AP sources: Obama bucks GOP, OKs consumer watchdog

[warrior1]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senior administration officials tell The Associated Press that President Barack Obama will use a recess appointment to name Richard Cordray as the nation's chief consumer watchdog despite strong Republican opposition.

With a director in place, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be able to start overseeing the type of financial companies often blamed for practices that helped send the economy into a downward spiral.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

1. Will those here on DU who trashed the president now apologize? I won't hold my breath on that.

I'd rather just rejoice that we finally have our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau head!

[jefferson_dem]

4. NO.

Most will simply drum up some other red herring issue to express "great concern" about.

[Liberal Veteran]

19. But he didn't do it while mooning the GOP!

How can we trust a president who doesn't have the spine to moon the GOP??!!!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. LOL!! +1!!!

[Surya Gayatri]

135. +! Love the visual...

out the back window of the presidential limo! LOL!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. Exactly! +1!!!

[atreides1]

12. I will

I didn't trash him...but if he does it then that's great.

Now the question is when?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

22. Today.

Recess appointment and all that. Times limited. It says in the article it will be announced later today and he'll (Cordray) take over the job later this week.

[comipinko]

14. No, but you can thank me and others for holding Obama's "feet to the fire".

Without this, would it still have happened?? I think not. Thank me here, or if you like go ahead and start a new "thread of thanks" for my fellow "foot holders" ....You are welcome.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. chuckle

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

21. Well, that's what you were supposed to do, as Obama has stated that repeatedly.

Again, people jumped to conclusions without any information, just an excuse to bash the president. So with that in mind, I won't thank you if you were one of those. But if you really worked for the betterment of the consumer, then I will.

[comipinko]

23. I contend, that with out the pressure from the left, this would NOT have happened.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

24. You may be right, but you don't know that for sure. All I can say is that we're supposed to hold

the president's feet to the fire. That's our job. However, it is not our job to express knee-jerk anger that is irrational and based on no evidence even before the facts are out. That's what I have a problem with.

[comipinko]

28. Are you the arbitor of what is "irrational"? Or do I have some leeway on that decision?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. I never said nor implied that I am the "arbiter" of anything. I do have eyes and I can read, and yes

I do have an opinion and can express it. And I think that there are some folks who can be irrational when it comes to Obama, some of it understandable, but some of it just based on not being able to wait on the facts before becoming hysterical.

There are plenty examples of not waiting until the facts have arisen before irrationality, followed by Obama bashing, take hold. And then when the facts run contrary to what these posters were screaming about, they never really apologize for being wrong. Instead, they up the ante, finding some other straw man/red herring to move the goal posts. We've had many, many conversations and debates about this, so don't act as if you don't know these things. You've been around long enough to witness these arguments.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

92. Up for scientific debate...

"...we're supposed to hold the president's feet to the fire."

"That's our job."

"...it is not our job..."


Declaratives naturally assume knowledge. When the facts are in dispute, that's impossible.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

93. It's our job via the vote and staying politically active and informed, is it not?

It is our responsibility to exercise civic duty, is it not?

You don't see any citizen role in the democratic process?

Perhaps you don't see it that way, and that's fine.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

97. Different subject.

[Demit]

50. Knee-jerk anger? Irrational? Based on no evidence? Wow.

I especially like the 'based on no evidence' part. With regard to a president who time & again has demonstrated he'd rather capitulate than fight, that one's a pip.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

61. Yes, absolutely! It has happened time and time again on this forum.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

96. Where's the pepper spray?

[polmaven]

53. Yeah,.....'cuz

the fact that there has been no legal recess called by the congress makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in making a recess appointment!!!!

[a2liberal]

80. +1 (n/t)

[aquart]

81. Never hurts a president to have singed toes.

Helps him to share our pain.

[comipinko]

83. Yup.

[alcibiades_mystery]

86. Oh muh guh

It isn't bad enough that these people invent nonsenses all day bashing Obama for everything, bvut then they turn around and immediately take credit for him proving them fucking WRONG.

Gawd, what an interesting pathology they have.

[comipinko]

88. you are welcome.

[Jester Messiah]

109. *smirk* Ok, well I guess it's all down to you champ! Good job!

[boppers]

136. He thinks he matters.

Like Iowa.

