Apparently, Richard Cordray would be a pretty good choice to replace Elizabeth Warren as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And hence has no chance of being confirmed, as the powerful-enough minority party is opposed to consumer protection in general. (And, yes, I’d rather have Warren as a Senate candidate than in a one-year interim appointment.)
Shop here beautiful trench coat with hood and fabulous infant winter jackets as well. Beside shop at fair price shop for great classic leather jacket and cheap motorcycle clothing economically. Those who like adventures there is an option for leather motorcycle clothing.
It’s good that the GOP can’t take “yes” for an answer. Still, given what Obama is willing to give up it’s pretty clearly evidence in favor of those who were opposed to the 2010 tax deal; if we’re going to get austerity anyway we should have done it with the Bush tax cuts repealed.
As Ackerman says, the ongoing attacks against Libya cannot seriously be squared with the requirements of the War Powers Act, and the procedure used to justify violating the law is a dangerous one.
Many folks on the Twitter seems convinced that the good news about Bin Laden effectively ends the 2012 campaign. This certainly doesn’t hurt. But I would point to George H.W. Bush’s approval ratings in 1991. If unemployment remains high and the recovery remains weak, Obama could absolutely lose in 2012.
…Chait: “The political ramifications: Minimal to nonexistent. The economy will tell the tale in 2012, and Obama — who had been getting relatively little foreign policy flak from the GOP — was not having a problem establishing his credibility as a foreign policy president on the right. Obama can add this to his list of accomplishments, but it’s hard to see it moving voters.” Exactly right.
…allegedly starting in 2 minutes. Can be watched here.
To be fair and balanced, not every political figure in the United States thinks this is a big deal.
…Targeted op by Americans.
…”OBL was not a Muslim leader. He was a mass murder of Muslims.”
…the speech on its own terms was extremely effective. What this actually means going forward we’ll see — and obviously wasn’t going to be determined hours after Bin Laden’s death — but it was a powerful moment.
…Irin Cameron had a good question: didn’t the statement that they tried to avoid civilian casualties imply that there were civilian casualties? Initial reports seem to suggest that there were three.
…full video of speech here. Transcript here.
Several of our commenters called it:
Now it’s getting a little clearer: Obama will throw his support behind the bipartisan effort in the Senate to turn the Simpson-Bowles plan into legislation (sidenote: called it). This will raise as many questions as it answers — if Obama is such a fan of this approach, for instance, why didn’t he say more about it during his budget? — but it is, at base, a more realistic plan both in terms of policy and politics.
Great. So now an insanely reactionary destroy-the-welfare-state-to-fund-upper-class-tax-cuts plan is the Republican view, and a highly reactionary slash-spending-to-preserve-upper-class-tax-cuts plan is the Democratic view. Even if the Catfood Commission can’t pass, the politics are nearly as bad as the policy merits. The Catfood Commission report contains tons of unpopular stuff, and nobody actually cares about the deficit. If Obama endorses it, it’s absolutely indefensible.
I can’t add much to Greenwald, but it’s appalling that the only person losing their job over the arbitrary torture of Bradley Manning is someone who opposed it.
It doesn’t of course — Republicans arguing that Gitmo is open because Obama has recognized the wisdom of using the facility is like a bully stealing a kid’s lunch money and then telling everyone he merely decided to make a shrewd investment. Gitmo is open only partially because of administration fecklessness; most of the fault lies with the cowardice of congressional Democrats and the cynicism — and political strength — of Republicans.
Like Glenn, I think this is somewhat too charitable to the administration — it’s true that the actions of Congress made it nearly impossible to close Gitmo per se, but a lot of the underlying problems that Gitmo symbolizes were policy choices made under Obama’s discretion. And while procedural constraints may have improved a little, these improvements are not nearly adequate.
The funniest reaction to the Obama administration’s salutary decision to not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA comes, needless to say, from Jeff Goldtsein:
Of course, he doesn’t get to determine that – it was passed by the legislature and signed into law by President Clinton, and so it the duty of the government to defend it — but then, Obama is above the law.
As are all dictators.
We live in a country where the President and his cronies decide what laws to follow and what laws to enforce; what companies are supported and what companies are not; who has to follow comprehensive health care reform and who does not.
Which means we live in a fascist country, ruled by an elected dictator who has positioned himself above and outside the laws he demands we follow — and who has granted himself the right to determine who has to follow what laws, how, when, and why.
That is not freedom. It’s tyranny. Simple as that.
