The NYT says Obama is "the only adult in the room"!

[AGBF]

In a wonderfully incisive editorial "The New York Times' says that President Obama is "the only adult in the room". No American should skip this read. It beautifully identifies the proper function of each branch of government. It really cuts through the baloney.

Link...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/opinion/senate-republicans-lose-their-minds-on-a-supreme-court-seat.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

AGBF

 

[Dancing Fire]

IMO, The senate should take a vote on the President's nominee.

 

[Maria D]

Deb, when I read the title of the thread my first thought was "true, but Americans don't seem to want adults running our country anymore."

Excellent article, thanks for posting it. I read a few of the comments and this one, written by someone in Portland Oregon, reflects what I was thinking:

"I have to agree with McConnell et al on their decision. Not because they are right, but because they have learned from experience that there are no consequences from their actions. They shut down the government, and gained seats. They opposed everything Obama has proposed even when they agreed with the basic principles involved, and gained seats. They control both houses of Congress and most state governments. So they are acting logically when they say that the American people should decide because that has worked out well for them in the past. If the American people want to change the way things are going, we can do so next November. But even in defeat, the GOP would be no worse off than they are now."

The fact that Trump is on his way to being the republican nominee confirms this for me. With every outrageous comment before any actual primaries, his poll numbers went up. The pundits would proclaim that this time he'd gone too far - nope, his numbers rose. They all thought his candidacy was a joke, that there was no way Americans would actually vote for him. Wrong.

I hope "the adults" in this country wake up this November and vote for people who will actually do the job they're elected to do!

 

[VapidLapid]

He has been the only adult in the room for a long while now. It makes me very sad, and scared.

 

[the_mother_thing]

#1 - If those on the left side of the aisle had been moving more toward the middle in an effort to find common ground on matters over the last several years, I do not think you'd see as hard a push from those on the right to stick to their guns on this; however, that has not happened either. House & Senate Dems serving during the early part this administration have set the example and course for how the remainder of his term would be with their actions; they just don't like the taste of it now that the shoe is on the other foot. And no one on the left was balking at their behavior while they were getting their liberal agenda items ticked off against the wishes of citizens who were in opposition of those things. Where was all this "constitutional care" and "let's compromise" from the left then?

#2 - Obama is not innocent in the 'my way or the highway' nonsense. He has repeatedly gone on the offense and refused to consider legislation passed by House & Senate republicans because it did not tick off every one of his wish list items, going so far as to throw out his veto threats while the bills were still being drafted. How is THAT acting in the spirit of the constitution? He is far from the 'only adult in the room'; rather, he is but one of the many children in the playground.

IMO, so long as BOTH parties insist on being so far left and/or right in their agendas, there will NEVER be a bipartisan meeting of the minds for the betterment of the nation. Without compromise from BOTH sides, we will continue to see more of the same. And all this 'extremism' does (by both sides) is drive the divide in this country further and further, making average people like us take even more extreme positions in our own views.

Just my $0.02.

 

[AGBF]

JCJ-

I do not understand why you think that President Obama has an obligation to compromise with The Republicans on politics in order to retain the powers granted to The President by The US Constitution. One has nothing to do with the other.

AGBF

 

[the_mother_thing]

JCJ-

I do not understand why you think that President Obama has an obligation to compromise with The Republicans on politics in order to retain the powers granted to The President by The US Constitution. One has nothing to do with the other.

AGBF

Because he is not a King. The constitution allows for checks & balances of the three branches; he is but ONE.

 

[Karl_K]

Just further evidence that the media is so biased that they are not to be trusted about anything.

 

[AGBF]

JCJ-

I do not understand why you think that President Obama has an obligation to compromise with The Republicans on politics in order to retain the powers granted to The President by The US Constitution. One has nothing to do with the other.

AGBF

Because he is not a King. The constitution allows for checks & balances of the three branches; he is but ONE.

JCJ-

You have missed the point. The Senate is part of one branch, but that branch has an assigned role. It is not a rogue agent.

The role of the Senate is to advise and consent. Nowhere does it say in The Constitution that The Senate can refuse to allow the President to carry out his Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice or that they can refuse to consider a candidate. Since the Supreme Court, as the Judicial Branch of government, is co-equal to the Legislative and the Executive branches, refusing to let it function at full power is also blocking The Constitution.

As "The New York Times" so correctly points out, President Obama is not a lame-duck President. He is The President. Blocking him from using his Constituional powers is unheard of. It has never been attempted before.

 

[AGBF]

Just further evidence that the media is so biased that they are not to be trusted about anything.

What is the evidence of what, Karl? I am making my own judgments. I was a history teacher for years and also taught citizenship. I am not blindly following any part of the media.

