Patterico's Pontifications

11/8/2014

Don’t You Poison The Well And Play With Matches, Mr. President

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:27 pm



[guest post by Dana]

At surely what must have been an awkward luncheon with newly empowered Republicans, and in light of the president vowing to use his final two years to “to forge compromises with newly empowered congressional Republicans and break the political gridlock that has defined Washington over the past several years, President Obama remained defiant and fully intent on moving unilaterally on immigration and granting amnesty to at least 6 million illegals before the end of this year. Clearly, this suggests he does not fully understand the meaning of the word compromise:

Before the end of the year, we’re going to take whatever lawful actions that I can take that I believe will improve the functioning of our immigration system that will allow us to surge additional resources to the border where I think the vast majority of Americans have the deepest concern.

Newly elected Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and House speaker John Boehner warned against the president taking such action. According to Boehner’s office:

“The speaker warned that unilateral action by the president on executive amnesty will erase any chances of doing immigration reform and will also make it harder for Congress and the White House to work together successfully on other areas where there might otherwise be common ground.


(video via The Corner)

Also pushing back in a letter to Sen. Harry Reid were Ted Cruz, David Vitter, Mike Crapo, Mike Lee,
Pat Roberts and Jeff Sessions:

We write to express our alarm with President Obama’s announced intention to take unilateral executive action by the end of this year to lawlessly grant amnesty to immigrants who have entered the country illegally. The Supreme Court has recognized that “over no conceivable subject is the power of Congress more complete” than its power over immigration. Therefore, President Obama will be exercising powers properly belonging to Congress if he makes good on his threat. This will create a constitutional crisis that demands action by Congress to restore the separation of powers.

As majority leader of the Senate, you have the responsibility of not only representing the voters of your State, but also of protecting the Constitution through vigilant exercise of the checks and balances provided under the Constitution. Therefore, we write to offer our full assistance in ensuring expeditious Senate debate and passage for a measure that preserves the power of Congress by blocking any action the President may take to violate the Constitution and unilaterally grant amnesty; however, should you decline to defend the Senate and the Constitution from executive overreach, the undersigned Senators will use all procedural means necessary to return the Senate’s focus during the lame duck session to resolving the constitutional crisis created by President Obama’s lawless amnesty.

Rumor has it that at the luncheon the president enjoyed the sea bass, but refused to eat his serving of humble pie for dessert.

–Dana

33 Responses to “Don’t You Poison The Well And Play With Matches, Mr. President”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (8e74ce)

  2. Arrogant and petty man.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  3. he’s such trash

    people should just ignore him

    happyfeet (831175)

  4. I’m thinking of a word, it starts with “I” and rhymes with dim peach.

    edoc118 (8b952d)

  5. edoc118,

    I believe the “i” word is not the way to go. It would inevitably backfire on the Republicans, yet again (not enough votes). And it would give the Democrats big ammunition to use in the run up to 2016 election.

    We shouldn’t be played:

    “This is time for Republicans to be very disciplined. They won the election because they were disciplined. They stayed on message. They made it a referendum on Obama,” he said.

    “And they won,” he said. “What they have to do now is to go from being the party of no to the party with an agenda.”

    He said a goal is to pass bills to help America, demonstrating how different the GOP majority is from Obama, and send them to the president.

    “The prize here is not the impeachment of Obama and the curtailing of his term by three months. The prize is winning the White House in 2016 and changing the country,” he said.

    He said Congress’ reaction to a unilateral move by Obama on immigration should be to defund the programs, encourage private legal challenges and make it clear that any executive order would be canceled by an incoming president in 2017.

    Dana (8e74ce)

  6. If the president thinks impeachment is off of the table, what will stop him from doing whatever he wants?
    As if he hasn’t already gone past the limits already.
    So the Repubs set an agenda popular with the majority, keep pushing it and letting Obama veto it,
    and look to a repub congress and presidency in 2016,
    and let the hearings into corruption and throwing people in fed prison begin?

    If the prize is not preserving Constitutional government by some means or another, what other prize is worth having?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  7. Sea bass is endangered.

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  8. It’s not just R’s warning the WH. Axelrod and Rendell are both urging Obama to shelve/delay executive amnesty. There may be a very public civil war in the Democrat party over this long before the R’s even take over congress.

    http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/11/07/hmmm-david-axelrod-ed-rendell-float-idea-of-delaying-executive-amnesty/

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/03/Chicago-Dem-Gutuerrez-Warns-of-Civil-War-Among-Minorities-if-Obama-Doesn-t-OK-Amnesty

    elissa (89df8b)

  9. A Joint Committee looking into the IRS matter with full powers of subpoena and civil contempt granted them by each House might get Obama concerned about impeachment.

    No one was expecting impeachment when the Watergate Committee formed, but somewhere along the way it became imperative.

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  10. Having observed Ed Rendell as mayor and governor, he is a skilled politician, and if he thinks something is politically a bad idea, it probably is.
    That’s not at all saying that I agree with his policy views, I don’t,
    but he is a formidable politician.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  11. 7. Sea bass is endangered.

    Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/8/2014 @ 1:12 pm

    Symbolism. Hopefully, so is the Obumble presidency.

    Steve57 (c1c90e)

  12. Legalizing 5 million new workers will give unskilled US workers — black, white and Hispanic — just that much more competition for jobs. I might not even be good for the illegals as their current employers will look for other illegals they can exploit.

    Obama, the Man with the Minus Touch™.

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  13. Dana,

    I don’t think impeachment is politically tenable, either. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve it.

    edoc118 (8b952d)

  14. Sea bass is endangered.

    Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/8/2014 @ 1:12 pm

    Especially when it’s well-seasoned, broiled and resting next to a bed of rice pilaf on my plate.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  15. It’s time to put the cabinet officers and agency heads in front of Congress and squeeze. It’s just as illegal for them to follow a president’s illegal order as it is for him to issue it. Obama may be too special to impeach but they’re all expendable. Democrats have long known how to use congressional hearings to pressure republican administrations. With majority public support what in the world are the republicans waiting for? Besides Jan 6, 2015.

    crazy (cde091)

  16. I recall Bill Clinton — hardly a non-arrogant, non-egotistical person in his own right — looking rather chastened and sounding somewhat humble after the elections of 1994, when the Congress was taken over by the Republicans. 20 years later, with his Democrat successor facing a similar situation, but instead oozing lots of hubris and arrogance, Obama, in terms of character and an appropriate non-sour-grapes demeanor, is therefore far, far worse than Clinton.

    The guy now in the White House truly fits the image of someone very likely to proclaim “let them eat cake!” Until he came around, I never thought any president in my lifetime would be quite as nasty and permanent a stain on US history as Bill Clinton. But Obama has managed to one-up him.

    Mark (c160ec)

  17. I think Bill Clinton really does want people to like him, and tries to ingratiate himself to others.
    Obama thinks people should like him, and if they don’t, they have a problem, so he has no need to bother.
    That, and Clinton is a politician, not an ideologue, I think.

    yes, crazy. And if no cooperation prior to the next administration, they will not be able to get pardoned for their crimes.
    Unless Obama makes a blanket pardon for everyone that served under him for whatever it was they might have done.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  18. 5. Dana (8e74ce) — 11/8/2014 @ 12:51 pm We shouldn’t be played: </blockquote. Citing (favorably) a report on WND about what Charles Krauthammer said on Bill O'Reillys show: He said Congress’ reaction to a unilateral move by Obama on immigration should be to defund the programs, encourage private legal challenges and make it clear that any executive order would be canceled by an incoming president in 2017. Shouldn’t that be, and maybe didn’t Charles Krauthammer really say something like:

    {Republicans should] make it clear that any executive order would be canceled by an incoming Republican president in 2017.

    Talk about BEING PLAYED!

    That’s probably exactly what ill and Hillary Clinton want!

    It would be hard to think of something betetr calculated to get out the vote among Hispanics,. Asians, young people in general, some religious groups, and switch votes among some business people and farmers.

    This is especially since Barack Obama says he will cancel his executive order if he and congress can agree on a more limited amnesty. So if the Republicans want a suspension of deportations, but just for fewer people, they’ll say, OK, pass a bill, maybe he’ll sign it.

    Sammy Finkelman (89ef89)

  19. Hello Dana
    Crow should have been served at that grouping of nitwits.

    mg (fcabf1)

  20. the only acceptable compromise on illegal immigration is the immediate deportation of everyone who is here illegally, and a complete sealing of the border to prevent a re-infestation.

    rewarding criminal behavior does not provide a social benefit to society: it just encourages more illegal behavior. people who’s first act on American soil was to break our laws are never going to be good citizens.

    redc1c4 (4db2c8)

  21. If the demz are truly disgusted with Barry. They could vote with the publicans.
    super majority tops his pen. Imagine him in the whitehouse for 2 years with no one giving him any time
    Better than impeachment.
    I’m trying to be positive.
    Shoot me.

    mg (fcabf1)

  22. “This is especially since Barack Obama says he will cancel his executive order if he and congress can agree on a more limited amnesty.”

    Sammy – Did Obama actually use the words “a more limited amnesty” or are you making that up?

    I recall Obama talking about a bill he could sign.

    btw – People talking about record deportations under Obama are full of it. He’s cooked the books on those stats by combining previously separate categories to make himself look like he’s tough on enforcement when he’s actually doing squat.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  23. Obama thinks people should like him, and if they don’t, they have a problem, so he has no need to bother. That, and Clinton is a politician, not an ideologue, I think

    His life, and Michelle’s, has for over 20 years been bathed in baffling rewards. I think reality has intruded a few times. There’s a reason neither of them spent more than a few years as working lawyers, Bobby Rush handed BO his ass in 2000, and by some accounts they had chronic financial problems for the first 12 years they were married in spite of the handsome salaries Mooch was paid as a diversicrat. Still, a pair of hack lawyers pulling in 200 grand a year from employments which could not have had much in the way of operational measures of competence (with the husband seriously considered in 2002 to run a foundation that pays its director as we speak about $350,000 a year) are living in a social matrix few people ever see. Now the last five years, they’ve been living in a way which makes the British Royal Family look frugal.

