Obama, November 3rd, 2014:
Daily Archives: November 5, 2014
After getting trounced at the polls by Mitch McConnell, Alison Lundergan Grimes took to the stage last night for the time honored tradition of delivering her concession speech. In a largely self congratulatory four minutes or so, she thanked her family and her supporters before going on to list all of her accomplishments. These included the large amount of money she raised, the number of campaign offices they opened, the army of volunteers that was assembled and the “clear message” that she sent to Washington. But there was one thing missing from this concession speech. She never actually conceded. In fact, she never even mentioned Mitch McConnell’s name.
“It wasn’t a concession speech. Usually, you concede,” Al Sharpton added, noting that she made the Democrats turn on her when she infamously refused to say whether she voted for Obama during an editorial board Q&A. “You can represent what you represent. But you respect the winner, and you pledge to move on together.”
[T]he line of the night may have to go to Chris Matthews, who reflected on the fact that Grimes had been unable to say who she voted for in the last election.
“I was going to say something,” Matthews interrupted. “Okay, I’ll say it. She was unable to say who won the election, either.”
I ran across this article in the Washington Examiner explaining how Congress has the power to overturn executive orders, and it got me wondering: the article was written last July, when Democrats still controlled the Senate, and thus its author assumed there wouldn’t be the 67 votes necessary to override a presidential veto, but this morning, there must be a lot of Democrats who, facing elections of their own in 2016, are looking at how Americans reacted to blanket amnesty provisions, and gulping.* It would take only 12 or so Democrat senators to join the Republicans on such a vote, and after last night, that may not be impossible.
Congress can overturn an executive order. It can overturn parts of an executive order. If the executive order is based on a statute, Congress can change the statute, thereby nullifying the order. Congress can also refuse to fund activities stemming from all or part of the executive order.
The only instance in which the above does not apply is if the president is acting pursuant to an exclusive power granted to him by the Constitution. Obama’s immigration order would not be such a case. “As long as it is not constitutionally based, Congress may repeal a presidential order, or terminate the underlying authority upon which the action is predicated,” the Congressional Research Service noted in a December 2011 report.
It’s not very complicated. The CRS report mentioned Congress’ revocation of an executive order by President George H.W. Bush concerning fetal tissue research. “Congress simply directed that the ‘the provisions of Executive Order 12806 shall not have any legal effect,'” the report says. It was as simple as that.
If Obama chooses not to act by executive order, but instead issues some sort of “policy directive” — the way he implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative that stopped the deportations of thousands of illegal immigrants — then Congress would have the same authority to get rid of all or part of the president’s directive.
Of course, Senate Democrats would block it. And even if Democrats, in some amazingly unforeseen scenario, went along with a move to overturn an executive order, Obama could veto it, requiring a two-thirds vote to override the veto. So a move to overturn an executive order would fail. But it would be specific, targeted, and proportional — not an over-the-top action like impeachment.
Obama’s policies were on the ballot — we have it on good authority (Obama’s). That includes “comprehensive immigration reform,” as embodied in the Chuck Schumer’s Senate “Gang of 8″ legalization + immigration increase bill. So how did it do? Let’s see:
Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas voted for the Gang of 8 bill. He’s GONE.
Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina voted for the Gang of 8 bill. GONE.
Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado voted for the Gang of 8 bill. GONE
Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana voted for the Gang of 8 bill. She will probably be GONE after a January runoff.
Alison Grimes supported the Gang of 8 bill in Kentucky. DEFEATED
Michelle Nunn supported the Gang of 8 bill in Georgia. DEFEATED
Greg Orman supported the Gangof 8 bill in Kansas. DEFEATED
Bruce Braley supoorted the Gang of 8 bill in Iowa. DEFEATED
Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Mark Warner of Virginia voted for the Gang of 8 bill and BARELY SURVIVED against longshot challengers.
Do you sense a pattern in there somewhere? Schumer would probably be chairman of the lucrative Banking Committee if he hadn’t pushed his amnesty bill.
Even if the press intentionally misses this message, the pols and their advisers won’t. Do you think that, say, Oregon’s Democratic Senator Ron Wyden will be eager to vote on the Son of Gang of 8 next year? He’s up in 2016. Yesterday, his state’s voters rejected a bill to provide drivers’ licenses to illegals — it lost by a margin of 68 to 32, with more votes cast against it than were cast in favor of any candidate. It lost big in Democratic areas and lost in Republican areas. I don’t think Wyden wants to vote for another “comprehensive” bill.
P.S.: Click on the link under each candidate’s name if you don’t think immigration was an issue in their race.
Ultimately, the residency questions proved a low hurdle for Sullivan. A major legitimizing force on the campaign trail was his wife, Julie Fate Sullivan, an Alaska native who hails from a prominent Athabascan [it’s an Indian tribe; I looked it up] family and once worked for the late Sen. Ted Stevens.
Of course a Republican like Sullivan would only commit miscegenation because he so desperately wanted to be senator, but isn’t it astonishing that his fellow racists were willing to overlook his crime?
In Utah, still more racists elected Mia Love to Congress, the first black female Republican to win a seat in Congress, ever. Remember when the crew at MSNBC mocked Romney for having a black grandchild? The racism runs deep.
Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit: “Pantsuits have no coat tails” on Hillary Clinton’s failure to boost candidates, even Martha Coakley’s gubernatorial campaign in Massachusetts, of all places.
And Gateway Pundit: “First openly-Republican gay wins congressional seat”.
