I’ve never really been sure why there was enough consensus in this country after World War Two to pass the 22nd Amendment, barring any president from being elected more than twice. I can certainly see why a lot of people felt that Franklin Delano Roosevelt had served too long, but then it seemed fortuitous that he’d been available to lead us through most of the war. In any case, passing amendments to the Constitution is notoriously difficult, so why was this reform possible?
If anything, Roosevelt’s war leadership and immense popularity were arguments against forcing a well-liked and much-needed leader out of office just because of the passage of some arbitrary amount of time.
I guess the country felt that it was still dangerous to allow anyone to stay in power too long and they didn’t want Roosevelt setting a precedent contrary to the one George Washington set when he voluntarily stepped down after two terms in office.
I see the rationale for the amendment, but I don’t like it and I wish it didn’t exist. So, count me among the people who wish Obama could stand for election again. Two-thirds of Democrats still want him, so why should they be denied the opportunity to nominate him?
I have never supported term-limits, which I consider to be one of the stupidest “reform” ideas I’ve ever heard, but it makes a little more sense to me when discussing a president than it does a congressperson. After all, a president has executive authority which they can theoretically consolidate and abuse.
So, I don’t think this is a slam-dunk case either way, but it doesn’t sit well with me that the people can want a president and not be able to vote for them. Absent the amendment, I’m sure some people would vote against Obama for no other reason than that they think he should honor the two-term code of honor. But that’s their right. That’s representative government. If he lost for that reason, there would be nothing wrong with that.
It’s just that I look at poll results like this, and I doubt the American people are getting the choice they want or deserve:
A Quinnipiac University National poll out Wednesday found that majorities of Americans believe neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump will be a good president.
Fifty-eight percent of voters say that Trump would not be a good president, according to the poll, while only 35% say he would be. That compares to 53% who believe Clinton will not be a good president and 43% who say she will.
Maybe the Canadians were on to something when they chanted “Four More Years” at Obama after he addressed their parliament.
Would he even want to do it, though? Seems to me he’s one of the few who’d say “thanks, but no thanks.” I mean, I know that the craziest high after one term in the White House is four more years on the same trip, as Hunter said–but this is one instance of term limits I like, for the reasons you mentioned about consolidated executive power.
And yet I’d probably vote for the guy if he could, and wanted to, run again.
I saw an interview with him where he more or less implied that he would like to. He was asked if he could win a third term and he was like “Mmmm hmmm.” I know Michelle wouldn’t want it but it’s all academic.
He does seem to relish the idea of campaigning against Trump. Similar to how WJC would have loved running against GWB.
I think he actually said things to the effect of, I’m just starting to get the hang of this in the last year or two…
God I wish. For his faults, it’s sad to know he will almost certainly be the best president of my life.
I can see the problems with no term limits on presidencies, and I wouldn’t want 20 year presidencies, but our “democracy” has far greater problems. We’ve already got various “senators for life”.
Why such a pessimist? If authentic lefties ever thought like that, they would have curled up and died with FDR.
Or is it merely a failure of imagination on your part? Obama’s personal style beats that of all the presidents since JFK, but his policies are much too similar to and/or worse than those of Nixon. So, it perplexes me so many can’t imagine better.
Well, he’s the best president of my life so far (since Carter). By far probably. It’s not that pessimistic to think he’ll be the best of my life. Happy to be wrong though.
Define best. Outside of his style/public persona which I’ve already stipulated beats his predecessors from LBJ on. But, we the people live with the policies of politicians and not their personalities. On that basis, Carter may have been better. He at least managed to get a minimum wage increase that in constant 1996 dollars kept it near or above $6.00. Near or below $5.00 seem to be what Clinton, Obama, and the New Democrats prefer.
Oh, Marie. Write Bernie’s name in already and call it a day. Maybe the best of his lifetime because he’s old and won’t see very many more presidents? I don’t know how old he is, but I certainly don’t expect a smarter president in my lifetime, even if you give me 30 more years.
Write Bernie’s name on what? Had Bernie never entered the 2016 presidential race and HRC had decimated her only challenger O’Malley, and you all were fantasizing about an impossible third (for some fourth) term for Obama, my comments would be about the same. Sad that so few here can imagine better than Obama and are objective about his performance and policy record.
I’ve never disavowed my ’08 opinion that Obama was better than Clinton and as the nominee better than McCain. Better than HRC because at a minimum he and Michelle aren’t into personal and public drama and self-aggrandizement and even though he hewed very closely to the neoliberal economic and liberal neoconservative foreign policy, I still maintain that the difference between what he delivered and would HRC would have delivered, small though it was, made him the better choice.
There’s a huge difference for me in voting for a candidate as the better choice given the alternatives and putting that person on a pedestal regardless of his/her job performance. I voted for WJC twice looked forward to him leaving office in 2000.
Oh I can imagine better and be objective. Two things: Social change and evolution need a lot more than a dope president. America is a hell of a beast.
