Header Image (book)


Thursday, November 6, 2014

Obama's Management Style. Where Do We Go From Here?

According to Bobby Jindahl, the governor of Louisiana, on October 18, 2014, these are the four stages of Obama's crisis-management style:

1. Don’t worry, I got this.

2. I'm so mad.

3. More money will fix it.

4. Republicans are obstructing.

In my view, the above is accurate.

Also in my view, despite the 2014 Election, Obama will continue with that same management style — albeit with a vindictiveness we've not seen before. What WE THE PEOPLE want is not on the man's radar.

Now, here's my question: 

How can Congress rein in Obama without there being a perception that such reining in is racist in nature?

Let's talk Constitutional law, please.


  1. Seems like his style to me.

    "How can Congress rein in Obama without there being a perception that such reining in is racist in nature?"

    Ignore the pandering sycophants and govern like adults. Those who cry 'racism' will do so regardless of what the GOP majority does...it's their mind-numbingly reflexive nature.

    1. You've completely missed it.

      The question is whether or not there is any bit of progressive feeling in the man or not.

      I keep asking conservatives to point out just what there is about this mans term that hasn't been right of center. His main quality is not being a batshite crazy Teabag.

      Will you see a progressive impulse or will you see Keystone, TransPacific Partnership, gutting of bank regulations? Given his past record you should be able to figure it out.

      He won't even bother to make noise about Commie legislation like point of sale background checks before you buy 10 new popguns.

      And here's my statement, because it isn't a prediction but an obvious fact.
      The middle class will continue to get squeezed and these fools still won't figure it out.

    2. "You've completely missed it."

      Noted, but this comment comes from you, so.....

      "He won't even bother to make noise about Commie legislation like point of sale background checks before you buy 10 new popguns."

      This already exists. Please keep up.

    3. Yeah, Ducky, the whole redistribution of wealth, eat the rich, use the government to target Conservatives, one-worlder thing is SO right of center.

      I don't blame you Progressives for not wanting to associate him with yourselves, but you're stuck with him. You drooled over him for the past 6 years...until he became a liability.

      Trotsky got an icepick in the head when the Leftists disowned him. Barack should probably watch his back.

  2. How come, whenever the Democrats LOSE, they want Bipartisanship?
    What we saw on Tuesday, (election day) was a Land Slide, a Blood Bath, A Massive Republican Win and a mandate for the president to work with congress . This showed what the people want! If it didn’t then of course Republicans would not have won as big as they did.
    But the question that lies before us, is will the he mandate fix the mess created by obama and the Democrats.
    Will it bring the government back under control, in spending?
    Will it repeal obamacare? Of course all this remains to be seen, and personally I’ll believe it when I see it, as I’ll believe ANYTHING that this president says when I see it.

    The Dummies on the left in that Progressive bunker seem to think that because Obama is “Still the President” that nothing that happened Tuesday will matter. And maybe the American People are really that Stupid to believe it.
    Let him “VETO” everything That's fine People are fed up with you democrats, and if you thought Hillary was a Shoe In for 2016? Just let obama place his signature on a lot of veto's and we’ll see what happens. What I expect to see is more and more, various versions of Obama’s FAILED Democrat Policies and Ideas.
    So I have one thing to say about these idiotic people and their ideas, You are all are freaken crazy. And that you should wake up and realize that you lost. And you can thank obama for that landslide win. But you know you can always move to a country that has Socialized medicine you want it so badly...

  3. The next couple of months will be a rough ride, then it only gets worse as his nastiness will know no bounds. The presser yesterday revealed him for who he is, and the press didn't show him much love.

  4. Obama has little to do but sit back and watch the incompetence and cynicism of the GOP unfold while they trip all over themselves and remind everyone who really screwed everything up before 2008. The Cruz and McConnell wars will be real fun to watch too!

    1. Obama hasn't got the self control not to make an ASS out of himself.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. He does on a daily basis for sure GF

  5. Personally, I don't care a fig about "racism," I'm fed up to the eyeballs with hearing the term and seeing it in print. "Racism," as defined by leftist-acivists today, is as American as Motherhood and Apple Pie used to be before the Left set about on its campaign to destroy the American family -- which always was the heart, soul, life's blood, and strength of the nation.