[kenfrequed]

30. I don't need to

I didn't bash the President on this specifically. I did question those that were excessive in defense of the idea that the President might NOT take this action.

I am very happy the President did this. It was necessary and I support and applaud his decision.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. Good. I'm glad to hear it.

[kenfrequed]

41. It was odd

The people that were defending against a recess appointment were doing so based on poor logic and a poor study of the history of recess appointments. There was a lot of irrationalality on the side of those that claimed to be defending the president or took that position. It made no sense.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

44. True. There was irrationality on the part of both sides. The point I've been trying to make

is why not wait on the facts before that irrationality has time to take root?

[kenfrequed]

52. The articles people read

Suggested that President Obama would not make recess appointments. Many had become used to disappointment but were angry anyhow. Some of those that were angry called the White house about this and explained their frustration.

Those that were defending the idea that the President not make recess appointments probably didn't call or write anyone and spent their time castigating the critics. If they did call the only thing most of them would have said was that it would be okay to not make recess appointments.


What was a better use of time in your mind? What actually had any effect whatsoever? You could argue that the calls of frustration did not affect his opinon or intent, but what positive thing could you say about the left-castigating anti-recess appointment people?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

59. I would suggest that we do more thinking about what the Constitution says about recess appointments

and limitations on the president's powers, if any.

I don't take issue at all with people expressing disappointment and feeling that they'll be let down. I do, however, have problems with people who *automatically* and without any knowledge of what is permitted or facts about the situation bash the president and/or Democrats.

And I never stated or implied that we shouldn't work to force the president and/or Democrats to do the right thing. I am very politically active here where I live. I also do believe that President Obama has asked us since before he was elected to make phone calls to Congress, to hold him accountable, to keep him honest. That's NOT what I have a problem with. I have a problem with knee-jerk reactions BEFORE the facts are out!!!!!!

[24601]

48. I'm fine with Recess Appointments when they adhere to the Constitution. This is going to the

courts for resolution since the Senate hasn't been in recess for the prerequisite number of days. My recollection is that Senator Obama approved blocking such appointments by holding pro-forma sessions during the last administration.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

60. Exactly!! Absolutely correct!!! And that's how it should be!

[24601]

98. Are you agreeing that by holding pro forma sessions every few days, the Senate prevents a lawful

recess appointment, or that Pres Obama agreed with and supported the Senate's power to do so when he was a senator, or that it will be going to the courts for resolution of the constitutional question?

...or all of the above?

I remember the not so distant history and understand the constitutional requirement reasonably well; however, because as things "should" be is subjective, your post was ambiguous.

Edited to fix typo

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

99. Oh, sorry. No, I meant that these constitutional issues should be ironed out first, and perhaps they

have. If they have and it is legally permissible, then I do support the recess appointment. If there are still legal issues to be discussed and haven't been, then I don't support the administration's move even though I want this appointment.

It seems that I am becoming more of a pragmatist as the years go by...

[24601]

102. Thanks for the clarification - we are in sync on this. n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

103. It was a point that I attempted to make throughout this thread. Thanks! n/t

[treestar]

36. OH no!

Can't admit to being wrong about anything and the President NEVER does anything right!

[MNBrewer]

54. To whom? The people who were "defending" the President by explaining how he couldn't POSSIBLY

make a recess appointment?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

62. No. I'm assuming that there are constitutional questions about recess appointments that remain.

The bottom line is why those who wanted the recess appointment *immediately* couldn't even wait until those constitutional questions were settle before they started bashing the president and calling him a "coward" and whatnot.

The only thing that I am taking issue with is the fact that people can't wait until the facts are out or until questions have been resolved before they start bashing Democrats. I am NOT trying to shut down dissent or keep people from expressing disappointment. I take issue with this irrational, knee-jerk bashing before the issues are settled.

[1monster]

66. I haven't posted on this issue (or even most issues most issues that seem to

get so many of you in a lather). I realize that Obama is a human being and therefore cannot please everyone all the time. I expect to disagree, be disappointed by, and pleased by Obama sometimes. And I expect everyone else who is honest with themselved to have the same reactions at times.

What I don't understand is the need by some to always and forever make war with others on this site who have been disappointed enogh times to have lost faith in the SUPEROBAMBA.