From the “no surprise department”, liberal gays didn’t hesitate to drag out their own homophobic hatred and use it against the man.
“Ads mocking DeMaio, by far left groups, have included putting his likeness on the body of a drag queen.”:
Despite losing the Senate, Obama doesn’t think too much should be read into election results from a handful of states that never approved of his job performance in the first place. Obama acknowledges that he needs to do better, and he will make modest adjustments to his staffing, messaging and legislative strategy in response. But he won’t pivot to the right, as he did after his self-proclaimed shellacking in 2010, White House officials said in interviews this week.
Obama will strike a tone of compromise and accountability during his public remarks Wednesday, promising to work with Republicans who are interested in working with him. He’s gone almost two years without a major legislative achievement, leaving him “very willing” to start cutting deals, a senior administration official said, possibly on trade, corporate taxes and patent reform. Still, this posture isn’t much different than the one he’s projected for years.
At the same time, Obama won’t back down from using his administrative powers, including plans to issue an executive order on immigration that could be the most aggressive unilateral action of his presidency. He’ll adhere to a progressive agenda that, officials said, will keep the base excited, position his party to win back the Senate and hold the White House in 2016, and seal his legacy. And he will continue to use the bully pulpit to promote liberal issues, such as stemming climate change, that stand no chance of passing Congress on his watch but might under his successor.
“You can’t lose your base,” a second senior administration official said. “There are policy things we are going to have to support where the base isn’t there. But you’ve got to keep your eye on your base.”
Obama’s room to maneuver in the Senate will also be limited by his own party. There’s a lot of pent-up Democratic demand for Congress to start legislating, but the Democratic leadership has little incentive to concede too much because the party’s likely to win back the majority in 2016. The number of moderate Democrats will be even smaller than it is now, further narrowing Obama’s ability to go too far afield.
Meanwhile, over at the White House Dossier, Keith Koffler pointed out yesterday that the Democrats now complaining about their leader are both hypocrites and cowards. The Democrats still want what Obama promised, they just want a different figurehead to hide behind. So don’t look for change.
The most disgraceful thing about this campaign, aside from the race baiting, has been the sight of Democratic candidates ditching any sense of principle and abandoning President Obama.
Can any of these candidates explain what Obama did that they did not ask of him? He’s unpopular not because he’s Barack Obama. Not because he’s black. Not because Republicans are mean to him. And not because he golfs too much, though he does.
He’s unpopular because his policies, and the policies of the Democrats holding their noses as he passes, are a failure. And they’d much rather sacrifice the man who led them partway to The Promised Land than themselves. Because The Promised Land turns out to look very unpromising to many American voters.
The one thing Obama was totally honest about, at least in the 2012 election and even to a large extent in the 2008 election, were his intentions for this country. Obama lies at the tactical level – “You can keep you doctor,” and so forth – but at the strategic level, everyone knew what he was all about.
He is a left-wing ideologue with a vision for redistributing wealth and using government to advance various social and economic goals. About this there was never any question.
Obama gave Democrats everything they wanted:
* Universal health coverage that will eventually become Socialized medicine;
* A federal-enviro industrial complex supporting all kinds of expensive, unworkable green energy;
* Tax hikes for the rich;
* An increased share of federal spending as a percentage of the economy;
* The abolition of work requirements for welfare;
* The proliferation of food stamps and growth of dependency.
* No Medicare reform and no Social Security reform;
* An end to “Bush’s wars” and an end to U.S. leadership in the world so we can focus on social engineering at home.
What, if you are a Democrat, is not to love?
Nothing. The imperiled Democrats running for reelection all supported this program.
In the Kentucky Senate race, Mitch McConnell’s re-election campaign boiled the issues down to three words in what is destined to become a classic bumper sticker: “Coal. Guns. Freedom.”
Now that McConnell has won re-election — the race was called the moment the polls closed — his Senate neighbor to the east, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, essentially confirmed the bumper sticker’s analysis of the race.
Of course, guns and freedom are important. But the Obama administration’s policy on coal — commonly referred to as the “war on coal” in places including Kentucky and West Virginia — sank Democratic hopes in those states, Manchin told MSNBC on election night. The states have lost thousands of high-paying jobs, Manchin said, and voters there blame President Obama, who once vowed to destroy the coal industry.
“They believe the president has doubled down on them,” Manchin told MSNBC. “It just doesn’t make sense that we have to fight so hard against our own government, against our own administration.” Certainly the voters in Kentucky agreed; in exit polls, 62 percent said they were dissatisfied with the Obama administration.
“Climate change” barely registers as a concern for voters nationwide. In states where the Democrat’s plan to bankrupt the coal industry are already bearing palpable results, climate change is of deep concern; just not the way the Democrats planned it.
That’s the theme being put out by the heartbroken children over at Daily Kos and other sites of its ilk, where to vote against Obama is to commit an act of racism, but I see that Tim Scott was elected Senator of South Carolina by a landslide. First black man ever to win a senatorial contest in that state, and he’s a conservative Republican.
Maybe reconciling the races and focusing on economic issues is a winning strategy; certainly, that’s what got the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue his job in 2008, and his immediate repudiation of that promise and his focus for the next six years on racial division and abortion rights helped cause so many of his friends to lose last night.
Interesting that the “racist” people base their claim in large part on an argument that Obama and his party have done such a great job improving our economy that only a racist could be so ungrateful as to vote against them. If that’s so, why did they focus their entire campaign, nationally and locally, on amnesty, abortion rights and the “threatened” rights of African-Americans, instead of touting the recovery? Bad strategy.