    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2012-09-29.html

    They do not know who they are, and the people around them keep throwing rubbing alcohol on the open flame.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  24. “This is especially since Barack Obama says he will cancel his executive order if he and congress can agree on a more limited amnesty.”

    23. daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/8/2014 @ 6:35 pm

    Sammy – Did Obama actually use the words “a more limited amnesty” or are you making that up?

    I recall Obama talking about a bill he could sign.

    No he never uses the word amnesty. It’s not like “Obamacare.”

    But I’m not making it up. That’s the way to understand what he said. He said:

    …whatever exeective actions tghat I take will be replaced and supplanted by action of Congress. You send me a bill that I can sign, and those executive actions go away.

    Now, what is that supposed to mean?

    Obviously, that the amnesty contained in a law he signs might be somewhat more limited than what he did, and/or have more conditions attached to the amnesty. And I think he really means to exclude some people that are included in his executive action.

    btw – People talking about record deportations under Obama are full of it. He’s cooked the books on those stats by combining previously separate categories to make himself look like he’s tough on enforcement when he’s actually doing squat.

    He means the border. People sent back across the border within a few days were not considered deportations before??

    Sammy Finkelman (89ef89)

  25. Obama just said it again on Face the Nation.

    No, he did not say that a bill would include every person that an executive order does, but that’s probsably because he doesn’t wnat to get any pushback from pro-immigrant groups.

    Bob Schieffer asked him if what he said (about telling Boehner earlier that if he didn’t gte abill passed he’d do somethinbg by the end o the year) meant that their time has run out. And he said no.

    It would take time to implement and anything he does goes away with new law. And he’s have a reason to sign a new law because what he does now is temporary, but a law would be permanent.

    And what he does and movement toward a bill woud go on parallel tracks.

    He said, or said that he said to Boehner, that he legal authority to do these things, but he can’t do everything that he wuld like to do. Resources were being misallocated. The wrong people were being deported. (and the right people were not being deported)

    Sammy Finkelman (89ef89)

  26. “He means the border. People sent back across the border within a few days were not considered deportations before??”

    Sammy – Do a little homework on this subject.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  27. “Now, what is that supposed to mean?”

    Sammy – It means you made up what you said and claimed Obama said it.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  28. daleyrocks @27

    Well, was the definition of deportation changed or not??

    Are apples and oranges being compared in the statistic Obama cites, or are oranges (or oranges and apples) being compared to oranges (or oranges plus apples), even if before everybody was talking only about apples?

    28. daleyrocks on 11/9/2014 @ 8:34 am

    Sammy – It means you made up what you said and claimed Obama said it.

    I never said it was a quote.

    What do you think it means? What else does replaced and supplanted and “go away” mean?

    It has to mean that some of it will not be continued under a new law, or else it means nothing at all..

    And Obama did not intend to say nothing at all.

    Sammy Finkelman (89ef89)

  29. elissa (89df8b) — 11/8/2014 @ 1:12 pm

    Axelrod and Rendell are both urging Obama to shelve/delay executive amnesty. There may be a very public civil war in the Democrat party over this long before the R’s even take over congress.

    It might be that perhaps, that was the underlying issue when Democrats in the Senate told (Bob Schieffer?) that he doesn’t listen to them. Or maybe these are more general complaints.

    Anyway, Obama seems to be arguing that the Republicans would have no reason to get mad at him for that, since everything he does could and would be changed by a new law.

    Sammy Finkelman (89ef89)

  30. 16. crazy (cde091) — 11/8/2014 @ 3:27 pm

    It’s just as illegal for them to follow a president’s illegal order as it is for him to issue it.

    This may come up in the hearings for Attorney General.

    Loretta Lynch will say it is legal, as President Obama insists – or she will say there is no executive order yet for her to evaluate.

    She may also say she hasn’t studied it. Republicans might perhaps demand an answer before confirming her. It may not be her job to say, though. It’s more the White House counsel or counsel for DHS.

    Sammy Finkelman (89ef89)

  31. Comrades, I think it’s appropriate at this juncture to ask candidly whether Screwtape is indeed in routine communication with the front office or is he simply a wannabe independently ladling his own stream of effluent.

    If the latter I submit the jollies don’t warrant the attention. We, in effect, are pithing one frog after another for the twitch, without socially redeeming purpose.

    DNF (b18ba5)

  32. “I never said it was a quote.”

    Sammy – I did not claim you said it was a quote. Your words again:

    Barack Obama says he will cancel his executive order if he and congress can agree on a more limited amnesty

    Now you claim Obama does not use the word amnesty and that any Executive Action he takes will involve more amnesty than the Senate Immigration Bill he said he would sign. I have seen nothing from the White House indicating the legal limit of what they believe the President’s Executive Powers over granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is and whether it is greater or lesser than the Senate immigration bill. If you happen to have a source which pins it down rather than merely speculates, please let us know.

    It is easier to let readers know you are interpreting Obama’s words to mean something with some qualifying phrasing such as Obama signaled or Obama indicated rather than misleading people into believing Obama said things he did not.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1096 secs.