Look at the things Obama didn’t really do at all, merely aknowledged (gay-marriage). This means that presidents could be worse than Obama and actually preside over greater social progress (far out I know but I think that’s plausible).
I’m something of a realist in that I think Obama ‘ s degree of difficulty was higher than B. Clinton’s. That doesn’t seem crazy to think.
Two: I’m looking at it in odds maker terms, not as someone with political convictions.
Well, if you are happy with people in the US on starvation wages, if you like the idea of homelessness, and if you want corporations to control your political parties, then you vote for Clinton. And keep coming back after the coronation so we can ask for explanations of Clinton’s policies.
Yes sir, because I don’t want Strongman Trump and his millions of right-wing authoritarians in power, I just love starvation wages, can’t get enough homelessness, and get literally aroused when thinking about corporations controlling political parties.
All because I support Hitlery’s CoronationTM.
Get a grip.
How does the second most despised politician get more votes than her opponent? Get the most despised politician to be her opponent.
Seek help.
Best small-c conservative president of my lifetime since Carter. And I was born on Carter’s election day.
I think it would be better for four more years of austerity and debt reduction to come from a person without the charisma and personal following of Obama.
While being unhappy with the social program budget cuts, I’ll take the austerity which has been imposed on the Defense Department, and the debt reduction which has been gained thru the Affordable Care Act.
The budgets passed in the President’s first two years were financed thru increases in deficit spending. The majority of voters registered their discomfort with such high deficits by voting to oust dozens of Congressmembers in 2010; those who needed to defend this deficit spending did not vote in sufficient numbers.
Wrong. Progressives understand the proper use of deficit spending. But Progressives don’t vote for Blue Dogs with great enthusiasm. They DO vote in midterms. The falloff was in youth and female POC, according to that Pew study I have linked here before.
And this one…http://blogforarizona.net/do-progressives-even-sit-out-elections-the-numbers-say-no/
Lol, progressives minus youth and women POC equals you and your Aunt Gertrude.
Self-identification? “…more black and Hispanic Democratic voters characterized their views as moderate than liberal in 2015, and the self-described political views of both groups have remained stable in recent years. Last year, 42% of black Democrats called themselves moderates, 29% said they were conservatives and 27% called themselves liberals. Among Hispanic Democrats, 39% described their political views as moderate, 35% as liberal and 24% as conservative.”
(http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/no-liberals-dont-control-the-democratic-party/28
3653/)
10 million fewer unmarried women showed up in 2010 vs. 2008
Non-white voters underrepresented in midterms by 60 percent
Young voters are the worst drop off of any group
(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/democrats-midterm-demographic-problem/)
It’s a wonder any Dem gets re-elected, no? Where are those votes coming from? “Midterm voters tend to be more engaged, older, whiter, and wealthier than the population at-large or in presidential elections…Base Democratic voters – women, African Americans, Latinos, young voters – are among the least likely to vote in midterm elections. ”
Now who does that sound like? Aunt Gertrude, perhaps?
Well, a large part of the Dems’ recent failures in midterms has to do with the party support for really bad candidates. I’ve said many times that when voters are offered the choice between a Republican and a faux Democrat who tries to look like a Republican the real Republican wins.
I’m just about ready to look for another party. Green, maybe. But the Dems just get worse and worse, and this year is my limit of neoliberal bullshit.
Well, accepting your representation of 2010 turnout patterns, aren’t youth and female POC among our coalition partners who need to vote to defend deficit spending?
And aren’t youth and female POC who vote for Democrats considered “progressive”, or is there some restricted definition which is being installed now?
As far as progressive??? Is liberal Progressive? To some it is. For me, it has been co-opted to meaninglessness. Andrew Cuomo calls himself a liberal probably. Rahm Emanuel.
Older POC generally self-identify as being more conservative Dems, but do they mean on social issues or economic? I think in the past, it might have been social. Today? I don’t know.
Youth in general may be trending social democratic if this election is anything to go by. That is more Populist/Progressive than liberal by my definition. Will they show up in 2018? I sure hope so.
At the Presidential level from 1932 to 1968, Democrats had close to a lock on the older white voter based on economics. Ike didn’t directly challenge the old folks on economics and the ’52 and ’56 new voters (born 1929 through 1935) were raised on the glory of WWII.
There were only four years when the GOP managed to control Congress from ’32 to ’94, and they got rid of them quickly after seeing what they were delivering. (Reagan enjoyed a GOP Senate for six years but never a House.)
LOL Well they have sure taken care of that advantage, have they not? Not to mention what has happened in the states…
Begs the question of why Democratic voters still fail to recognize when and why they lost that advantage.
Well, Obama didn’t much like deficit spending and I feel quite certain he didn’t understand what Mr Keynes was talking about. So he is most certainly not going to imbue anyone with the desire to support a deficit. Plus a fella named Koch and his brother and Citizens United had something to do with the rout the dems suffered in 2010. But that is not why I am writing this.
I am interested in the reduction on the Defense Dept budget and what was saved with Obamacare, if you have any links. Last I understood we were paying about twice what any other major country was spending on health care.
