After some not terribly subtle hints from Democrats in red states who'd rather not have to deal with one more claim of tyranny, Barack Obama announced this weekend that he was going to delay executive action on immigration until after the midterm elections. He had said that he would move by the end of the summer to enact a change, but between the enormous right-wing freakout over Central American children taking all our jobs and the House's
Hey administrator. Can you also delete the voices in my head and my thoughts about doing naked things with that cutie in Accounts Payable? WAIT! I changed my mind about the sexy time thoughts. Just delete the voices please.
1, Acknowledging the fact that there are people who are legitimately upset that Bamz has decided to delay executive action on immigration, I would like to point out that there are other folks who have been upset for some time about the absence of executive action in other areas *cough*WallStreetMineSafetyMortgageReliefChildLabor*cough*, even though in some cases executive action would have been unarguably legal. Some of these non-actions were at least partly politically motivated -- avoiding confrontations that would put some Dem legislators in a pickle. As it turns out, the political system left to us by the Framers was pretty well suited to a principally-agrarian, low-population-density, socially-stratified country. It's still better (IMO) to work with it for now.
2. Aside from the electoral effects, I actually think that it would be a good idea for the President to think carefully about how much change is appropriate for executive action. No matter how obstructive the legislature may be right now. I am old enough that the notion of a unitary executive is disturbing. Shit that gets established in one Presidency has a bad habit of carrying over <i>forever</i>.
&quot;I can&#039;t reverse this particular excess, because it might hamper some hypothetical future President&quot;. That&#039;s not a quote, as far as I know, but every President in my lifetime has said something like it. At this point, I&#039;m not a big fan of unilateral executive action.
Great, there go the cost overruns. Guess we&#039;ll have to downgrade from a crocodile filled moat to one with somewhat peeved geckos.
If Nobama could convince the right that the children are fleeing tyrannical, leftist regimes in Central America, he could win this thing.
<i>This thought has been deleted by the administrator</i>
needs moar children of the corn
A <i>real</i> tyrant/king/dictator/hitler would not worry about &quot;politics&quot;. Obama sucks at kinging.
Abraham Lincoln?
So now they&#039;re complaining when he DOESN&#039;T take unilateral action?
It cannot be said enough that certain illegals get a free pass. The sad fate of other Hispanics is they weren&#039;t born in Cuba.
Hey administrator. Can you also delete the voices in my head and my thoughts about doing naked things with that cutie in Accounts Payable? WAIT! I changed my mind about the sexy time thoughts. Just delete the voices please.
<i>&quot;...an executive order on immigration would make Congressional action impossible.&quot;</i>
&quot;Congressional action&quot;. I read about that in the history books.
In other news, Florida Senator Rubio saves us from ISIS.
So true. That usurper can&#039;t do anything right. And there&#039;s nothing he can&#039;t do, too, also.
Smoke &#039;em!!!
Bit of a late, and unduly serious, comment here.
1, Acknowledging the fact that there are people who are legitimately upset that Bamz has decided to delay executive action on immigration, I would like to point out that there are other folks who have been upset for some time about the absence of executive action in other areas *cough*WallStreetMineSafetyMortgageReliefChildLabor*cough*, even though in some cases executive action would have been unarguably legal. Some of these non-actions were at least partly politically motivated -- avoiding confrontations that would put some Dem legislators in a pickle. As it turns out, the political system left to us by the Framers was pretty well suited to a principally-agrarian, low-population-density, socially-stratified country. It&#039;s still better (IMO) to work with it for now.
2. Aside from the electoral effects, I actually think that it would be a good idea for the President to think carefully about how much change is appropriate for executive action. No matter how obstructive the legislature may be right now. I am old enough that the notion of a unitary executive is disturbing. Shit that gets established in one Presidency has a bad habit of carrying over <i>forever</i>.
&quot;I can&#039;t reverse this particular excess, because it might hamper some hypothetical future President&quot;. That&#039;s not a quote, as far as I know, but every President in my lifetime has said something like it. At this point, I&#039;m not a big fan of unilateral executive action.
&quot;Marco can&#039;t rail against, then promptly flip-flop, on an Obama action that will not be made until after the election.&quot;
Wanna bet?