After all, they have a right to be doubtful that Obama will act the way they want him too. These people are protecting themselves from the emotional trauma of of one more disappointment. When that disappointment doesn't come, they can be pleased.

But in no way do they owe you, Obama, or anyone else an apology.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

67. You don't owe me shit. But you do owe it to your country to get active.

Read further down at my comments. I have explained throughout this thread that I am not trying to stifle discontent with the president. If you can't understand that, then I can't help you. If my initial post doesn't implicate you, then you should not have taken offense.

[1monster]

73. I shouldn't take offense at the contant digs and and taunts that get thrown

around here?

It makes DU a bore and I tend to stay away from DU more and more during times like these. I'm sure many, many others do too.

The fact many of those participating in these debates cannot keep it civil and above the middle school school level is what I object too. Your post did not implicate me, but it did irriatate me. The snipping at each other brings the level of discourse way down.

As to whether or not I'm active, how would you know?

By the way, I compliment you on your screen name. Too many pepole abandoned the perfectly good word "liberal" for the less descriptive word "progressive."

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

78. Of course you should take offense when it is directed at something that you're guilty of.

The "snipping" merely reflects my frustration on GD day in and day out. But that is how DU is and it is allowed.

I've tried to go down the "Democrats Unite" route, but there are many here who will never unite behind Obama, and maybe that's fine. But there is a larger battle to be fought that people tend to lose sight of.

[1monster]

100. "that you're guilty of"

Whoosh! sigh.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

101. Yes. If you're not guilty of divisive rhetoric, then you should not have taken offense at what I

wrote.

[boppers]

137. I didn't even follow and got the woosh.

FWIW

[abelenkpe]

69. Not on DU but here you go:

Obama to Make Recess Appointment of Richard Cordray to Head Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/01/obama-to-make-recess-appointment-of-richard-cordray-to-head-consumer-financial-protection-bureau.html

I have not seen this hit the news wires, but got this via Lisa Epstein, in turn from Our Financial Security, which is part of the Center for American Progress, which is a heavyweight Democrat think tank (with of course a whole list of talking points to rebut Republican kvetching about the use of a recess appointment).

This move raises the obvious question: why didn’t Obama make a recess appointment of Elizabeth Warren, either back in the day when she was the de facto head, or after getting her out of the limelight for a bit (so that the Republicans would be less likely, as turned out to be the case, to engage in procedural gamesmanship to thwart a recess installation)? We had discusses this at the time, but the major reasons seemed to be: 1. Obama was never going to do anything that would seriously ruffle the banks, given that that they are a major source of campaign funds; 2. Even if Obama had a weak moment in which he was tempted to ignore consideration 1 (as in Warren might persuade banks that what was good for consumers might be good for them too), an Warren appointment would be over Geithner’s dead body, and Obama was and is dependent on Geithner; and 3. Having Warren run for the Scott Brown seat is useful to the Dems (the Dems lacked a really strong alternative in Mass, she pulls money from other Republican campaigns, and she is likely to become a largely non-threatening ornament).

(more at link)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For some it will never be enough.

(edited to add: Yves constant put downs of Elisabeth Warren make me want to puke! )

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

85. Thanks very much for this. :)

[primavera]

70. "finally" - you took the words right out of my mouth

But yes, it's good that we finally have a director for this crucial office. Better late than never.

[Doctor_J]

71. We will if you'll admit he's been far too accomodating

to a party that was thoroughly rebuked on 11/2/2008. Finally standing up to them after three years is a good start, but not really any reason to gloat.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

79. I've admitted that since Day #1.

[booley]

82. yes this one guy certainly counters all the pro wall street guys in Obama's cabinet

This one thing (done during before an election when Obama's popularity among his own base is less then what it used to be in 2008) will certainly make up for all those other things Obama did (or didn't but could have) that made his base so disappointed to begin with)

One good thing out of ten bad things ain't bad.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

105. He could have done that was blocked time and time again by Congress. That's how the Constitution

works. Congress can block appointments, or didn't you know this?

It looks like he'll make more appointments--if Constitutionally permitted--to the National Labor Relations Board. That sure does throw a money wrench against fallacious meme that he's a "puppet of Wall Street" or "cowardly".