Re. DOD spending:
https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#/media/File:PerCapitaInflationAdj
ustedDefenseSpending.PNG
https:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44958
“Options for Reducing the Deficit: Discretionary Spending
Posted by Sunita DMonte on
December 12, 2013
…Since the 1970s, the share of federal spending that occurs through the annual appropriation process has dropped considerably. Specifically, between 1973 and 2013, discretionary spending fell from 53 percent of total federal spending to about 35 percent. Relative to the size of the economy, discretionary spending declined from 9.6 percent of GDP in 1973 to a low of 6.0 percent in 1999 before rising back to about 7 percent in 2013, CBO estimates. Most of the decline over that period involved spending for national defense, which, as a share of GDP, reached a low of 2.9 percent around 2000. However, such outlays began climbing again relative to GDP shortly thereafter, reaching an average of 4.6 percent from 2009 through 2011. Roughly half of the growth in defense spending over the 2001-2011 period resulted from spending on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2013, discretionary spending for defense fell to 3.8 percent of GDP, CBO estimates…”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/debt-deficits-and-the-defense-budget/
“Debt, Deficits, and the Defense Budget
BY COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS February 25, 2013 at 1:20 PM EDT
*”By Jonathan Masters, Online Editor/Writer for the Council on Foreign Relations
…Without an agreement by March 1, automatic budget reductions, known as sequestration, will go into effect. For fiscal year 2013 (FY2013), the cuts will total $85 billion, half of which falls on defense…
The automatic budget reductions are a conditional enforcement measure included in a deal that Congress reached in the summer of 2011, known as the Budget Control Act (BCA). The bill balanced a $2.1 trillion staged increase in the government’s borrowing capacity with matching deficit reductions stretched out over a decade.
Specifically, the statute placed roughly $1 trillion worth of caps on all discretionary spending through FY2021, and stipulated that if Congress was unable to identify by January 2012 an additional $1.2 trillion in reductions for this period, budget austerity of an equal amount would come into effect automatically.
Congress missed its deadline and triggered a sequester set to take effect March 1. The sequester activates two changes to the original BCA spending caps: it apportions them evenly between defense and non-defense budget functions, and it lowers their levels by an additional $109 billion per year for the eight sequester years (FY2014 – FY2021) to achieve the mandated savings. FY2013, as noted below, is handled differently.
If no superseding legislation is passed in the next nine years, base funding for the Pentagon would be roughly $500 billion less than it would have been if it simply increased with inflation starting from FY2012 to FY2021…”
Re. the Affordable Care Act:
https:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/reform/deficit-reducing-health-care-reform
https:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252
“Budgetary and Economic Effects of Repealing the Affordable Care Act
June 19, 2015
CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that, over the next decade, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act would probably increase budget deficits with or without considering the effects of macroeconomic feedback…”
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cbo-deficits-drift-lower-lower-health-costs
“CBO: Deficits to drift lower on lower health costs
By ANDREW TAYLOR Apr. 14, 2014 8:55 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — A congressional report released Monday predicts slightly smaller deficits both this year and over the coming decade, with lower spending on federal health care spending being the main reason.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/08/barack-obama/obama-health-care-drivin
g-down-deficit
“Obama: Health care is driving down the deficit
By Lauren Carroll on Wednesday, October 8th, 2014 at 2:09 p.m.
…We wondered: Is it true that “health care is now the single-biggest factor driving down” the federal budget deficit? We found that the claim is pretty well supported.
To put it simply: A few years ago, economists predicted that net federal spending on health care would get very high, very fast — fast enough to drive the deficit out of control. Now, by contrast, they predict that net federal spending on health care will grow, but not quite as fast as originally thought, making the deficit at least a little more manageable…”
Clinton is again promising balanced budgets and deficit reduction in her economic policies. In THIS economy??? A discussion of that:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/unfounded-debt-fears-block-economic-recovery.html
Are we finally talking about the missteps and bad practices that neoliberalism’s obsession with debt caused? Has we learned?
(And no, Clinton’s stimulus proposal is a joke. No attempt to teach the use of debt, either. Sanders audiences had a hunger for that discussion, no?)
No, Clinton is not promising balanced budgets in her campaign. She isn’t even identifying deficit reduction as a priority.
Hillary wants to raise taxes and close loopholes used by wealthy people and corporations, but she and her campaign say those revenue hikes will be used to pay for infrastructure repairs, Social Security benefit increases and other spending programs, not in a major effort to reduce the National debt.
She has been a deficit hawk since the 2000s and talks of putting Bill in charge again. Certainly in 2008, those were her campaign’s positions.
Your description sounds like restoring Pay-Go, not deficit spending for stimulus.
Last PPP Poll
Obama 52
Trump 43
Clinton 48
Trump 44
“The Meteor is particularly appealing to independent voters, functionally in a three way tie at 27% to 35% for Clinton and 31% for Trump. Maybe that’s who the Libertarians should have nominated.”
