Obama Using Executive Power to Get Around Obstructionist GOP

The Republican Party’s war against the President
Politics • Views: 27,002

The New York Times has an article today on something that’s been incredibly obvious ever since President Obama’s election: the Republican Party is bound and determined to see him fail as a president, and they’re obstructing absolutely everything he does. And now, Obama is finding ways to get things done despite these right wing tactics: Shift on Executive Powers Let Obama Bypass Congress.

Increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress. Branding its unilateral efforts “We Can’t Wait,” a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies — on creating jobs for veterans, preventing drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more.

Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”

Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.

The right wing blogosphere is shrieking about this in apocalyptic terms, naturally, calling it “power grabs” and “tyranny,” and apparently completely unaware of how ridiculous they look.

Jump to bottom

51 comments
1 Kragar  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:51:33am

"Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way... unless the President is black."

2 HappyWarrior  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:51:39am

Funny that the RW blogs had no problem with Bush as a strong executive. When your whole agenda is rejecting the president's ideas simply to make your base happy, don't get pissy if the president decides to checkmate you.

3 Kragar  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:53:28am

re: #2 HappyWarrior

Funny that the RW blogs had no problem with Bush as a strong executive. When your whole agenda is rejecting the president's ideas simply to make your base happy, don't get pissy if the president decides to checkmate you.

Be fair. Bush was never black when he did it.
/

4 HappyWarrior  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:54:14am

re: #3 Kragar

Be fair. Bush was never black when he did it.
/

True, and he was never a Democrat either.

5 sattv4u2  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:54:27am

re: #2 HappyWarrior

Funny that the RW blogs had no problem with Bush as a strong executive.

true, but Obama did apparantly
As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress.

6 Kragar  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:54:36am

re: #4 HappyWarrior

True, and he was never a Democrat either.

I forget what the third thing was.

7 Simply Sarah  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:55:43am

I'll be honest. I didn't like a lot of this under Bush and I don't much like it now under Obama. Now, I'm not saying that I can't understand why he's doing it and obviously much of the precedent has been set already, but that doesn't remove my longer term worry about more and more power being concentrated into the executive. It's also ridiculous we're in this situation to start with.

8 Obdicut  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:56:57am

Obama is the first president to use executive powers to do stuff, you see.

I actually have much less of a problem with the way that Obama is doing this than Bush did. Rather than declaring that he doesn't have to follow rules, he's saying that when Congress is incapable of acting on an issue, he'll use executive orders to do so. Congress can 'strip' him of this power anytime by actually taking action.

9 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:56:58am

re: #5 sattv4u2


Funny that the RW blogs had no problem with Bush as a strong executive.

true, but Obama did apparantly
As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress.

Well, no more Mr. Nice Guy. The GOP fucks are obstructing every move.

10 HappyWarrior  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:57:16am

re: #5 sattv4u2


Funny that the RW blogs had no problem with Bush as a strong executive.

true, but Obama did apparantly
As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress.

Yeah and how many times have they filibustered him? And he never made it out to be a tyrannical move on Bush's part.

11 sattv4u2  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:57:28am

Ah well

wifeys and sons cars aren't going to change their own oil, no matter how long I procrastinate

BBL

12 Shvaughn  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:57:29am

This is pretty standard.

13 HappyWarrior  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:57:58am

re: #8 Obdicut

Obama is the first president to use executive powers to do stuff, you see.

I actually have much less of a problem with the way that Obama is doing this than Bush did. Rather than declaring that he doesn't have to follow rules, he's saying that when Congress is incapable of acting on an issue, he'll use executive orders to do so. Congress can 'strip' him of this power anytime by actually taking action.

He also invented czars. The bastard.

14 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:58:08am

Silly Kenyan doesn't understand that government is not supposed to work.

15 palomino  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:58:49am

re: #7 Simply Sarah

I'll be honest. I didn't like a lot of this under Bush and I don't much like it now under Obama. Now, I'm not saying that I can't understand why he's doing it and obviously much of the precedent has been set already, but that doesn't remove my longer term worry about more and more power being concentrated into the executive. It's also ridiculous we're in this situation to start with.

Good point. A general rule about presidents is that they are loath to give up powers claimed by their predecessors. Part of it is human nature, and part I suppose is just "good politics", but it always pisses off the other side until they get back in power. Very unlikely that either Romney or second term Obama will give up any of the powers claimed over recent years by the executive. Congress often does little pushback because their party's guy is in the WH.

16 Obdicut  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:58:54am

re: #7 Simply Sarah

He's largely doing this in different ways than Bush did.

17 Charles Johnson  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 10:59:45am

re: #5 sattv4u2


Funny that the RW blogs had no problem with Bush as a strong executive.

true, but Obama did apparantly
As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress.

George W. Bush never faced even a fraction of the outright obstructionism the GOP is throwing at Obama. The situations are not remotely comparable.

18 Obdicut  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:00:04am

re: #15 palomino

Well, part of this is occurring because of power-grab by congress; the holding of pro forma sessions to block recess appointments, and the refusal to confirm so many people during regular sessions.