[JoePhilly]

108. I received this apology ... I think it came via an automated system ...

It said ...

Please by advised that the DU Manufactured Outrage Machine(tm) malfunctioned earlier this week. The malfunction resulted in the creation and delivery of numerous premature, and high flawed, outrage widgets.

As a precaution, the Outrage Machine was briefly shut down, and repairs were made. The sub-standard outrage widgets have been recalled, and dumped into a landfill.

Those of us who run the Manufactured Outrage Machine would like to apologize for the inconvenience. Please be assured that the Manufactured Outrage Machine will be back on line shortly, and you should expect to see more of the high quality outrage widgets that you've come to expect and enjoy.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

113. +1!! Nicely done!!

[Surya Gayatri]

134. Nice work! Love it! n/t

[slay]

123. No. And your post is certainly no way to encorage unity

i was just about to post how THIS is the Obama i voted for - that is until i saw your post calling out other DU'ers. you know what - i don't feel one bit differently about Obama at all - i still have all the problems i've had with him up til now. just cause he does ONE good thing doesn't change that he has had us in 2, maybe 3 pointless wars for profit, covered up the crimes of the Bush admin, didn't even attempt to fight for universal heath care, gave tax cuts to the top 1%, and has just recently signed off ok'ing indefinite detention of US citizens without the right to a trial or lawyer - all they have to do is call you a terrorist now. i could list many more problems if this is not enough for you.


so to answer your quesiton once again, NO - i will not apologize cause my problems with Obama are much larger than this one situation. i do applaud him for doing these appointments though - and hope to see him stand up to the republicans, and for the American People more in the future.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

126. You should read the rest of my posts in this thread because nothing that you have written here

is ANYTHING like what I am arguing.

*sighing*

[slay]

127. will do

sorry if i misinterpreted what you were saying... thanks for the reply... no worries.

[Odin2005]

139. I apologize.

[young but wise]

2. K&R.

Good for President Obama.

[rgbecker]

3. woohoo! And that leaves Elizabeth Warren to win back Massachusetts Senate seat.

Snails pace, but I can remember Obama talking about slowly turning the ship to get it back on course. Thank you GOP caucus voters for showing us you have no nothing. Just Racists who want to send the nation's women back to coat hanger days, Millionaires who think only of themselves and crazy people that think the roads and bridges need to be privatized.

[yodermon]

5. big news

k & r

[FSogol]

6. K & R. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

7. Terrific news!

[SpiralHawk]

8. Make it so

Thank heavens.

[mopinko]

9. yeah! the pessimists lose one.

[crim son]

35. I'm one of those pessimists

and I consider this a win! Next, single payer. Right?

[kenfrequed]

37. We actually like losing on this sort of thing.

Seriously, it keeps us coming back if we do get thrown the occasional bone. We would be a lot more enthusiastic and effective if we were given more than that.

[FedUp_Queer]

63. Amen to that brother.

I'm not fan of the president and will not vote for him, but I will give credit where it's due and it's due here.

[LonePirate]

10. This is great news! Glad to see Obama make this move.

[MaineDem]

11. Excellent!

I wasn't fond of GWB making recess appointments and I'd rather see the nominee get approved BUT, screw it, this is needed!

[Kingofalldems]

13. Looks like that taunting thread in LBN needs to come down

K and R

[comipinko]

16. More like, "looks like the taunting thread worked".

[alcibiades_mystery]

87. Obama made a recess appointment because of a DU thread?

You're insane.

[comipinko]

89. because of pressure from the "left"

[alcibiades_mystery]

90. Yeah, sure

Whatever floats yer boat, chief.

[Lasher]

15. I am pleasantly surprised.

A prior thread titled, Obama Won’t Make Recess Appointments Today, caused many including myself that he wouldn't make this recess appointment at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101416373

He hasn't yet but I hope he does. As I said in that thread, If I were President I would recess appoint every single pending nominee.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

25. +1

Show a little spine and spunk -- send the GOPers a message that O vs. 2 is not the pushover O vs.1 was.

[Lasher]

31. Looks like he's even being coy about it.

As in, 'No we won't be making any recess appointment today.

Let's hope there is such a thing as a Version 2.0.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

43. "Let's hope there is such a thing as a Version 2.0."

