You helped him win. Your voice was heard, loud and clear.
Don’t ever let anyone tell you that you can’t make a difference, or that your vote doesn’t count.
This is basically every political news article’s comment section right now. Everyone is just beating their chests and predicting victory on Tuesday.
It’s like Vince McMahon put this election together.
President Obama’s speaking in Richmond, VA—and you can watch right here.
You’ve been seeing me tell you for months why you should vote for Barack Obama. Today, I’m going to step aside and let Barack Obama himself tell you why you should vote for Barack Obama.
He mentions a link in his speech to see his plans. Here’s a direct link to it.