Deb

 

[E B]

Because he is not a King. The constitution allows for checks & balances of the three branches; he is but ONE.

And how is refusing to hold a vote no matter the nominee's qualifications an example of checks and balances, exactly? This is a tantrum, pure and simple.

They've wedged themselves between a rock and hard place. The majority of independents (polled) believe the Senate should vote, and as long as they continue to refuse despite the qualifications of *any* candidate, it'll stay in the news until the election. And there are a small handful of Republican senators- enough to flip the senate back- up for re-election in blue states.

 

[the_mother_thing]

JCJ-

You have missed the point. The Senate is part of one branch, but that branch has an assigned role. It is not a rogue agent.

The role of the Senate is to advise and consent. Nowhere does it say in The Constitution that The Senate can refuse to allow the President to carry out his Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice or that they can refuse to consider a candidate. Since the Supreme Court, as the Judicial Branch of government, is co-equal to the Legislative and the Executive branches, refusing to let it function at full power is also blocking The Constitution.

As "The New York Times" so correctly points out, President Obama is not a lame-duck President. He is The President. Blocking him from using his Constituional powers is unheard of. It has never been attempted before.

I'm not missing your point, but I think you missed mine. All of a sudden, people on the left give a damn about the constitution, like they just remembered it's existence. Funny how they didn't when it was the Dem-led Senate blocking House bills and refusing to vote on them (to include Obama himself attempting to block nominations when he was a senator, as well as Biden & Schumer ... whoa where was the care for the constitution then?), or with Obama creating executive actions when the House didn't kiss his bum on immigration and other matters. It's not his job to 'make' laws; that's the House & Senate's job. The whole concept of the three branches was to prevent any one from having more power over the others - period! And they are ALL guilty of being children - including the President, who clearly thinks he is still a Senator.

 

[yssie]

Because he is not a King. The constitution allows for checks & balances of the three branches; he is but ONE.

And how is refusing to hold a vote no matter the nominee's qualifications an example of checks and balances, exactly? This is a tantrum, pure and simple.

They've wedged themselves between a rock and hard place, and I hope it backfires. The majority of independents (polled) believe the Senate should vote, and as long as they continue to refuse despite the qualifications of *any* candidate, it'll stay in the news until the election. And there are a small handful of Republican senators- enough to flip the senate back- up for re-election in blue states.

The voice of reason, as always, EB. Thank you.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Because he is not a King. The constitution allows for checks & balances of the three branches; he is but ONE.

And how is refusing to hold a vote no matter the nominee's qualifications an example of checks and balances, exactly? This is a tantrum, pure and simple.

It's not checks & balances; it's called 'precedent', and it was behavioral precedent most recently set by the actions of Senate dems during both GWB & Obama's administration. I don't have the time to go back through all U.S. history to see "who threw the first punch". But since there is so much back and forth with regard to this specific administration, that's what I'm basing my opinion on for the purposes of this discussion and since the editorial puts Obama on a pedestal.

ETA - I'm not suggesting I think it's "right" for either party to do it. I'm only suggesting that it's quite hypocritical for Dems to be up in arms about the Reps following their very lead. And if you weren't jumping up and down about it when they were doing it, then you don't really have any reason to be jumping up and down now because the other team has the ball.

 

[E B]

It's not checks & balances; it's called 'precedent', and it was behavioral precedent most recently set by the actions of Senate dems during both GWB & Obama's administration.

It's neither. I'm not sure if you read the editorial, but it refutes the whole idea of 'precedent,' especially since, in this particular case, it is unprecedented (as Deb has already mentioned). "Your side has done it too! Some. But not in this specific case..." holds up about as well as "we need to let the American people decide."

Children, the lot of 'em. My 4-year-old throws tantrums, but he knows how to compromise, too.

 

[the_mother_thing]

It's not checks & balances; it's called 'precedent', and it was behavioral precedent most recently set by the actions of Senate dems during both GWB & Obama's administration.

It's neither. I'm not sure if you read the editorial, but it refutes the whole idea of 'precedent,' especially since, in this particular case, it is unprecedented (as Deb has already mentioned). "Your side has done it too! Some. But not in this specific case..." holds up about as well as "we need to let the American people decide."

Children, the lot of 'em. My 4-year-old throws tantrums, but he knows how to compromise, too.

No offense intended to Deb or the author of the editorial (which - by definition - is 'opinion'; not 'fact'), but both are wrong. It HAS been done ... there IS a precedent ... Obama, Biden, Schumer ... all three have suggested blocking nominations by a Republican president. For your reading pleasure ... http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/

And a quote from then-Senator Obama:

There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee…that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.

Just because we don't like the facts doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[the_mother_thing]

And just to keep things from getting too heated, here's a picture of my puppy.