From your lips to the gods ears. If there isn't, we are fucked.

O does "coy" often and well. One of his worst attributes, IMO.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

33. That article was accurate, though. He didn't make the appointment yesterday.

All the facts were there in the article. The brief window of time yesterday to make appointments. The senior administration official stating that Obama was not going to be making any appointments yesterday. The Liberal groups hoping he would make recess appointments during the limited window of time.

Now we all just get to sit back and see how his deciding to wait until today is going to play out. If things work out then the GOP not only just lost the battle of the appointment, they also lost their pro forma session tool.

This could get very interesting.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. I can see what he wouldn't have made the appointments yesterday. It was the Republican caucus

and perhaps he didn't want the media to be distracted by his appointments. Do it quietly today and watch Mittens' head explode!!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

55. I disagree

This is a strategy move to create a precedent against the pro forma sessions.

As I said this could get interesting.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

58. That's an interesting take that I had not thought of before. I look forward to seeing what happens.

[Lil Missy]

17. good news!

[Corruption Winz]

20. Obama is making all the right moves at the right time.

I just wish it didn't take him ALL THIS TIME. Still, better late than Republican.

[FedUp_Queer]

64. all the right moves?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Signing a bill to authorize indefinite detention of anyone disqualifies him for reelection in my book. This is good, but not THAT good.

[Stuart G]

32. k & r nt

[baldguy]

38. He shouldn't be doing one recess appointment, he should be doing 200.

[Lasher]

51. I couldn't agree more.

He should recess all pending nominees, including every single judge.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=17335

[24601]

104. Judges don't want recess appointments that run out at the end of the Congressional session. Once

appointed (legally) during a Senate recess of more than three days, the heat is off for the Senate to act because the position is filled temporarily and there's no adverse effect on the judicial system. Then the appointment expires, leaving the vacancy for the president to fill - but it could be the "next" president.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

106. You are the kind of thoughtful, rational person that we need more of here on DU.

Brilliant analysis!!

[24601]

116. Thank you - I try to be rational but have to admit that sometimes I come up short. n/t

[Lasher]

117. I agree, that is a very good point.

Thanks.

[rocktivity]

39. If the best interests of ALL Americans -- not just the richest ones -- hang in the balance

bucking ANY kind political opposition is a president's freaking JOB.

While I hope this onset of spinal fortitude isn't just a cynical ploy to get re-elected, and Obama won't revert to bi-partisan corporatist form afterwards -- CUE THE VONAGE THEME!


rocktivity

[grantcart]

40. This can't be true because waves of anti Obama DUers denounced him as being too cowardly.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. "Cowardly" AND "a puppet for Wall Street" and "worse than Bush"!!!

[The Wizard]

42. Headline should read

Obama acts on behalf of the American consumer, Republicans throw tantrum.

[OKNancy]

45. Actually, I posted in the thread that said " He won't do it Tuesday"

another source that said it was still on the table and also a new thread from another source.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101416418

As soon as I saw the article, I went to look for another source because you can't always trust those political blogs.

I'm disappointed in those who jumped the gun and didn't care to read another source.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

57. I realized yesterday there was going to be more to this appointment

The wording was to open-ended in the statement he wasn't making the appointment. Then there was the follow up that it was still on the table. Something was going on behind the scenes.

It's obvious now the timing is a deliberate strategy move to disable the abuse of the pro forma sessions.

[oldhippydude]

49. while your passing around congrats

dont forget Elizabeth Warren!! she put a lot of bood sweat and tears into this!!

[Gringostan]

56. This is good news.

This is good news. I didn’t trash Obama, but I did question the decision. I will feel more comfortable when it’s done.