    The modern Politically Correct movement started with the post-WWII rise of the term "Anti-Semitism." Preoccupation with inappropriate feelings of guilt, and fear of being charged with "Anti-Semitism" is the Patriarch of PC.

    The fearful taboo worked. It firmly established a Privileged Class whose motives, attitudes and activities cannot be questioned or criticized. This bizarre taboo is now so firmly entrenched in our subconscious no one even dreams of questioning its veracity or validity anymore, except increasingly rare Paleo-Conservatives like me who fully realize they are the last surviving members of a dying breed, but still have a passion for knowing and revealing the truth regardless of what it might cost.

    At any rate, being charged with racism today has had the similar effect of creating a large class of perceived "victims" who must be treated with kid gloves, and absolved of all responsibility or culpability for any criminal, anti-social, traitorous activity or offenses to formerly-established standards of Common Sense, Common Decency, and Good Taste.

    The result has been the upheaval, nightmarish dissolution of standards, establishment of institutionalized insolence, and the raving, shrieking roaring, mind-numbing cultural degeneracy we've been seeing and dealing with since the mid-SICK-sties.

    NOW -- and here we make a Quantum Leap -- IF Mitch McConnell, not so affectionately known in conservative circles as "The Turkey Gobbler," fails to do everything impossible to OVERTURN and THROW OUT OBAMACARE the very SECOND he assumes Power, ALL the advantages we have just gained will be LOST, and all the effort, enormous sums of money spent on bringing this great Wave Election to fruition, and the hopes, dreams and prayers of ordinary citizens fed up to the teeth with the Socialist Agenda will have been in vain.

    After all the great success Tea Party Patriots ha in taking over the House in 2010 occurred for the express purpose of REPEALING OBAMACARE. How could the nation possibly forget that so soon? How much more shallow, flighty and easily duped could we be?

    If we do NOT still demand the repeal of Obamacare, we stand for NOTHING.

    Do I think McConnell –– and the brand of tepid, Old Guard Republicanism he and others like Bob Dole, John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham represent –– has the courage -- or even the DESIRE -- to follow through on this Clear Mandate from the Electorate?

    I'm afraid not. The RINO Establishment has been as useless as teats on a boar ever since George H.W. Bush took over from Ronald Reagan. Can you see any reason to believe they will behave any differently now?

    I HOPE so, but FEAR not.

    1. Freethinke doesn't care about racism? Who knew.

    2. FreeThinke,

      I disagree about voting to repeal Obamacare. The senate won't even be able to achieve cloture on that one.

      Even if they did, and they passed a repeal bill, Obama will veto it,and we've gotten nowhere.

      We already know Obama will veto it. It's his crowning "achievement."

      GOOPers need to go small ball, base hits that are popular with a broad swath of voters.

      We've had enough of the sickening operatic political theater

    3. I deeply and completely disagree, Kurt -- and so do all the leading lights of the Conservative movement with which you seem suddenly to have lost touch. How could you have forgotten that the Wave Election of 2010 overturned the status quo and completely changed the makeup of the House of Representatives precisely BECAUSE the electorate wanted and expected them to GET RID of OBAMACARE?

      I'm sorry you've gone all wobbly on us. I think your tepidity is exactly the WRONG approach. We need a RADICAL, severely UNCOMPROMISING response to the RADICAL, unwanted, unneeded, harmful, tremendously expensive institutional changes and ever-tightening restrictions the Democrats have trottled us with.

      I can't believe you have any fear of or respect for Obama's VETO power.

      He's just been transformed into a political eunuch and will remain so,but only IF we take full advantage of the opportunity now before us.

      The People did not elect this vast Republican Majority to make COMPROMISES with the DEMOCRATS. The election constitues a clear mandate for a complete ROLLBACK and DESTRUCTION of the Obama Agenda. The election signifies a massive REJECTION of SOCIALISM.

      What YOU are suggesting will GUARANTEE an indefinite perpetuation of the deadly deteriorating conditions imposed on us since George H.W. Bush took over from Ronald Reagan.

