General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsstill_one
(91,966 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)successful presidents of all time
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/
Given the obstruction one could make an argument for top 3 most effective of all time.
But remember, lots of folks dont like Obama, never have, would not matter AT ALL what he did.
H2O Man
(73,333 posts)Thank you for this.
I think it is extremely important that we contact our elected officials (state & federal) and express our strong support of President Obama on this. (His "opposition" certainly will be actively working to derail his efforts.)
randys1
(16,286 posts)H2O Man
(73,333 posts)I hope that all of the good people on this forum do!
B2G
(9,766 posts)and more from day one. How is that blaming him?
I'm just asking why it couldn't have been done sooner is all.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...on CSpan instead of sound bite/ headline news. Congress and NRA lobby have been blocking every action he proposed.
randys1
(16,286 posts)YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Genuinely curious.
It seems this could have been done a long time ago once it was clear the pukes weren't gonna play.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)This is more of a show of intention than anything else.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Now, with a year left in his administration, he has precisely zero fucks left to give about political capital and can do as he sees fit to benefit the most people.
still_one
(91,966 posts)and even though it should pass Constitutional muster, it would be distorted and manipulated for electoral purposes. Look at the ACA as an example. The republicans refused to provide an alternative, or even participate. In fact, many were saying at the time, there was no need for health care reform.
There is no doubt in my mind that if the President brought this up in his first term, the republicans without a doubt would have started the impeach process. Nothing else would have gotten accomplished.
Whether we like it or not, timing is critical in the real world
Mass shootings have begun to be less fine and dandy in the eyes of the populace. There's also the political value of doing things in stages, thus highlighting the inertia and corruption of Congress.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)As,I ask too many questions like that one.
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)But, yes. He gave Congress too many chances to shoot it down till he was forced to sign an executive action.
But keep in mid that the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive action too.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I think he could have passed anything quite frankly. Certainly more then his EOs.
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Filibuster could have been voted down and passage of gun control law of the land.
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)That is progress, at least. A whole lot more than I see in most politicians
Kingofalldems
(38,361 posts)of Obama for not advocating for something you are against?
liberal from boston
(856 posts)Paragraph from post below is a perfect summary of myth of the filibuster proof of Democrat Senate: "The claim that Obama ruled like a monarch over Congress for two years endlessly intoned as a talking point by Republicans is more than just a misremembering of recent history or excited overstatement. Its a lie.
Its meant to represent that Obamas had his chance to try out his ideas, and to obscure and deny the relentless GOP obstructionism and Democratic factionalism hes encountered since Day One.
They seem to figure if they repeat this often enough, youll believe it."
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)in 2009? I've got news for you. Democrats have gun humpers as well. To hear Obama's critics tell it, he should have cured all the nation's ills in those 72 days. Of course, you can say anything sitting there at your keyboard smokin' a Pall Mall, but governing is much harder than you make it sound.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)and I think you're right, then would you agree it's not the republicans fault he can't get it now?
People like to pretend like gun control is a republican vs. Democrat issue, but it's really not. It's a republican and some Dems vs some other Dems issue.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)72 days in '09. Even he tried to get some form of gun control, and as you know it died in the Senate. I have no hope that there will ever be any real meaningful gun control as the NRA has a vise like grip on the Congress, and anything this POTUS does will be immediately undone should a Republican take the White House in '16.
I can understand Republicans using that "he had a majority in 2009" talking point, but a well informed "Democrat" knows it to be a lie.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)It's not specific to guns, either.
It's not difficult to find Dems who will argue that some piece of legislation isn't passed because of republican obstructionism, but also say that same issue is a top priority (guns, single payer health insurance, environmental legislation, closing Guantanamo, etc...). The idea is, if you point to a period of time where republican obstructionism wasn't an issue and see what the priorities actually were, it's clear that at least one of those two arguments isn't true.
Kingofalldems
(38,361 posts)Seems like every week to me.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)If it was about politics and not better gun control, then so be it. Although that's a horrible reason for inaction all of these years.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)...throughout his presidency, and after each and every mass shooting, as well as a few times when the shooting wasn't a massacre.
The difference this time is that we are seeing a leader who, despite having little power to do anything about it without a bill on his desk, has had enough and gave an empassioned speech, fueled by more and more tragedy and the resulting frustration, anger, and heartbreak.