[abelenkpe]

65. Good. nt

[Doctor_J]

68. Bravo.

I seriously didn't think he had it in him. Let us hope that 2012 is a more presidential year for the president than the 1st 3 have been. He is going to need a lot of fight to beat Romney. If he spends the year appeasing the Repukes, he will get clobbered in November. If he actually fights them, there is...hope

[pampango]

72. Think Progress: President Obama Has Made Far Fewer Recess Appointments Than Any Recent President

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/04/397589/president-obama-has-made-far-fewer-recess-appointments-than-any-recent-president/

Despite the inevitable conservative complaints that President Obama is engaged in some kind of massive overreach by recess appointing Richard Cordray as the nation’s chief consumer financial protection watchdog, the truth is that Obama has used his recess appointment power very sparingly. After today’s appointment, President Obama will have made a total of 29 recess appointments. By comparison, George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments; Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments; George H.W. Bush made 77 recess appointments; and Ronald Reagan made 243. When you divide these numbers by the number of years each man spent in the White House, it reveals that Obama is far and away the least likely president to invoke this power:

[onenote]

91. Actually, until the repubs started using the pro forma session gambit in 2011

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2012, 05:32 PM - Edit history (1)

President Obama was more aggressive in using his recess appointment power for full time positions. This was a good thing and it helps explain why the repubs tried to stop him.

In his first two years in office, bush II made 23 recess appointments. Three of these were for part time jobs (e.g., board members of government "corporations" such as the Commodity Credit Corporation, or "governors" of the Postal Service). During President Obama's first two years in office he made 28 recess appointments, all of them for full time positions. Even in his third year, bush II only added 14 more full time recess appointments (for a total of 34 through 3 years); he did make another 24 part time appointments. President Obama didn't make any recess appointments during his third year in office because he chose not to challenge the repubs tactic of keeping the Senate from being in an extended recess through the use of pro forma sessions -- a tactic comparable to one that the Democrats used to keep bush II from making recess appointments for the last two years of his presidency.

In short, there is no need to be defensive about Obama's use of recess appointments. He's been appropriately aggressive when he had the chance in his first two years. He was appropriately cautious for one year and now, taking advantage of the opportunity presented by the intransigence of the repubs on the staffing of a new agency, he's become aggressive. The best part is that he's not backing into it either. The message from the WH to the repubs essentially was "Gotcha" -- that the repubs were suckers for going along with this strategy during the last two years of bush's presidency.

[hedgehog]

74. Here's a kick to get the latest news to the top -

so the thread complaining this wasn't going to happen can sink peacefully!

[SoapBox]

75. It will be great to see Senator Warren...but I wish he would have had the balls to appoint her.

Will I vote for him? Yes.

But...I get whiplash over some of his decisions.

[BumRushDaShow]

76. K&R

[disndat]

77. I hope the naysayers

will remember that Obama brought Elizabeth Warren forward. If she wins in Mass. she would be in line for V.P or even Pres. in 2016. All his Supreme Courts nominees and Federal Judges have been exemplary. His progressive critics don't seem to fathom how tough the Republicans have been to deal with. Obama had to backdown each time the Republicans threatened to shutdown the govt. In this fragile economy that Bush left him that would have been disastrous which the rightwing was trying to do.

[Scurrilous]

84. K & R

[Kingofalldems]

94. Today's score: Democrats 4 Repubs 0

MIs -100

[Jester Messiah]

110. The score is better than that!

See here: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/04/397537/breaking-obama-recess-appoints-nlrb/

The score's 4 to nothing by my count!

GOBAMA!

[Kingofalldems]

112. OK. Updated.

[JDPriestly]

95. Good way for Obama to open his campaign.

He is solidly coming down on the side of the people.

Too bad he signed the NDAA, but if we get a majority of sold Democrats in the House and Senate we can overturn it.

We need to keep the list of watch-worthy Congressional seats foremost in our minds this year.

Let's assume that all seats are up for grabs and that Democrats can win them

ALL.

[Stellar]

107. K & R

[IMG][/IMG]

[tpsbmam]

111. I came in here to rec this thread until I saw that the entire thread trashed DUers with whom

you disagree. Screw the damn thread -- wouldn't rec it for anything. This is a disgusting display on the part of all who engaged in this.

Yes, I'm an Obama critic when I feel he should be criticized. I'm also someone who praises him when I feel he's done something right, evidenced here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100272713

This was a very good thing he did. And you all pissed all over it by turning it into hateful thread.

So President Obama gets a rec from me for this appointment.....and the thread gets a total unrec!

[JoePhilly]

114. What do you think happens ...

When some one posts a positive thread on something good Obama does?

To use your words ... it gets "pissed all over it".

I'm not saying YOU do that, but it is very common.