      Human beings en masse are NOT reasonable creatures. The vast majority are followers not leaders. THEREFORE it well behooves "us" whoever 'we" may be to take a very firm grip on power and LEAD us OUT of the WILDERNESS into The Promised Land.

      If only the Republicans stopped thinking as you have suggested, they could easily OVERRIDE any veto The Black Knight tries to fob off on us.

      I am APPALLED that you seem to believe it is not only possible but VIRTUOUS to try to COMPROMISE with the DEVIL.

      When you've got your opponent on the ropes, DON'T try to give him a chance to revive; KNOCK HIM OUT, then PlSS on his lifeless form.

    4. It has nothing to do with fear, going wobbly or all the rest of what you mention.

      Simple fact: the GOP cannot repeat Obamacare. Obama will veto it. That's not compromise, not fear, just a plain, simple fact.

      Pass some bills, make the people happy, and get a Republican elected to the White House, and then you repeal, when it's actually a possibility.

    5. SF,


      Political gamesmanship.

      For the next two years.

    6. FT,
      When you've got your opponent on the ropes, DON'T try to give him a chance to revive; KNOCK HIM OUT, then PlSS on his lifeless form.

      If only!

      Politics is not a field of honor.

      Politics as a field of honor disappeared long ago.

      Besides, there is not enough of a majority in Congress to override the Presidential veto.

      It's not a matter of compromise. There is a matter of reality involved.

      Passing bills that the Obama vetoes time after time will force him to go on record. Obama then becomes "The Party of No."

      It's all about perceptions.

  6. I wonder who Obama will nominate for Surgeon General after his current gun confiscating nominee gets voted down in the Senate.


  7. unfortunately, this country and it's population will suffer for God knows how many generations due to the ignorant drones and other self loathing parasites in this country looking for an easy way out by living off the productivity of others aided by socialists and communists promising a (nonexisent) Utopia where everything is rainbows and unicorns farting butterflies... those that buy into this commie dream should have daily treatments of ice baths and shock treatments (hopefully simultaneously).

  8. It's going to be an interesting two years.

    A smart GOP party would play it straight up, send sensible bills to his desk, and stand out of the way as Obama displays his churlish petulance and continues campaigning to his base.

    I think the Obama camp has already crafted the strategery to try to ensnare the GOP in lose-lose situations.

    If the GOP plays their cards right, they could end up turning many Democrat congresspeople and senators against the president on many votes.

    The trade-off there would be the GOP will have to avoid the hottest, flaming rightwing issues. The electorate may be mildly conservative, but they are not hard rightwingers.

    A smart GOP will find the sweet spot that appeals to America's broad middle and makes them look like adults, while forcing Obama to go along, or to act like the angry, petulant child that he is.

    The next two years will answer that old George W. Bush question:

    Is our GOP politicians learning?

    1. Wise words.

      Look for it all to go out the window when the first Teabag starts screaming for hearings on Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.

      You're asking for Louie Gohmert and the great state of Texass to keep a low profile. Good luck with that.

      Faux Snooze is going to risk ratings and go to straight journalism? Good luck with that.

    2. Silver... good stuff... Can the GOP do it? Doubtful... I've seen across the blogosphere where the Tea Party types are saying they brought the GOP here, so they expect payback.

      Repeal of the ACA, tax cuts, and you can expect a federal personhood law to be among the first laws out of the gate.

      That's 2 out of 3 that will be vetoed.

      I am not sure they can restrain themselves... it's like this wise adage... the oppressed, once freed and given power, become oppressors themselves...

      It's how we are as people...

    3. Ducky and Dave,

      I share your pessimism.

      As I stated above, a vote to repeal Obamacare is nothing more than political kabuki. Even if they could get cloture, Obama will veto it, end of story. I think reasonable people in the middle will see it as a stunt and mark it as a negative against the GOP.

      Why not just hire Ted Cruz to read the nation some more Dr. Seuss?

      Personhood is also a bridge too far. The nation is divided on abortion, and personhood laws are so poorly written that they can't even get the anti-abortion Catholic Church on-board.

      I do think gains can be made in protecting the human rights of babies in the womb that are viable. That is an issue that appeals across the board because it relies on medical science and humanism rather than sectarian religion. Conservatives need to learn to think incrementally like the progressive Long-Marchers instead of trying to gobble it all at once.