I would vote for Obama again in a heartbeat. He’s still a young man and he has made many inroads during his terms as President. With less resistance from the damaged GOP, who knows where he could take the country?
Many of us sort of like to know what the options are before declaring what we would do.
In ’08 Democrats had their second opportunity to weigh in on the IWR. If they opposed it, their was only one viable Dem candidate. Unfortunately, he didn’t live up to his “don’t wage dumb wars” claim.
Looks to me that we are in far fewer wars than we were when he took office. No, he didn’t keep us out of all international action, because isolationism doesn’t work, but he hasn’t started any wars at all.
If escalations and covert and “dirty” wars aren’t included, the picture is false. If one only considers new and big unilateral military actions, your statement would also apply to Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton.
It’s not isolationist to oppose unilateral military and economic wars. To oppose selling lots of delivery equipment and ordinance to countries such as KSA so it can go bomb the shit out of Yemen. To engage in regime change because US elites don’t like the head of state/government in country X. Many of those government/leaders counted as “our friends” are as disgusting or worse than those labeled as “our enemies.”
Very bored with those that toss out “isolationist” as a pejorative for those that oppose the out of control US military occupations and actions around the world.
Guess we don’t outsource ALL of this manufacturing…
http://time.com/4161613/us-arms-sales-exports-weapons/
Iraq buys a lot of U.S. weapons since the bulk of U.S. troops left.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/iraq-military-win-business-not-war
Geez, far fewer wars? But still wars, right? ISIS is attacking all over now or inspiring others to do so. I wish we had that fewer war stuff. But I do agree he is making progress against ISIS. And since the Kagan clan and Victoria are neoconservatives and helping write foreign policy for her via PNAC, we got more war in the offing.
Obama oversaw the coup in Ukraine against a legitimately elected government backed by fascist organizations that have had a relationship with our CIA since the end of WWII (and with Germany before then). Obama’s overseen various withdrawals and increases in force in Afghanistan, where now there are actually twice as many mercenaries as actual troops now. Obama oversaw all those arms deals that went to Saudi Arabia and Qatar et al, who then created ISIS. He sat in the seat of power when Clinton destabilized Libya.
This is not to say that Obama is necessarily a warmonger. It’s just that since JFK bought the farm the MIC pretty much gets its wars. During Reagan there was a lot of work by the Dems to stop all that bloodshed in Latin America, but the MIC had workarounds.
The coup was actually led by the fascists. The sentence was a bit confusing. But, yeah, he was in office when all of the above went down, and he either didn’t notice or didn’t stop it.
It has been suggested that it was done vs. Obama, especially to disrupt the Obama- Russia diplomacy that was threatening us all with too much peace breaking out (Syria, Iran). I subscribe to that reading.
Er, this will not surprise you.
Hacked Emails Reveal NATO General Plotting Against Obama on Russia Policy
https:/theintercept.com/2016/07/01/nato-general-emails
Now, retired general.
fascinating, thanks
You’re not being quite accurate if you’re going to claim KSA and Qatar created ISIS. ISIS is what used to be Al Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS entered Syria well after other rebel groups had success against Syrian government forces with direct and indirect support from KSA, Qatar, Turkey, US etc.
It’s also inaccurate to say Clinton destabilized Libya. There was a civil war (= instability) which the US decided to intervene in on behalf of the rebels in order to achieve regime change under the pretext of a humanitarian right to protect. This action contributed to the destabilization of Libya but was not necessarily its cause.
I don’t judge accuracy by what the media tells me.
If you believe that the destabilization of Libya happened without western help, and you believe that the intense NATO bombing (US bombing mostly) didn’t play a large part in destabilizing Libya, then we really have nothing to talk about.
There are plenty of resources where you can read about the use of Salafist movements by the “Safari Club”, i.e., the US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan et al to advance their joint agendas.
One question for you: Did we invade Afghanistan to catch our former Mujahadeen henchman, Osama bin Laden or did your government and media lie to you? We’ve been there fifteen years now. Have you figured out why we actually went in there? Well, maybe in another fifteen years…
Bob,
I haven’t read very many of your posts until recently so I’m learning how you tend to operate with regard to debate and use of facts. You’ll notice I only critiqued your factual analysis. My core point is that your analysis suffers in quality when you make declarative statements that don’t quite hold up to scrutiny.
Your claim was that Clinton destabilized Libya. I don’t dispute that Western intervention contributed to instability in Libya but there’s quite a bit more to it than that.
You said KSA and Qatar created ISIS. Your reference to Salafist movements is relevant but it is lazy to make this kind of assertion without additional context.
I won’t go into your Afghanistan rabbit hole as its intended to be a distractor that presumes my opinions on the topics raised. You’re not interested in getting things right. Rather you like to throw things out there as if readers should just accept what you say at face value.
Any year now we’ll be out of Afghanistan. And Osama bin Laden is dead now. Wasn’t that the reason why we invaded them? That’s what they said at the time.
