TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- An imperial presidency... claims a Democrat?

An imperial presidency... claims a Democrat?

I'm interested in you guys' thoughts on this potential situation. Not just because we heard from the Left for years now that Bush had too much power and was dissolving the whole "checks and balances" thing... but I want to know if you all who support Obama would be open to him having even more consolidated power than you thought Bush did.

This was brought up by Robert Byrd, worrying that Obama is trying to make a power grab:

quote:

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama�s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions �can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.� �As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,� Byrd wrote. �They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.� The West Virginia Democrat on Wednesday asked Obama to �consider the following: that assertions of executive privilege will be made only by the president, or with the president�s specific approval; that senior White House personnel will be limited from exercising authority over any person, any program, and any funding within the statutory responsibility of a Senate-confirmed department or agency head; that the president will be responsible for resolving any disagreement between a Senate-confirmed agency or department head and White House staff; and that the lines of authority and responsibility in the administration will be transparent and open to the American public.�

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html

Believe me, this is the last guy I want to side with, but he makes a good point.

This follows another Politico piece from last month titled "The West Wing On Steroids" in which White House advisors act as de facto cabinet super-secretaries.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17908.html

Says Allahpundit, "Clinton and Bush did the same thing, but not quite as ambitiously as The One. Quote: 'Aides say he believes the Cabinet structure is outdated because it doesn�t recognize that problems like global warming sprawl across several agencies, often requiring a sort of uber-Cabinet member � a czar � to confront them.'"

Thoughts?

after the last 8 years id be happy if he grew a funny moustache and marched you all into labour camps.

When the president actually tries to solve problems, it's not surprising to find out some still want the status quo.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton When the president actually tries to create more complex problems, it's not surprising to find out some still want the status quo.

fixed for accuracy

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss fixed for accuracy

Riiiight, Obama forming offices for different issues is a problem...

I don't really get the complaint. It's not constitutionally-mandated that everybody who works in the Executive branch be confirmed by the Senate. Having a point person in the White House for specific policy issues is hardly the same as having someone creating legislation and policy outside the bounds of government. In the end health policy will still have to be legislated and implemented by a confirmed Secretary of Health and Human Services... I just see Byrd as unhappy about the declining influence of Senate committee hearings. Honestly, I worked in a committee in the Senate for a summer, and I don't think this is a bad development at all - most staff are young and have only tangential experience with the policy matters their members are dealing with. Let the actual experts write the legislation and send it to Congress for review and a vote.

"Obama might as well have made either Bush or Cheney his War on Terror Czar"

the left's silence on that is too funny. welcome to a brand new age in hypocrisy in political discourse

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo welcome to a brand new age in hypocrisy in political discourse

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo "Obama might as well have made either Bush or Cheney his War on Terror Czar" the left's silence on that is too funny. welcome to a brand new age in hypocrisy in political discourse

Tis true - have you read David Brooks lately?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov have you read David Brooks lately?

i read the Weekly Standard often, thats probably where i got the quote but i cant say for sure. i read all kinds of stuff.

one article recently that stands out to me regarding this i read in the IHT >LINK<

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis

...or maybe ambiguous cynicism is the new paradigm for political discourse?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the left's silence on that is too funny. welcome to a brand new age in hypocrisy in political discourse

oh i thought you said intercourse....

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo "Obama might as well have made either Bush or Cheney his War on Terror Czar" the left's silence on that is too funny. welcome to a brand new age in hypocrisy in political discourse

hypocrisy?? WHy are the Republicans all up in arms about spending, yet, when we had to spend $12 billion a month for these stupid wars, they'r lock step?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the left's silence on that is too funny. welcome to a brand new age in hypocrisy in political discourse

It's not a new age of hypocrisy, it's the same age. The only difference is that the actors have switched rols.

I trust Obama, and by extension his team, much much more than I trusted Bush or his team. Obama is much more intelegent and has a better grasp of issues with a much more broad understanding of how things are tied together in the big picture.

What I've seen already is frustration on his face. I'm not sure he was ready for the difficulties of consensus building when a good 1/3 of the people he's dealing with are actively against the notion of concensus (on both extremes of the spectrum).

That said, the way I can see him makeing any type of power grab as the Right seems to be so terrified of is by acting out of frustration to get things done that he sees as being 'right'.

My fear is that some of the things he sees as 'right' are right. The US is in a dire situation and actions are required, yet actions without concensus are authoritarian. So does one support an authoritarian edict that is in thier own interest...???

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton hypocrisy?? WHy are the Republicans all up in arms about spending, yet, when we had to spend $12 billion a month for these stupid wars, they'r lock step?

You're either with us, or your against us!

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i read the Weekly Standard often, thats probably where i got the quote but i cant say for sure. i read all kinds of stuff. one article recently that stands out to me regarding this i read in the IHT >LINK<

Stephen Walt:

quote:

David Brooks fails the "Big Test" Tue, 02/24/2009 - 11:28am David Brooks's insight and intellectual integrity have never impressed me much, but his column in today's NY Times is a low mark even for him. After reminding us that he read Edmund Burke in college and used to be a liberal, he announces that the fate of Obama�s programs will be "the big test" between liberal and conservative views of the world. Liberals supposedly believe in human reason and the capacity of government to conduct transformative solutions; conservatives are "epistemologically modest" and skeptical of "top-down" initiatives. Here's the money quote: quote: We're on the cusp of the biggest political experiment of our lifetimes. If Obama is mostly successful, then the epistemological skepticism natural to conservatives will have been discredited...If they mostly fail, then liberalism will suffer a grievous blow, and conservatives will be called upon to restore order and sanity." Such shamelessly partisan pseudo-intellectualism is Brooks's stock-in-trade, but where he's been the past eight years? George W. Bush and the GOP conservatives inherited a strong economy and a budget surplus, and a country whose international image was mostly favorable. And then they squandered them all with a thoroughness that almost seems deliberate. There was no "epistemological modesty" involved when Bush placed loyalty above competence and let lobbyists and other special interests loose in Washington, or when he launched a foolish and ill-planned war in an attempt to transform the entire Middle East. And let us not forget that Brooks himself was an enthusiastic supporter of these policies; I guess he forgot his Burke back when his party was in power. The result of these "conservative" policies, as we all know to our sorrow, is the most serious combination of domestic and foreign policy challenges to face America in decades. But if Obama fails to clean up the mess left by his predecessor, it is "liberalism" that will have failed. Huh?

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts...ls_the_big_test

Bush wasn't conservative remember?

All those people who voted for him were fooled apparently. They also did not know he wasn't conservative until the election last year.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.