      Benghazi? Obama and Hillary screwed up and got people killed, but Americans have moved on, and so should the GOP. Obama isn't running again, and Hillary (what difference does it make?) won't pay any price for her criminal negligence. Those who love her do so blindly (how else could you love that?) and those angry at her cold-blooded nonchalance already hate her anyway.

      If someone wants to make a serious prognostication, he or she should look at where the big senate battles will be in 2016. It seems to be a tendency for the party that controls the senate to structure votes around protecting their own vulnerable while exposing the tasty flanks of their opponents up for a rough reelection battle next go-around.

      Republican Kelly Ayotte is vulnerable in liberal NH, as is Repub Pat Toomey in that perennial kick-in-the-GOP's-nutsack, Pennsylvania. Repub Ron Johnson from still-blue WIsconsin could also face a tough reelection, as could Mark Kirk in Illinois. Looking it over, I don't see one vulnerable Democrat, except perhaps my own senator Bennett, and I wouldn't bet on him losing.

      The other controlling factor is which senators plan to run for president. Already we have Sens Cruz, Rubio, Portman, Paul and Warren...

      Finally, just as the Democrats have their execrable creatures like Charlie Grayson, and class clowns like Maxine Waters, blessedly free to act as idiotic as they want to because of jerrymandered districts, so do the GOP.

      In the DC political deck, Jokers abound. Should be fun to watch.

      As I said before the GOP challenge is to present themselves as the adults in the room with sensible legislation to address the nation's most pressing problems.

      Can they do it? Time will tell.

    4. Kurt, if THOSE two give you a nod of approval, you KNOW you must be doing something wrong.

    5. Did you read what I wrote, FT?

      Show me where I have violated one conservative principle.

      Show me where I have acceded to progressive propaganda.

    6. SF,
      the GOP challenge is to present themselves as the adults in the room with sensible legislation to address the nation's most pressing problems

      And no longer be perceived as "The Party of No." Otherwise, there will be a Democratic Party sweep in 2016.

    7. Guess what Dave, Obama would have to sign the repeal of The ACA. Think that's gonna happen, genius?

    8. You're right Silver, Benghazi won't be an issue because if the GOP continues to push it, it will now be painfully obvious that it was all make up crap from the start.

    9. This one,

      Benghazi is not "made up crap." People died because Hillary didn't approve appropriate security measures, and Obama diddled as the people were dying.

      My point is a political one. People have moved on. Nothing can be gained from pursuing it further.

      Sarah Palin wants congress to impeach Obama over it. More proof it's time to move on.

      If Sarah Palin wanted to impeach Obama, she should have run for office.

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. If the GOP has any sense they'll keep a low profile for the next couple years. No government shutdowns or he like. No getting seniors upset about possible program cuts.
    They'll bloat the military budget and try to cut taxes on the upper decile but it should be quiet...
    ... unless the Ted Cruz wing of the party starts to feel frisky an causes a schism. Then this all gets reconsidered.

    So the question isn't so much Obama's style as the Teabags style.

  11. He said he heard the one third that voted.
    And the two thirds that didn't.
    It is however the same message.
    1/3 said "stop". 2/3 said, "don't care to help you, Barack".
    He probably knows that and will push his agenda anyway.
    Any response can be portrayed as racist, so we must Educate. Communicate. Restrain.

    1. The Republicans will pass a budget.

      The deficit will be higher in two years.

      You'll find a way to blame Obama.

      Like clockwork.

    2. Who give a crap what an idiot like you thinks? Not me, and not most of the others here either.

  12. The Republicans have no excuse anymore not to use the power of the purse to stop Obama's pen and phone. They need to be smart enough to articulate their reasons well to the people. If they do that, they will keep the support of the voters in 2016.

  13. Johann Sebastian Cumberbatch said

    When are you going to get in tune with reality, AOW, and change the name of this blog to DUCKY'S CORNER?

    That IS exactly what it has become, you know.

    You call, of course.