Hekate
(90,202 posts)I think setting up National Parks is the exception to the rule.
President Obama's legacy regarding urgent business he could not get past this GOP-infested Congress is going to be fragile. If the next president is a Democrat, they will let his EOs stand. If the next president is a Republican, well when you hear them on the campaign trail bloviating that they will overturn this or that item on their first day in office, they really can do that with Executive Orders.
The whole reason Obama tried so hard and so long to get Congress to do its damn job is that THEY MAKE THE LAWS. Laws which cannot be overturned by the whim of the next person who becomes president.
If you want a good example of this, google for "Global Gag Order." I'm personally well-acquainted with this one because I am a lifelong supporter of women's health care and Planned Parenthood. This particular issue has been a political football since probably the Reagan years. Republican presidents reinstate in on their first day in office. Democratic presidents banish it on their first day in office. Neither can get it through Congress, so the show goes on. The only people who suffer are women overseas who get pregnant from rape and cannot even be told where to go to get help ("gag order"}. Who cares if their village stones them to death, right? Just look it up.
B2G
(9,766 posts)It won't even be tested in the courts he leaves office.
Which makes 2016 all that more important.
Hekate
(90,202 posts)President Obama will hit the campaign trail sometime this year to help elect the next Democratic president and other Democrats. His own legacy is at stake.
Also, as has been noted elsewhere, he has no more fucks to give.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)It was only after the bill written by 2 Senators with A NRA ratings failed, that it was completely obvious that no legislation could pass.
That is important as legislation is stronger than what he can do through executive action.
Politically, this is a set of great steps -- that might be hard to reverse. The licensing is not even an executive order, but putting together an interpretation of the laws already on the books. Many other points involve working with the industry to do research on various ways to make it harder for someone who does not own the gun to use it. (Here, the real question is whether gun owners will consider this a plus or minus. If it is a plus and there were a way to make the cost very low to add it, then the market alone will support it.)
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"So why didn't he do this 8 years ago?"
Why didn't he reference the victims from Sandy Hook prior to them being victims?
fredamae
(4,458 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)Except in Chicago and in other poor black communities and he'd actually been working on it before he was President.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Mother Jones has a methodology that shows that "mass shootings", by their definition, have increased in frequency in recent years. That methodology also said there have been 72 mass shootings in the US since 1982 (and 84 in Europe during that same period).
A different definition of mass shootings, which doesn't exclude victims of color, produces much higher numbers of them, but also loses the ability to say they are more common now than before; by that metric (ie, "mass shooting" simply as literally "more than 3 people shot" mass shootings have been declining in frequency for two decades.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and other Black Communities, today.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)5 years? 10 years? 20? Is there any data suggesting these shootings "weren't prevalent 8 years ago?"
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...unless you conveniently redefine the term.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Obama has zero to lose in his last year putting these forward.
They can be turned over in parcel or whole by the next President which is only a year away.
This is an election year. Democrats obsess and are riled up by gun control rhetoric. Hell look at DU the last few days. A significant portion of the posts are about the damned idiots in Oregon with constant fiery speech about white men with guns.
You can lead Democrats with gun control the same way that the GOP leads their voters with 'unborn children'. Planned Parenthood was a gold mine for them like Oregon is for Democrats.
The current front runner has a mixed history with her rhetoric on guns so this will give her cover if she is the choice in the GE.
It is just a big fucking game. And most of us fall for it daily as if it is really going to change our culture. Real change takes decades and real change of a culture which enshrined personal property and the protection of it with force if necessary in the 2nd Amendment will likely never be changed the way most anti-gun idealist hope for.
But it sure plays well on the stage in an election year.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)There is a total disconnect between the DU rhetoric surrounding policing and the rhetoric surrounding gun control, as if someone other than the police are going to be enforcing more stringent gun control regulations.
Absolutely guaranteed to get more minorities shot and sent to prison by the same cops and prosecutors shooting them and sending them to prison now.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)When they fail to pass congress or are struck down by courts, he won't be around to feel the sting.
He's the ultimate style over substance president. Legacy and all that.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's posturing to try and make changes for the better? Congress passes the laws, in case you've forgotten that. The President has limited authority to do things on his/her own.
'Posturing'. Pfft!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)These proposals have absolutely nothing to do with the mass shootings he pledged to fight.