He’s better than the current two choices, but I wouldn’t go overboard in praise. He’s continued PNAC’s imperial conquests, one of his first acts as President was to dump the Employees Free Choice Act, and his cabinets have looked like boardrooms. And he is responsible in large part for the continuation and further embedding of DLC politics at the core of the DNC. I would rather have him as a neighbor, or a buddy to drink with and watch sports on TV.
Please cite facts behind your claim that dumping EFCA was “…one of his first acts as President…”.
This summary comes closer to the truth:
https:/shadowproof.com/2010/04/13/what-happened-to-the-employee-free-choice-act
AFL-CIO President Trumka’s quote is helpful to describe the timing and priority set, but I think this portion of the reporting gets us to the most salient point:
“So Specter joined the negotiations with Senate Democrats trying to reach an accord on EFCA. Blanche Lincoln had come out in public opposition to the bill, along with a half-dozen other Democrats, but privately was telling Senate Democrats that if it ever came to it, she’d go along.”
We couldn’t pass it in 2009 because we only had 53 votes for it in the Senate and we didn’t want to water it down too soon. Then Scott Brown took our 60th Senate seat, and the majority lost Sen. Lincoln and others in the midterms. Given the Senate GOP’s scorched earth opposition, that was that.
So if we got a third term of Obama we’d get both the EFCA and get out of Afghanistan?
Pass the pipe. I can’t get high enough to believe this.
We don’t have 60 Senators, nor will we plausibly gain 60 Senators soon. That will prevent us from gaining EFCA and other things we want not because that is the way it must be, but because the Republicans now deny cloture to everything worthwhile, from Bills to budgets.
Again, that’s not been the way the Senate has always worked, and that’s not the way it needs to work or should work. Our judgment about what Obama wants to accomplish should be measured with this fact in mind.
Better nuanced description of how it plays: the Dems always have a Senate Dem spoiler or two in a back pocket ready to play the villain when they want to kill legislation. We have seen THAT act many times.
https://socialistworker.org/2009/07/23/who-killed-efca
“First of all, labor misread the dynamics of the Democratic Party and its commitment to pass genuine pro-labor reform. While the Democrats put forward EFCA in the first place, they are at the end of the day a pro-corporate party. So predictably, they wavered on the legislation. The Senate hemmed and hawed for months, and the legislation remained in limbo.
Instead of disciplining conservative Democrats into supporting EFCA, the party leadership started the process of compromising on the content of the legislation.”
They compromised to the point no one wanted to support it.
Guess where Andy Stern found his next employment.
Dude, there was a Senate Dem spoiler or seven on EFCA.
And if you want to describe the Party which had Senate and House majorities ready to pass the full EFCA language as a fully pro-corporate Party, you can make that weak claim if you insist.
None of this supports the earlier claim that President Obama abandoned his EFCA support first thing upon taking office.
Why do you let the Republican Party off the hook so completely? Their EFCA opposition was vehement and 100%. That isn’t the way they used to be, nor is it how they have to be.
Yep, after running on it for re-election they were only too happy to put in the knives.
“Democrats on Tuesday formally introduced the controversial card-check bill in the House and Senate, but with fewer sponsors than in the last Congress.
It also reflects the fact that the bill has a more realistic chance of becoming law this year than it did in 2007, when it was passed by the House but stalled in the Senate.
Forty senators had signed on as co-sponsors on Tuesday, compared to 46 in 2007. Eighteen Democratic senators did not sign on as co-sponsors, including 11 lawmakers who were co-sponsors in the Senate the last time it was introduced.
(http://thehill.com/homenews/news/18682-dem-senators-cooling-on-card-check)
Yes.
How is the President responsible for this?
I claim he’s not.
Unions have been getting the shaft from the Dems at the Federal level for a long time. Because the Dems are the only show in town, unions support them. (some police and fire fighters unions back Repubs.) Since FDR put the unions on the map with the Wagner Act, and the Republican Congress overrode Truman’s veto of the Taft-Hartley Act, unions are Dem friendly. However, as the Democratic party became less FDR and more corporatist, union membership and its benefits have suffered. Unions donate to the Dems and do a lot of GOTV each election, but no longer have a seat at the Dem table. If a progressive movement were to occur, Labor would once again have a voice.
Having spent a lifetime in the federal government there was always a difference between Repub and Dem administrations on how labor was treated, at least until Bill Clinton. You could see it with appointments to the various labor boards.
And yes, the way the game is played now is that there are enough DLC Dems in both houses to throw votes to the Republicans.
centerfield, I would recommend reading Thomas Frank’s LISTEN, LIBERAL. He goes into detail about the various signs at the beginning to Obama’s administration that signaled a cold shoulder to labor and accommodation with Wall Street.
Members of the private and public sector unions were very excited about Bernie Sanders’ campaign. Some of their union leadership jumped on the Clinton car very early (Fall 2015) because they thought Sanders didn’t have a chance in hell. Now that decision has caused a rift between union leaders and members. It seems HRC has an uncanny ability to divide whatever group she touches. Some union members still remember Bill Clinton’s abandonment of unions and his signing of NAFTA, so the Clinton name is already unpopular in their households. It appears Labor is another one of the unhappy groups in this country.