  14. Good Point, Johann Sebastian Cumberbatch, & I agree

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

  16. That's right Ducky, so shut up already , you and your bunch of lefties losers are becoming a pain in the butt. You people lost because your president is a loser. Now it's time for the adults to take over, step aside.
    So go back to your Progressive cave and stay there with the rest of the ding-bats.
    You all need some major help over there..
    And by the way, I listen to Fox News and I love it.

    The Leftie’s strategy: Blame it on the Tea bagger's

    1. The only reason the left doesn't like FOX is because they don't slobber over
      Dear Leader

  17. AOW... to address your question... focus on the policy, not the man. That's how you maintain comity when there are disagreements.

    I think conservatives can do well with minorities, but they have to learn how to talk about policy differences in ways that do not reinforce felt stereotypes.

    When people call Obama a Marxist Kenyan, automatically people are going to turn off, as they perceive that comment as racist. So anything they say then gets understood as racist.

    It's like the old adage about agreeing to disagree agreeably.

    The question is whether conservatives, primarily in the blogosphere, want to invest their time in learning how to communicate to people different from them.

    Rand Paul seems to be getting it. He is not changing his policies one bit, but he is getting audiences with minorities and while they disagree with his policies, they are not calling him racist. Why is that?

    1. Dave, Rand Paul is an interesting case.

      In the next several months I think the critical issues are Keystone and the TransPacific Partnership.

      Now Keystone is a done deal. The fix was in all along and Obama just let it simmer knowing how unpopular it is with the Democratic base but now the coward doesn't have to worry about backlash.

      TPP is another story. Here's a bill that addresses virtually everything BUT trade. It cedes jurisdiction over trade matters to international corporate committees and even corporations themselves.
      The drug companies will be given another bonanza (and they will still look to government to fund an Ebola vaccine, just the development mind you. The companies keep the profit from retailing).
      Restrictions on offshoring jobs are removed. Banking regulations get rolled back. It's a corpratists dream and our so called liberal(LMAO) president supports it.
      The Senate is bought and paid for in the bag.

      But the House is a problem. The Dems oppose it and the Repubs are split. One group of Repubs follows the corporate party line. This is the group that runs Fox News.
      Others like Rand Paul object to various measures especially ceding the legislative process to the president. That group is the ally in this critical matter.

      Now I suspect the right wingers here aren't too familiar with the bill because Fox supports it and they don't want any publicity.
      It remains for the "low information" voters (but not on this issue) to make peace with the hardcore Libertarian segment and block this.

    2. What on earth is 'racist' about being called a Marxist Kenyan, like his father? While such a comment may only be half right, it bears argument on facts, not bias, casting aspersions on the legal right to his office, but not race. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So I guess if 'racism' is your toolkit....

    3. Baysider,
      Please set aside what you think of Dave's politics and read what he is saying.

      Remember how the leftwing dingbats called Bush Hitler, screaming that Cheney was a murderer and 9/11 was an inside job, etc? Remember how that made you feel? Remember how it repulsed you and pissed you off so bad you decided to tune out all Dems, even ones who perhaps made sense?

      Rightwing nutbags screaming about Obama being a crypo-Kenyan, illegal immigrant communist engender the same revulsion in people who otherwise might at least listen to us.

      Politics is about 95% style and 5% substance. Too many GOOP politicians are too thick to get that.

    4. Bay... the fact that you have to ask should explain it... the charge is specifically meant to express a provably wrong idea that Barack Obama is not a US citizen.

      Maybe you should ask someone like Rand Paul why he believes using that type of language is offensive to millions of black people.

      Look, you have every right to use whatever language you want in describing people, accurate or not. But if you want to win folks from that camp to your side, why would you continue to do so if they tell you it offends them?

      If your mom told you certain language offended her, would you ignore her and use it in her presence anyway? I'm guessing not.

      And that is what is happening here... Many minorities I know are indeed more conservative in the personal thinking... hard working, no debt, keep your nose clean God loving folks... but they will never consider the GOP because of the way they are talked to, and about.

      And the way Obama has been treated.

      Here's a question for you and anyone else reading...

      Let's say there has been no behavior towards Obama that has been racist. None, zip, zilch, nada...

      What kind of behavior towards him would qualify as racist, or racially insensitive?