Which is why it's 100% posturing. He just doesn't want anyone to say "why didn't he do anything about guns while he was in office?" He can say he did. Although not until he was a lame duck and Republicans controlled congress.
If he was genuinely interested in this, this would have come when we controlled both houses.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)He's been trying for years, and Congress keeps blocking him. Yes, he should do nothing. That's the ticket!
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)None of which will stop crime, all of which have just driven up gun sales and gun stocks. Sounds like a winning strategy. What could go wrong?
MuttLikeMe
(279 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Why would you give them ratings by watching? You're just making Roger Ailes rich.
Have some consideration for the rest of us and turn off Murdoch.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,355 posts)Why don't you just be grateful that he decided to do this *sometime* during his Presidency? It's sort of like Chuck Schumer complaining that President Obama focused too much on health care during his first two years and didn't do x, y, z, etc. instead He's POTUS. He has a ton of obligations and can't get to everything all at once and I'd sure rather him do something right than just slap something together and push it out just for the sake of doing it.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Damn Obama ... not doing everything on day one like he was supposed to!!!
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)point of the rightwing is that "he had a majority in both houses". There are majorities, and then there are veto proof majorities. It's been pointed out time & again that he only had that for "72 days", and yet it's repeated ad nauseum by "informed" people who should know better.
The Myth of the Filibuster-Proof Democratic Senate
September 11, 2012 by Andy Cohen
Republicans have magically, mystically turned 72 days into two full years.
Weve heard it over and over and over again. Mitch McConnell has gleefully used it as a cudgel. Congressional Republicans typically cant wait to get their mugs on camera to tell America just how inept Congressional Democrats are in order to aid their case that they should be put back in power. After all, Democrats couldnt get anything done even with a 60 vote, filibuster-proof majority in the United States Senate during the first two years of the Obama administration. Democrats had almost complete control of the Congress to go with the newly inaugurated Democrat to take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and they couldnt manage to address the major issues of the day.
It sounds good and it surely gets the far right wing base riled up. But it has very little basis in reality. That hasnt stopped Republicans and their official media apparatus, Fox News, from repeating the nonsense.
Remember that Minnesota Senatorial election in 2008? The one that pitted former SNL writer/cast member and Air America Radio host Al Franken against Republican incumbent Norm Coleman? That race dragged on forever, resulting in several challenges and recounts until the Minnesota Supreme Court finally concluded on June 30th, 2009, that Franken was indeed the winner. Franken wasnt sworn into office until July 7th, 2009, a full six months after the 111th Congress had taken charge.
But even thats not entirely accurate, and the Dems didnt have a consistent, reliable 58 votes. Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy was terminally ill with a brain tumor, and could only muster up the energy to vote on selected legislation. His presence could not be counted on, and thus his vote in the Senate could not be counted on. During the first year of the Obama presidency, due to his illness Kennedy missed 261 out of a possible 270 votes in the Senate, denying the Democrats the 60th vote necessary to break a filibuster. In March of 2009, he stopped voting altogether. It wasnt until Kennedy passed away in late August, 2009, and an interim successor was named on September 24th, 2009, that the Democrats actually had 60 votes.
And even then the 60 vote supermajority was tenuous at best. At the time, then 91 year old Robert Byrd from West Virginia was in frail health. During the last 6 months of 2009, Byrd missed 128 of a possible 183 votes in the Senate. Byrd passed away on June 28, 2010 at the age of 92.
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/
Next time you hear someone at DU making that claim, just know that it's a rightwing talking point, that's been adopted by this President's foes, on the left (allegedly) & the right.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... I've been pointing that out here on DU for 6+ years.
FSogol
(45,363 posts)matt819
(10,749 posts)Congress. It's their reponsibility to create and pass legislation on all sorts of things. Gun control would have been one of those things if fully one half of Congress were not bought and paid for, cheaply I might add, by the NRA and gun manufacturers.
When it became painfully clear that Congress would fail to act (see also, Guantanamo Bay), the President took action.
Bucky
(53,804 posts)Democrats, when they're not in the White House, act like the loyal opposition; they oppose what they can but don't try to derail all legislation. They allow the administration to actually administer the executive branch.
Republicans, when in opposition, do everything possible to ratfuck the process. They're first loyalty is to party, not nation. So the public ends up with a good deal more to be bitter about when Democrats are in power.