So it should not be a surprise that this good event is being discussed not only because, as you note, it is a good thing ... but also because it draws into contrast the numerous posts of the last few days in which Obama was attacked for not using the 1 or 2 minutes between the last session, and the new one, to appoint a ton of recess appointments.

Much of the criticism of Obama is constructive and fair. And a bunch of it is manufactured. The screaming on this topic was of the latter type.

As a separate example ... on DU, you can regularly find people screaming that Obama needs to use the "bully pulpit!!" ... and then, after he does that ... he gets attacked for making a "pretty speech". Those too are manufactured outrages.

Like I said, there are plenty of real and fair criticisms ... most of the outrage over recess appointments was manufactured. It was used to claim that the 1% doesn't want Obama to appoint some one, and he's going along with them ... blah. blah, blah.

And Obama's actions here refute that fake outrage directly.

[tpsbmam]

115. Yeah, blah, blah, blah

your posts here were among the turn-offs for me. I often agree with you but I certainly don't agree with the tone taken toward other DUers here. I've never been guilty of going after any of the pro-Obama folks either. I've disagreed with them at times and said so, but I NEVER made it about the people and never trashed the people. And there are MANY like me on DU who really don't want to read this crap.

Whatever......Obama did a good thing. I rec'ed it on a different thread. This one is nauseating. The pro-Obama folks are guilty of hijacking this thread and making it about something it shouldn't be about. Saying, in essence, "but, but, but THEY do it......" doesn't make it any better, that's for sure! The pro-Obama folks had a chance to have a mostly positive thread about the President -- I would have been one of the people praising this move -- and turned it, instead, into something that's ugly, whiny and mostly not about the President's positive move.

I reiterate.......

[JoePhilly]

118. As I stated in my response ... I did not accuse you of the behavior I described.

You will find that I comment REGULARLY on the "manufactured outrage" that goes on here, and I do so on those outrage topics which I believe fall into that category. I'm totally up front about that.

For the record, I think some of the manufactured outrage (again the manufactured outrage, not the fair criticism) is intentional, and it has a specific purpose (depression of Dem turn out), and so my position is NOT "they did it, so I am going to do it."

I have described that specific purpose and how it manifests beyond DU, at the post below ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11021290

[tpsbmam]

124. Yes, and you got lots of praise for your ideas in what amounts to a closed forum....

open only to those who don't criticize Obama. Fair enough. I disagree with your premise that Democrats who criticize Obama are trying to suppress the Dem vote. I DO think Obama is a corporatist DINO. And, as much as I'll HATE it, I'll hold my nose and vote for him in November ONLY because the ReTHUGs are functionally insane and I have to think about SCOTUS. I was very active in GOTV in 2008, volunteered for Obama & contributed. I'll not be doing any of that this time.

Voting for him creates a HUGE moral dilemma for me, and it's one that all who bash those of us who criticize Obama minimize. In order to keep a batshit crazy ReTHUG out of office, I have to vote for someone who stands for most of the things I've opposed throughout most of my sentient life. Much of what Obama has done while in office repulses me. Yes, he's also done some good things, but they're FAR outweighed by the right-wing, corporatist, fascist crap I've witnessed coming out of this administration. Your nasty posts about those of us who are yes, very critical of the President, don't take any of that into account. Having to vote for this man this time is a true struggle for me. That's true for many of the DUers who criticize him. But none of that is taken into account.

I've stayed away from going after individuals who praise the President no matter what he does. They, again, are supporting actions on his part that are an anathema to me, and it sickens the hell out of me to see Democrats supporting what they damned when Bush did the same things. Yeah, it may say something about those individuals but I believe it's a mistake to attribute characteristics to individuals based on message board posts. So they support the President no matter what -- I strongly disagree with their points of view, and that's it. I'll not go into discussing y'all as "those people," as is so often done about Obama critics. And yes, it's also done about you guys.

So just realize when all of you make those lump statements about Obama critics, you ARE lumping all of us together. No, you don't target it directly at me, but I am one of those critics. I'm also one who's praised him when I think he's deserved it, but that doesn't get much acknowledgment either. Generalizations are generalizations and, though you may exempt me here, know that I'm one of those people who falls into those generalizations you make, though it doesn't fit me at all. And I don't think it fits most Obama critics I've seen -- there are very few here on DU who go after the individuals who support Obama no matter what, yet the generalizations made about critics put us all in the same category. It's wrong and I frankly resent it.