Surely, we can all agree that she's kinda cute?

 

[AGBF]

And just to keep things from getting too heated, here's a picture of my puppy.

Surely, we can all agree that she's kinda cute?

I am on my way to the hospital. My father fell last night and today we realized he may have broken his wrist. I am following the ambulance. So I won't be talking politics for a while. I just wanted to say that your puppy is adorable. My last dog was a yellow Lab. How old is she? She looks like a cuddler. Please tell us about her.

Deb

 

[E B]

[
No offense intended to Deb or the author of the editorial (which - by definition - is 'opinion'; not 'fact'), but both are wrong. It HAS been done ... there IS a precedent ... Obama, Biden, Schumer ... all three have suggested blocking nominations by a Republican president. For your reading pleasure ... http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/

Of the 10 examples given, 9 were regarding blocking specific nominations (one being a campaign from a non-gov't organization) . This happens all the time. The other was passing a resolution to keep the president from making recess appointments, but not in all cases. These cannot be compared to an entire Senate party (minus a couple nervous senators up for re-election I mentioned earlier), leader-led, refusing to hear a single nominee based on the President doing the nominating.

It was a YUUUGE mistake to come out with such a transparent (and deeply unpopular plan) so quickly, and I think they'll pay for it.

p.s. That is one cute dog.

Correction: Only 8 are regarding specific nominations, the ninth is of a single senator concerned the court was being 'stacked unfairly.'

 

[the_mother_thing]

And just to keep things from getting too heated, here's a picture of my puppy.

Surely, we can all agree that she's kinda cute?

I am on my way to the hospital. My father fell last night and today we realized he may have broken his wrist. I am following the ambulance. So I won't be talking politics for a while. I just wanted to say that your puppy is adorable. My last dog was a yellow Lab. How old is she? She looks like a cuddler. Please tell us about her.

Deb

Oh no, Deb! I'm truly sorry to hear about your father, and do hope his injuries are minimal and he recovers quickly & fully. Certainly, anything we're discussing should take a back seat to family. Good luck!

"Donut" is a golden retriever & yellow lab mix (or so the rescue vet thinks; she and two other 8wk old puppies were surrendered to the SPCA, and the rescue brought them in to their program due to overcrowding at the SCPA, I believe). She's about 6 months old now with a big loving personality, is an incredible snuggler, and I adopted her & another adult dog (female beagle - german shepherd mix) this past October. I'm so glad I adopted them both at the same time because the adult (who had received training by her previous owners) has been a huge help in teaching Donut the ropes (housebreaking, behavior, etc.) and they make awesome playmates. I love them both to pieces, and am so thankful they picked me to be their fur-mom.

 

[packrat]

Children, the lot of 'em. My 4-year-old throws tantrums, but he knows how to compromise, too.

It's a good thing tho, that there's not groups woo-ing our kids, or I'm pretty sure there'd be no compromising there either. "London, if you do this for me, I'll take you to the movies...and Trapper, if you do this other thing for me, I'll get you a new bike.." I don't have to bribe my kids to stop, or bribe them to do what I want. Unlike adults in politics.

 

[the_mother_thing]

[
No offense intended to Deb or the author of the editorial (which - by definition - is 'opinion'; not 'fact'), but both are wrong. It HAS been done ... there IS a precedent ... Obama, Biden, Schumer ... all three have suggested blocking nominations by a Republican president. For your reading pleasure ... http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/

Of the 10 examples given, 9 were regarding blocking specific nominations (one being a campaign from a non-gov't organization) . This happens all the time. The other was passing a resolution to keep the president from making recess appointments, but not in all cases. These cannot be compared to an entire Senate party (minus a couple nervous senators up for re-election I mentioned earlier), leader-led, refusing to hear a single nominee based on the President doing the nominating.

It was a YUUUGE mistake to come out with such a transparent (and deeply unpopular plan) so quickly, and I think they'll pay for it.

p.s. That is one cute dog.

I get what you mean about the different incidents, but nonetheless, they happened, and I don't see one being any better or worse because of this or that; that's just trying to justify the behavior based on the 'level of offense' ... like "well, he only beat her up a little bit, so it's okay." No. When you get down to it, it's attempting to block someone, and all I'm saying - contrary to the article which paints Obama as some angel - is the Dems are NOT without guilt in the behavior.

Thank you for the puppy comment.

 

[the_mother_thing]

It's a good thing tho, that there's not groups woo-ing our kids, or I'm pretty sure there'd be no compromising there either. "London, if you do this for me, I'll take you to the movies...and Trapper, if you do this other thing for me, I'll get you a new bike.." I don't have to bribe my kids to stop, or bribe them to do what I want. Unlike adults in politics.