The punchline being that Obama’s predecessor really did believe that he could violate valid acts of Congress and constitutional requirements, and Goldstein was strongly in favor of this. OK, but it’s not exactly news that Goldstein is a buffoon whose views of executive power switch from Carl Schmitt to anti-Federalist depending on the partisan identity of the current occupant of the White House. That still doesn’t make Obama’s actions right if they’re procedurally similar to the Yoovian idea that the laws apply only at the pleasure of the president. As you can see from the comments, many liberals seem to share Col. Mustard’s view that this represents some kind of executive “power grab.” The fact that they’re on the same side as the Duke of Dijon should suggest that their probability of being wrong approaches 100%, and in fact these arguments represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s going on here:
- It’s important, first of all, to emphasize what Obama is not doing — namely, claming to be above the law. He is not claiming that DOMA doesn’t apply, or that the federal courts cannot adjudicate the constitutionality of the act. He is not, in the manner of Jefferson or Jackson, saying that he would ignore a court ruling upholding DOMA. (The Reagan and Bush administrations — as was their right — repeatedly argued that Roe v. Wade should be overruled. The Supreme Court, as you may remember, declined.) He’s merely unwilling to argue on behalf of the law’s constitutionality. There’s nothing about this that is in any way inconsistent with our constitutional framework or the rule of law. The judiciary is not the exclusive interpreter of the Constitution.
- But, the argument seems to go, what if because of this precedent allows President Palin to refuse to defend the constitutionality of the mandate? Well, first of all, there’s no precedent being established here. Saint Reagan himself established “tyranny” in the United States at least twice, and if you think that won’t be enough precedent for a future Republican president you must be too distracted by the attempts to put Reagan’s name on every federal institution and face on every unit of federal currency.
- But even leaving this aside, if you believe that a Republican president would be bound by past norms you really shouldn’t be permitted to leave the house unaccompanied. To state the obvious, if he wants to President Barbour will refuse to defend the constitutionality of the ACA, and he would still do it if Obama himself defended DOMA before the Supreme Court.
- This shouldn’t need to be said either, but the idea that presidents merely mechanically execute laws passed by Congress has never been and never will be how our system works. How the White House interprets and chooses to implement federal law changes substantially depending on who occupies the White House. The occasional refusal to assert that a federal law is constitutional is just one variant of this.
In short, this is a procedurally unexceptionable and substantively commendable act. It doesn’t reflect a belief that the president isn’t bound by the law. It reflects a judgment about the constitutionality of one particular law, a judgment that the other branches remain free to reject. Obama is doing the right thing here, and his actions are different in kind, not degree, from Yoovian theories of arbitrary executive power.
UPDATE: Goldstein continues to assert that Reagan was a fascist. What constitutional or statutory provision requires the DOJ to defend the constitutionality of each and every statute remains unspecified. What constitutional authority gave gave the Bush administration the power to unilaterally replace FISA is also unspecified.
The Obama administration is refusing to defend this constitutionality of DOMA as it applies to legally married same-sex couples. Sometimes, elections can have positive consequences!
Needless to say, I don’t have much to add to Krugman and Rortybomb. The deal, once you accept that the cave-in on extending the Bush tax cuts was inevitable, was better than expected. But the caveat pretty much swallows the good news. The die on this cast in September, and while I would have preferred that Obama put the better long-term policy of letting all the tax cuts expire above his political self-interest, I’m not naive enough to think there was any chance of this happening. But let’s be clear — this isn’t a “temporary” extension of the Bush upper-class tax cuts. The chance to let them expire has vanished. The political context certainly won’t be better in 2012.
In a very related point, Unequal Democracy is indeed a fantastic book.
I’m not the kind of blogger to get furious about things like Obama’s tax cut cave-in (unnecessary and wrong on the merits though it certainly is) very often because my expectations of presidents also tend to be low. I will quibble with Matt on one point: Obama is clearly not “the greatest progressive president in 70 years.” Between his exceptional legislative achievements and being the only Democratic president of the 20th century to nominate nothing but strong liberals to the Supreme Court, LBJ is the clear winner. If he had initiated the Vietnam conflict, Matt might have a case, but JFK gets way less of the blame than he should. (I don’t think anyone who had a chance of being president in 1964 would have handled it much differently.) I also doubt that relative to the status quo of the time his record in civil liberties is significantly worse, and if you consider his federal court appointments it’s probably better. But, still, Obama is #2, and this does tell us something.
To me, the bottom line is that the importance of political skills of presidents is overrated. Obama, in terms of achievements, is probably the third most progressive president of the last eight decades. Not coincidentally, he also entered office with the third-most favorable congressional context. If Bill Clinton had entered office in 2008, he probably would have amassed the same kind of record. JFK underachieved, but didn’t even have a full term either. Carter probably underachieved, but his nominal congressional majorities were particularly nominal even by Democratic standards — a still-large Southern reactionary contingent at war with an unusually intransigent Naderite faction. LBJ is the only post-FDR president to have overachieved (his majorities, in particular, guaranteed nothing when it came to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, and nothing could have stopped him from appointing a Byron White if he wanted to), and even that came with a steep price — brute force and bridge-burning are limited resources, and he was of course forced to resign from the Democratic primary with a botched attempt to replace Earl Warren and his legislative agenda a shambles.
So when we discuss the political abilities of presidents, we’re working (especially with domestic policy) within a pretty narrow band. Political skills are essentially a constant, but outcomes nevertheless vary greatly even within presidencies. I don’t think any set of presidential tactics could have gotten significantly better outcomes on health care or climate change. But that’s not to say that presidential policy preferences and strategy are irrelevant either. Had he listened to the Mark Penn faction, the outcome om health care could have been even worse. On tax cuts, conversely, there’s no way to defend Obama’s performance.