Yeah, I’ve heard Frank on his book tour.
Does Thomas Frank discuss the record of President Obama’s NLRB and Labor Department in his book? Because those agencies have pushed harder against business lobby interests than any in our lifetimes. One of many signs of this is that they’ve been sued over and over again, and have occasionally had some of their best rulings blocked by members of the judiciary susceptible to Federalist Society views.
If Frank isn’t accounting for that, then he’s engaging in selective argumentation to justify his increasingly absurd suggestions that President Trump wouldn’t be much different than President Clinton on the Labor question.
As far as whether Labor has been treated with more respect under recent Administrations, let’s review the Labor Department Secretaries under recent Presidents, shall we?
Obama- Hilda Solis and Thomas Perez
W. Bush- Elaine Chao (Mitch McConnell’s wife)
Clinton- Robert Reich and Alexis Herman
H.W. Bush- Elizabeth Dole (Bob’s wife) and Lynn McLaughlin (former Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference)
I think I sense a pattern here…
Because one deep seated character trait among Americans is preference for “fairness.” The GOP is very good at exploiting that trait to their own advantage. i.e “A flat tax is fair,” “It’s not fair that the wealthy pay more taxes,” “UT wasn’t fair to that white brat …,” etc. Thus, incumbent Presidents have such a huge advantage over challengers that it’s not fair that one can run for more than two terms and that’s also on the slippery slope to a dictatorship.
If y’all had wanted a third Obama term, why didn’t you begin working on a reasonable facsimile of it back in 2010? Biden to State and the junior Obama (named by your hero) as the 2012 VP nominee.
Don’t forget that Bill Clinton and a majority of Democrats wanted a third term for him as well. In part because those voters failed to appreciate how toxic the legislation under Clinton was for ordinary people. Those that appreciated that and could articulate why were dismissed and ridiculed. And it was the former and not that latter that went on to support the IWR and didn’t make enough of a fuss about GWB’s policies, lies, and gross failures to stop him.
I don’t see anything wrong with the term limit. Obama is the only one in recent memory who might deserve another term but he is far to right for my liking. They should talk about term limits for congress and the supremes. Lifetime jobs in government leads to corruption and, face it, laziness.
Better than the likely nominees but personally I’d prefer a limit of 2 consecutive terms. Take a break then after the country has time to reflect on your tenure you can go back. Also blunts some of the incumbency advantage.
2 term presidents that could have had a third if available:
Eisenhower
Reagan
Clinton
Obama
Only Nixon and Bush II for obvious reasons were never considered viable third termers.
So pretty much any president that does a good enough job in the first term to get re-elected is going to have a lot of goodwill that will last. The exceptions almost prove the rule – you have to be a crook or the worst president of all time not to qualify for a third term in voters minds.
Since WWII
Undefined because it wasn’t tested int the case of those that could conceivably have tried to win a third term. We only know that a single President defied the tradition of no more than two terms (won four terms and served for twelve years and one month) and that option no longer exists. Thus, there’s no cost for people to long for what can’t be.
Reagan was the worst president of all time. We’re still paying the price of his reign of error.
Although I strongly supported Mike Dukakis in 1988, I did feel better when Bush I was elected just because he wasn’t Reagan. His listening to Alan Greenspan and later appointing him Chairman of the Federal Reserve was one of Reagan’s worst acts.
I actually think the two term limit is one of those those things that overall helps helps our democracy function by constraining the accumulation of power. The president is just too powerful of a position to give to someone for decades. Certainly, that was the stance our founding fathers took once Washington established the two term tradition.
And sure, you could argue that certain presidents would be better, or at least more popular, than their successors. And this go-around maybe that is true. But that works both ways.. could you imagine what a third Reagan term would have looked like?
Also, you have to acknowledge that Obama has done some not very good things in his term as well and some of the good things he has done he probably did as a result of not having to run for office again. If TPP doesn’t get through this year, don’t you think that would probably be a third term priority of his?
Still, the primary process this year did produce two truly awful choices. Maybe people will use this election to start work on reforming our rickety and archaic election system, but unfortunately the probability of that happening seems low.
I know all the arguments saying that there’s too much power in the Presidency to allow a third term but I would vote for the President for a third term in a heart beat.
He’s one of the best presidents we’ve had and I’m sure he’ll be one of if not the best in my lifetime when it’s all over for me.
After considering the question my answer: NO Guess I am part of the two thirds.
rather not part of two thirds. We need an edit key.
I see Huffpost has an article on Big Dog freaking everything up again by walking into Lynch’s plane. My facebook is lite up over it. Fire the dumb bastard. And it is now reported Hillary will meet with FBI Saturday. Good times on the way? Maybe I need to reconsider Obama for another term or Joe Biden, since there is no chance in hell Bernie would ever get it.
I think Ken Star made them bullet-proof. Not seen anything to contradict that premise.
But AG Lynch has said that it was nothing but a personal chit-chat about their grandkids and Bill’s golf game.