No, but they ARE doing it with young adults with promises of free college and this and that for their votes/suppport, and sadly too many don't understand the consequences of accepting those 'offers' and the impact all these 'free' programs will have down the road for them.

 

[partgypsy]

I do hope a different group of people get elected in this coming year. For example people in the legislative branch, who DO THEIR JOB! Part of their job is to be able to communicate and work across the aisle and pass legislation, not hold it hostage. I am a Federal employee and still remember the time in 2013 where the republican led congress refused to pass a budget, because of their temper tantrum about the Healthcare act.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/politics/congress-budget-why-now/index.html

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="JoCoJenn|

I'm not missing your point, but I think you missed mine. All of a sudden, people on the left give a damn about the constitution, like they just remembered it's existence. Funny how they didn't when it was the Dem-led Senate blocking House bills and refusing to vote on them (to include Obama himself attempting to block nominations when he was a senator, as well as Biden & Schumer ... whoa where was the care for the constitution then?), or with Obama creating executive actions when the House didn't kiss his bum on immigration and other matters. It's not his job to 'make' laws; that's the House & Senate's job. The whole concept of the three branches was to prevent any one from having more power over the others - period! And they are ALL guilty of being children - including the President, who clearly thinks he is still a Senator.[/quote]


How soon the left forget!.. ...JoCo for President ...

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="AGBF|

I am on my way to the hospital. My father fell last night and today we realized he may have broken his wrist. I am following the ambulance. So I won't be talking politics for a while. I just wanted to say that your puppy is adorable. My last dog was a yellow Lab. How old is she? She looks like a cuddler. Please tell us about her.

Deb [/quote]



Deb
Sorry to hear your dad broke his wrist at least is nothing serious. Hoping for a speedy recovery.

 

[Dancing Fire]

It's a good thing tho, that there's not groups woo-ing our kids, or I'm pretty sure there'd be no compromising there either. "London, if you do this for me, I'll take you to the movies...and Trapper, if you do this other thing for me, I'll get you a new bike.." I don't have to bribe my kids to stop, or bribe them to do what I want. Unlike adults in politics.

No, but they ARE doing it with young adults with promises of free college and this and that for their votes/suppport, and sadly too many don't understand the consequences of accepting those 'offers' and the impact all these 'free' programs will have down the road for them.

Yup, young college kids don't understand that nothing comes free w/o future consequences...

 

[partgypsy]

The college system is a bit messed up. Compared to even 25 years ago when I went to college, colleges and Universities have been on a 20+ year spending sprees, not on faculty but on buildings, landscaping, fancy eateries and also trophy buildings (new library, museum, rec centers). The rationale of each trustee board is that they need to compete with other universities and colleges for having college students and parents find the campus attractive and so spend to make money. Unfortunately the overall cost of the college tuition keeps going up, the average college or university tuition is unaffordable to middle class families. So while I do feel that college education needs to be made more affordable, the overall cost of a college education needs to come down no matter who is paying the bill and so institutions are going to need to revamp the way they provide college education for the next generation.

http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-and-fees-and-room-and-board-over-time-1975-76-2015-16-selected-years

 

[AGBF]

"Donut" is a golden retriever & yellow lab mix (or so the rescue vet thinks; she and two other 8wk old puppies were surrendered to the SPCA, and the rescue brought them in to their program due to overcrowding at the SCPA, I believe). She's about 6 months old now with a big loving personality, is an incredible snuggler, and I adopted her & another adult dog (female beagle - german shepherd mix) this past October. I'm so glad I adopted them both at the same time because the adult (who had received training by her previous owners) has been a huge help in teaching Donut the ropes (housebreaking, behavior, etc.) and they make awesome playmates. I love them both to pieces, and am so thankful they picked me to be their fur-mom.

Hi, Jenn-

I'm not sure I should continue in this thread or start a new doggy thread, but we have been talking a bit about The Golden Retriever Forum in the thread about MayK's new puppy and I don't want to threadjack that one to talk about Donut. (I already threadjacked it to talk about my dogs. You can threadjack it talk about Donut, though. I think each of us dog owners has talked about our own dog there!)

She is really precious. I have owned both a Golden Retriever and a yellow Lab. Each was as smart as a whip. I bet she could study for a Ph.D!!! (Poor Griffin would be left back in kindergarten because he still wants to take naps, not pay attention!)

My Lab, although purebred, was a rescue. I almost killed him myself many times. He was a menace!

More info on your dogs, please!

Deb

PS-If you haven't tried The Golden Retriever Forum, try it!

 

[momhappy]

Just further evidence that the media is so biased that they are not to be trusted about anything.

Yes indeed