[JoePhilly]

129. You seem to miss some things in your response ...

First ... I've posted that same content, repeatedly, not only in the BOG, but in threads of GD, here on DU3, and also back on the old DU. So I have no fear of open discussion on that thesis ... I gave you THAT version because it is probably my most detailed version of it.

Second ... you again make the mistake of claiming that I see ALL criticism of Obama as falling into that "manufactured outrage" framework ... as I said earlier, multiple times in fact, there is plenty of criticism of Obama that is VERY FAIR ... I used caps here in hopes that this time you will see that.

My point is about the "manufactured outrage", the screaming about the awful thing Obama is ABOUT TO DO FOR SURE ... which then, does not happen.

And so... YOU are Lumping YOU into the critics that I claim manufacture nonsense issues ... I have done no such thing to you.

Your last statement is this ... "there are very few here on DU who go after the individuals who support Obama no matter what, yet the generalizations made about critics put us all in the same category. It's wrong and I frankly resent it' ....

In recent weeks, those of us who support Obama have been called "Morally bankrupt and contemptible" ... told that we are fascists ... and so on.

I should point out that your framing ... "individuals who support Obama no matter what" is also FALSE. There is a large difference between supporting him "overall" and supporting him "no matter what" ... that is YOU generalizing ... and in a false manner.

Try to recall, DU is a site where the intent is to support and elect more DEMOCRATS. And yet, Obama supporters actually found it necessary to create our own group, simply so that if we wanted to post a story about his kids, we needed a safe place to do so, such that the folks who hate him could not start screaming about some MANUFACTURED OUTRAGE.

So again ... you can be critical all you want, particularly in GD (be careful not to break your rule about "generalizing" ... a rule you broke a number of times in your response above btw).

Also be aware that if I think you are joining in a manufactured outrage discussion, in GD, and I see it, I'll probably say so.

I have that right.

And ... whether you like it, or resent it, does not bother me in the least. If however, your criticism is reasoned, we might actually have an actual discussion on the merits.

[humbled_opinion]

119. Yes, I must say that

I am certainly glad the President has started to appreciate and listen to his base. May this be the start of a banner year for President Obama and moving progressive legislation forward with or without the obstructionists in Congress....

[paulkienitz]

120. yay Barack

[blue-wave]

121. For All Those

criticizing the administration and the President, just ask yourself WWBD? If he were still in office, What Would Bush Do?...or any republican for that matter. We cannot, no we must not lose the White House this election. Let's work toward getting a solid Democratic congressional majority in both houses that the adminstration can work with (no blue dogs) to accomplish more. Take all that effort spent on pissin' and moanin' and put it to work electing a more progressive congressional delegation.

[theaocp]

122. This will be a great move.

Now, when is Geithner getting kicked out the door?

[katty]

125. great, successful bypass surgery!

[Canuckistanian]

128. Nice payback for sticking the country with John Bolton

And this appointment might actually HELP the country instead of embarrassing it.

[killbotfactory]

130. When Obama just recently requested a debt ceiling raise, the GOP said congress wasn't at work.

Oops.

[mvd]

131. K&R

I hope he keeps up this attitude into his second term. Better to learn late than never. I'm not fully convinced about this new attitude, though - we'll see.

BTW, there's nothing the Repukes can do about this. They're just throwing their usual fit.

[just1voice]

132. We'll all see if Cordray actually inforces anything

I hope the hell he does go after criminal banking practices but there were plenty of regulatory agencies before that did nothing. The Dodd/Frank act doesn't mean a thing unless criminals are arrested and put on trial and Cordray can oversee all the criminal banks he wants and still do nothing just like his predecessors.

I've read several articles about his appointment and not one says WTF he'll actually get done.

[JNelson6563]

140. Heard his first public statement on NPR news today

He talked about, in part, aside from bank accountability, the many types of companies (like payday lenders, private student loan companies, etc) that had thus far escaped much of anything as far as regulating being focused on.

I think that is awesome.

Julie

[Zorra]

133. Excellent! K&R for Prez Obama.

Now this is good.

[Odin2005]

138. Obama just won back my vote for doing this!

GOBAMA!!!