Only Bill could figure out how to pay a social call on an AG after landing at PHX and before she deplaned. That’s assuming that it was entirely coincidental that they both ended up at PHX at the same time and one or both of them hadn’t planned this “accidental” encounter.
And now she says she might override an FBI indictment recommendation. uh-huh uh-huh
I heard the opposite in the interview with Capehart.
That was the first report, since retracted.
The first report was that Lynch would issue a statement that she would accept the decision of the FBI and the second report was Lynch actually making the statement. Just checked again and not seeing any report of Lynch back-peddling. So, looks as if you need to delete what you thought you heard.
My info came from caucus99percent which is currently down. Will provide link when it comes back.
Here’s the link http://caucus99percent.com/comment/123761#comment-123761, which linked to http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-07-01/lynch-set-to-accept-findings-of-fbi-prosecutor
s-in-e-mail-probe which included the quote:
The bloomberg article sounds like she;s talking out of both sides of her mouth. She “expects” to follow the recommendation, but reserves the right to overrule, which says “maybe I will, maybe I won’t” which translates to “I’ll follow it if clears her, but won’t if it doesn’t”. Hell! This administration refused to indict Cheney!
Don’t put your hopes on a career change to “translator”.
Stick to your present day job, whatever that might be.
The optics of him talking to Lynch or cornering her is bad, innocent or not. That is exactly the kind of thing to do and bring out the crazies about the fix is in. I’ve got it all over my Facebook page with more than a dozen comments, mostly negative. You know rigging the system again. And Hillary may be interviewed tomorrow.
Salon – WATCH: Sanders blasts “colonial” Puerto Rico bill and Wall Street vulture funds in powerful Senate speech
(Includes a transcript of Bernie’s speech for those that can’t watch or prefer to read and watch.)
Welcome to Detroit emergency managers…
Okay Marie you’ve convinced me. Barack Obama is the worst President ever and only our White Progressive Savior Bernie Sanders will save us all from the Black man and his neoliberal failures!
LMAO…. you’re so transparent but carry on.
Defend the bipartisan policy that includes Obama. Shooting the messenger is what bullies that can’t handle the truth do.
Marie, I honestly don’t respect your opinions on anything but especially on Black folks whether it’s the President or Trayvon Martin to defend or debate anything with you. I’ve seen your brand of “Progressive” all my life and like I said… you’re transparent. But do you.
Your theme here is suspiciously like last fall’s “Bernie So Black” campaign, another racist meme used to attack progressives. It was clearly from the pro-Hillary political operatives back then. The use of racism to cut off discussion didn’t work then and it won’t work now. If you actually perceive opposition from the Left against Obama’s right-of-center record and his ineffectiveness in advancing a progressive agenda as some kind of upside down racism, I for one have no use for it. The working poor have continued to suffer the same decline that began under Clinton and continued through the Bush years. One can infer why you would use the charge of racism to halt any debate on the question.
I really should leave this paranoid nonsense alone but against my better judgment here goes…”Bernie So Black” happened because Bernie was and continues to be tone deaf to issues of importance to people of color and when pressed about it his stans condescendingly respond that he marched with MLK and therefore his POC critics should just shut up. Again that you perceive my push back to y’alls paranoid conspiracy theories and obvious Obama/Clinton Derrangement Syndrome as being a “Pro Clinton” troll is simply hilarious to me. Have a good day Bob…LMAO.
Bob never met a conspiracy theory he didn’t like.
the only purpose of your comment is to insult a longterm member of the community. you’re losing it
And you’ve been flinging accusations of “troll” at multiple people for months (though not at obvious trolls who agreed with you politically). Count how many fingers are pointing back at you.
Bob’s been here a long time, so? He’s been spouting conspiracy theories for a long time, too; some so ludicrous that even his ideological sympathizers point out countervailing evidence (see, e.g., the recent Zika virus thread). Is mere longevity supposed to excuse that?
I’m losing it? If you mean I’ve lost patience with stupid kneejerk blathering that’s as fact-free as what the rightwing spews, then you’re spot on.
I have? that’s odd, I thought I’d been offline for a month. but be that as it may, if you disagree with Bob from Portland, respond to his comments. the ad hominem reflects badly on you.
Gone for a month and now your the boss of the Internet?
.
It’s always amusing when the SuperUltraMega RealProgressivesTM start sounding just like Tea Party Patriots.
You, and anyone like you who isn’t nearly as SuperUltraMega RealProgressiveTM like the UpVoteGang here, is clearly just a paid operative of David Brock, Victoria Nuland, and Huma Abedin’s ISIS contacts.
Because B̶e̶n̶g̶h̶a̶z̶i̶ er, I mean, because neoliberalism.
Also: Coronation.
“The vast majority of Puerto Ricans opposed the legislation, but it passed both the U.S. House and Senate by substantial margins.”
But they could not be bothered to vote in the presidential primary? What is with that?
There were stories right after the PR primary. Apparently, the Dems created a system where people had to go to two different polling places to vote for local and presidential primaries. Plus, the Dems eliminated a lot of polling places. So the vote ended up being something like 8% of what had been expected last winter.