The GOP has been abusing the hell out of their power to block confirmations.

19 iossarian  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:00:30am

OK, can someone point me to the originating comment for the "pretty standard" meme?

20 AK-47%  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:00:42am

re: #16 Obdicut

He's largely doing this in different ways than Bush did.

Bush was big on "signing statements" IIRC...

21 HappyWarrior  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:00:48am

I'd prefer he not do as much for the record either but when the opposition's goal seems to be oppose and oppose, sometimes you're forced into it. Maybe if Boehner and Cantor cared more about serving the American populace as a whole more than Grover Norquist and co........

22 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:01:21am

re: #19 iossarian

No, but you can search Killgore's comments with "pretty".

23 Simply Sarah  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:01:57am

re: #16 Obdicut

He's largely doing this in different ways than Bush did.

I understand that. But the general population is often not very good at discerning the details. This helps push along a precedent of the President acting unilaterally and leads to an increased expectation that things will be solved through such action.

24 Obdicut  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:02:23am

re: #20 Expand Your Ground

Bush was big on "signing statements" IIRC...

And Obama has done a few of those-- but they're not comparable. Bush asserted the right of the administration to ignore statues on torture; Obama asserted the right of the administration to ignore Congress's prohibitions on having 'czars'-- high level appointees-- for certain positions.

Not that similar.

25 palomino  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:03:41am

re: #18 Obdicut

Well, part of this is occurring because of power-grab by congress; the holding of pro forma sessions to block recess appointments, and the refusal to confirm so many people during regular sessions.

The GOP has been abusing the hell out of their power to block confirmations.

Unfortunately once these things get ratcheted up, they don't usually return to the more cooperative approach of yesteryear. We're becoming ungovernable. The debt ceiling BS and the refusal to confirm appointees are the best and most recent examples. We're still a growing nation, becoming more diverse, more polarized, and seemingly more hostile in our political rhetoric. Actual effective governance only becomes more difficult in such situations.

26 Simply Sarah  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:03:53am

To be clear, I'm not saying Obama should be blamed for this. When standard government functions are blocked/hampered by a crazy Congress, something needs to be done. I just wish we didn't have to reach this point.

27 Obdicut  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:04:01am

re: #23 Simply Sarah

Obama, more than most presidents, has been faced with choosing between the lesser of two evils almost constantly.

28 Lidane  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:04:42am

Posted this morning by a friend of mine who is currently in Dubai on business:

So gas in the Middle East is .80 a gallon. I blame Bush and Obama.

Yes. Because the American POTUS has direct influence over what the emirate charges its own people for gasoline. And he can somehow magically make our gas prices comparable to theirs with a snap of his fingers. *eyeroll*

This is the sort of ignorance the GOP is appealing to, and why they're so bound and determined to obstruct this president. They'll obstruct to try and make him ineffective and then complain he doesn't get anything accomplished. It's maddening.

29 AK-47%  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:05:15am

re: #26 Simply Sarah

To be clear, I'm not saying Obama should be blamed for this. When standard government functions are blocked/hampered by a crazy Congress, something needs to be done. I just wish we didn't have to reach this point.

Congress was always about ratcheting up the threat level to gain a better bargaining position. The Tea Party caucus is about ratcheting up the threats and then not backing down out of sheer ideological bloody-mindedness

30 HappyWarrior  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:06:45am

re: #28 Lidane

Posted this morning by a friend of mine who is currently in Dubai on business:

Yes. Because the American POTUS has direct influence over what the emirate charges its own people for gasoline. And he can somehow magically make our gas prices comparable to theirs with a snap of his fingers. *eyeroll*

This is the sort of ignorance the GOP is appealing to, and why they're so bound and determined to obstruct this president. They'll obstruct to try and make him ineffective and then complain he doesn't get anything accomplished. It's maddening.

It's annoying how ignorant people are. People bitch about the quality of roads, schools, etc yet when it's suggested their taxes may have to be raised to pay for it. They respond like a child being told he has to his homework to do well.

31 Simply Sarah  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:08:23am

re: #29 Expand Your Ground

Congress was always about ratcheting up the threat level to gain a better bargaining position. The Tea Party caucus is about ratcheting up the threats and then not backing down out of sheer ideological bloody-mindedness

Well, in the case of many appointments, it has been mostly about "Nyah nyah, we don't like you Mr. President!" This has been the case regardless of how uncontroversial the nominee is.

32 Kragar  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:09:00am

re: #28 Lidane

Posted this morning by a friend of mine who is currently in Dubai on business:

Yes. Because the American POTUS has direct influence over what the emirate charges its own people for gasoline. And he can somehow magically make our gas prices comparable to theirs with a snap of his fingers. *eyeroll*

This is the sort of ignorance the GOP is appealing to, and why they're so bound and determined to obstruct this president. They'll obstruct to try and make him ineffective and then complain he doesn't get anything accomplished. It's maddening.