Lots of ways to win elections.
By the way, how long until there’s a revolution in Puerto Rico?
Maybe 92% had already decided to leave for New York.
Rick Snyder has just the guys to handle this, Maybe this time no lead in the water.
Speaking of lead in the water, it’s now in the Cannon House Office Building. People are having to drink bottled water. I wonder how long these high lead levels have occurred? Maybe there is an inverse relationship between high lead levels and low approval ratings of Congress.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/29/congress-building-water-lead-levels
I believe it is at 9% approval this month. Better than Dem PR primary, though.
I would cast a third vote for him proudly.
PROUDLY.
I would too Rikyrah. But I guess we’re just a couple of low information Black voters.
What you need is a little more whitesplaining on the errors of your ways, and I am sure you will come to your senses.
.
Yes, this. I’m sure a few more condescending comments would do the trick.
And yes, I’d vote for a third term no questions asked.
So would I.
.
Count this lifelong white voter in your camp. I’ve come to the conclusion that leftist “purity ponies” populate these comment threads. It becomes really tiresome.
I was emailing my extremely Republican cousin earlier (after sharing the 4 more years video with her yesterday) that how could she not at least credit that Obama is a thoroughly decent, honorable, upstanding family man with a terrific sense of humor? This was in response to her statement that it was understandable that the Canadians cheered him, since he loves Canada more than America. We know what she does all day, don’t we? Conservative talk radio going on all day long in her house.
And how did she answer you? Could she give Obama ANY credit for that?
It depends on what he commits to doing with those four more years. In 1940, the public knew what FDR’s attitude toward foreign policy was, but they could not conceive of how he would manage the war effort to avoid major Democratic-inflicted economic hardships in the postwar period. Enforced saving during the war, something LBJ could not do because of the war of choice nature of Vietnam, fueled the prosperity of the 1950s, which the Republican look back on fondly.
With the additional power of unlimited terms, I would trade reining in the national security powers granted the President since 1947. It is very easy to trump up a war to become President-for-Life. We have seen that experience in other nations, an the 2000 election proved that sometimes parties are without the self-restraint that can prevent undoing the political system. Political norms that check raw power plays civilize the polity of a country.
I suspect PEV(post election violence) has had more to do with Presidents for Life being a pragmatic choice.
Stop trolling your audience BooMan. You know that Barack Obama is a neoliberal failure who has sold us out and Bernie Sanders is the way the truth and light! At least that’s what my Progressive betters here tell me.
Well, don’t they get better responses than the invitations to just bash Trump and his voters? That’s pretty uncontroversial here. And repetitive.
No more repetitive than the constant butthurt whining from Bernie stans about the primary that he lost (and yes Marie..he lost) or endless toothless bellyaching about how awful Democrats are for not accepting Bernie as our Lord and Savior. But do you homie.
Well, they always attract the hippy-punchers, too.
Kenny, are you part of the Clinton Truth PAC?
So… I post some (admittedly sarcastic) push back to the “Oh woe is us! Obama failed the Progressives again!” nonsense you guys like to post and you gleaned from that…. I must be part of the Clinton Truth PAC? LMAO…Go to bed Bob.
Hell yes he should get a third term, and probably a fourth.
Can Obama v.2008 serve a term or two? That’d be nice.
I totally agree with you on term limits. Although I would not vote for an Obama 3rd term and probably will never vote for Democratic president again, I agree that if the public are assholes, it’s call democracy anyway. Once you start “adjusting” democracy, you wind up with this year’s coronation and fixed election.
They did. They just unaccountably failed to vote for him in sufficient numbers to deliver him the Democratic nomination.
I blame all the false consciousness.
perhaps what they’re on to is the systemic failure of both political parties to acknowledge the concerns of the people. perhaps they’re concerned about the stranglehold tpb have on the political direction their somewhat bellicose neighbors to the south are exhibiting, eh.
who’s fault is it that we are now faced with the prospect of an election between two individuals who are not only mistrusted and disliked by a major % of the population and considered, by many, to be unsuited to the office of president.
it sure as hell isn’t mine.
food for thought on this 4th of july holiday.
My neighbor said this evening that we need to roll the dice and get 2 new ones. Not a bad idea.
Obama has done well, on balance. I’d certainly prefer a third term from him than a HRC Presidency. But, if you are a supporter of the President and his legacy it might be best that he goes out on top at a time when his approval ratings have recovered and everyone else looks mediocre in comparison.
Truth, that.
How long can the Fed keep the plates in the air?
These polls are basically useless, because they don’t provide respondents with concrete choices. This is akin to inviting baseball fans to complain about the free agents their team didn’t sign in the offseason.
That happens every election, don’t you think?
Booman, isn’t there something about gratuitous insulting of other bootrib commenters being, like, out of place in the discussion?
Which, ipso facto, means that anyone who dares vote for Hitlery Clinton loves homelessness, poverty, and dead babies.
Or something.
Seek help.