The average income for a Dubai worker in my same field is also about a third of what I make, adjusted for the local economy.

33 Lidane  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:15:45am
34 Obdicut  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:15:56am

re: #32 Kragar

So, about $2.40 per gallon as a real cost.

About a buck cheaper than here, in a country swimming with oil.

Big whoop.

35 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:17:11am

re: #34 Obdicut

So, about $2.40 per gallon as a real cost.

About a buck cheaper than here, in a country swimming with oil.

Big whoop.

The more important thing is how much does a decent cup of non-Starbuck's coffee cost there!
/

36 HappyWarrior  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:18:36am

re: #33 Lidane

Pleasantly surprised at Romney there. But he could flip back at any moment.

37 iossarian  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:19:12am

re: #33 Lidane


The sketch. Etched.

38 Lidane  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:19:21am

re: #32 Kragar

The average income for a Dubai worker in my same field is also about a third of what I make, adjusted for the local economy.

Which is why whining about gas there costing .80 a gallon makes no sense. You have to adjust for their economy compared to ours, and adjust for the exchange rates and other economic factors as well. But that involves nuance and thought.

It's much easier to say that their gas is cheaper than ours because the POTUS is a meanie who won't let us have $.80/gallon gas, even though gas hasn't been that cheap here in the States in decades.

39 funky chicken  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:21:54am

Because creating jobs for veterans and reducing drug shortages is tyranny.

40 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:22:30am

Radicalism breeds radicalism and on a related note, fillbusters breed executive orders.

41 AK-47%  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:24:49am

As is RomneyObamacare...

42 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:27:32am

I had to listen to a guy go ond on earlier today about how Obama himself banned burning coal in power plants in the USA because of mercury emissions even though it was disclosed that only 2 people per 300 million would be affected by the increased emissions of mercury. I hope someone can find a link otherwise.. I'm burned out on fact checking idiocy.

43 lawhawk  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:27:38am

re: #28 Lidane

Which can and has usually been subsidized by the various governments.

[Link: www.iea.org...]

The IEA analysis has revealed that fossil fuel consumption subsidies amounted to $557 bn in 2008. This represents a big increase from $342 bn in 2007. Fluctuations in world prices, domestic pricing policy changes, and shifts in demand can all be responsible for year-to-year differences in subsidy estimates. Since 2008, a number of countries – including China, Russia, India and Indonesia – have made notable reforms to bring their domestic energy prices in line with world prices. These efforts are expected to contribute to a reduction in the cost of energy subsidies to these countries in 2009.

The country with the highest subsidies in 2008 was Iran at $101 billion, or around a third of the country’s annual central budget. Chronic under-pricing of domestic energy in Iran has resulted in enormous subsidies and a major burden on the economy that is forcing reliance on imports of refined products. Iran’s leadership came to agreement in 2010 on a sweeping plan for energy subsidy reform; however, steep economic, political and social hurdles will need to be overcome if Iran is to realize lasting reform.

44 funky chicken  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 11:45:21am

re: #42 Mich-again

I had to listen to a guy go ond on earlier today about how Obama himself banned burning coal in power plants in the USA because of mercury emissions even though it was disclosed that only 2 people per 300 million would be affected by the increased emissions of mercury. I hope someone can find a link otherwise.. I'm burned out on fact checking idiocy.

Um, if coal burning were banned half of the US (at least) would be without electricity. I'm not sure you can fact-check that level of stupid.

45 Amory Blaine  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 1:29:07pm

The invisible hand of the free market is really God at work.

*sigh*

The rhetoric sure is locked and cocked man.

46 Patricia Kayden  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 2:59:05pm

The only problem is that if Romneybot wins, he'll undo all of President Obama's executive orders. Not sure if this is really such a good move, although I understand why President Obama is taking this route to get something done.

47 steve_davis  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 5:58:32pm

I really don't blame him for doing this, but I do worry that at some point, we're going to have a president appointing his horse to the senate. The good news is that this would probably improve things.

48 Dustoff848  Tue, Apr 24, 2012 7:21:32am

"“If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”

Whether coming from a Democrat or Republican President...a statement like that has got to make you just a bit nervous. The President is not the King of the U.S.

49 Obdicut  Tue, Apr 24, 2012 8:09:32am

re: #48 Dustoff848

Kings don't generally say "If congress doesn't act, I will". And he said he'd do everything within his power-- not create new powers in order to do things.

So what is the way it's similar to what a king would say?

50 Dustoff848  Tue, Apr 24, 2012 10:13:36am

re: #49 Obdicut

Kings don't generally say "If congress doesn't act, I will". And he said he'd do everything within his power-- not create new powers in order to do things.

So what is the way it's similar to what a king would say?

I guess KING was the wrong word. Although I know it's within his powers , I'm just not a fan of any President making these types of decisions outside of Congress. There is more than one branch of Government for a reason.

51 Obdicut  Tue, Apr 24, 2012 10:16:56am

re: #50 Dustoff848

Making what types of decisions?


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 40 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
Yesterday
Views: 95 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1