    5. Dave don't worry Dave,if Rand Paul runs the leftwing will find ways to call him a racist like when he said business owners have a right to discrection as to who allow in their establishments. That is all they will focus on even though it was a twisted question

  18. Oh here come the 2 Faced wonder of the Left...Dave Miller, It wont be long until the other idiots RN, and Octopus will follow.

  19. Communicate effectively? Follow the Biblical admonition to speak the truth with love. We can be plain spoken whilst not white-washing issues which need to be addressed in the immediate near future. We can speak the truth without malice, hidden agenda, public script which targets a specific demographic or sophistry which only deceives the fools. We are Americans. All of us can do better. We are Americans, not hyphenated Americans. I would love to see us become first and foremost Americans in our primary identity.

    Highest priority on my list? Increasing the percentile of American men who are working forty hour a week at one job, not forty hours at two part time jobs (and not receiving benefits at either place of employment). Obamacare should be dismantled, and insurance companies allowed a competitive edge moving across state lines to create a more healthy law of supply and demand. Capitalism works. Really, it does.


    1. Tammy, I too would like to see more people working full time... at one job...

      The question is how we get there. Currently business is reaping record profits, yet they see no desire to expand opportunity. And why should they? They are in business to make money and that's what they are doing. They literally are not allowed to forgo profits or their stockholders, [folks like you and me] will demand management change.

      As for the ACA, or Obamacare, let's say we repeal it... Should people with pre-existing conditions be granted guaranteed access?

      Are you saying that the Feds should tell states that they have to accept insurance from other states? It seems like that would lead to more federal intervention, the very thing conservatives hate.

    2. Dave,
      Let the free market work, and work out its own kinks. That is what the federal government should do.

      Yes, there will be some uninsurables, as well as those cases where someone in a family gets a rare, multimillion-dollar illness and they are dropped by their insurance company and now face bankruptcy.

      Those cases together make up a small percentage. The federal government can set a few rules in place, and then set up a simple program that flat-out pays the bills of those who cannot.

      Part of this needs to be more out of pocket costs for individuals, which will have the effect of bringing prices down.

      Obama and the Democrats' mistake was applying a 100% solution to a 10% problem, and doing it rather sloppily.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. What is going to happen when all those ACA waivers -- waivers that Obama granted so as to shore up his base -- expire?

      I might be mistaken, but I think that those waivers are scheduled to expire on January 1, 2015. If those waivers do expire then, there will be a lot of pain. A lot!

    5. SF,
      Let the free market work, and work out its own kinks.

      Suppose employer-based health insurance were disallowed. Wouldn't that let the free market work better? Let me know your thoughts on that.

    6. Dave,
      As for the ACA, or Obamacare, let's say we repeal it... Should people with pre-existing conditions be granted guaranteed access>

      Actually, a lot of people with pre-existing conditions already had access -- at a higher premium, of course. Yes, sometimes the premium was very expensive.

      Furthermore, just a few years ago, one could obtain a health insurance policy which ridered out pre-existing conditions for 10 months, then at the 11-month mark, all conditions were covered. I know that Blue Cross Blue Shield offered such a plan because I looked into getting one for Mr. AOW. He could not be denied coverage because we had, for decades, "paid our dues" and carried some type of major medical plan even though doing so meant that we had a lower standard of living.

      BTW, there is a safety net for those who truly cannot afford health insurance. It's called Medicaid.

    7. AOW,
      It would definitely end people hanging around in a job they hate just for the benefits.

      I think much of the skyrocketing costs due to market distortions can be chalked up to a system that masks all price signals. Nobody sees the full cost of anything or directly bears the brunt of it.

      A healthy market is an organic thing with buyers and sellers continually giving signals that keep it all functioning.

      I want to be clear that I don't think anyone should go bankrupt over healthcare. We need safety nets. ACA is a very poor "solution"

    8. AOW... I guess we were fall through cracks people. Denied coverage by every company here in Nevada, and no Medicaid option here to access...

      We literally could not buy insurance here.

      As to access, choosing between food and shelter vs coverage is hardly a fair, or desired choice.

      I know that here most of the people I've encountered from the non profit industry, which includes churches, there is general happiness for the ACA. For the first time in their lives, people have access to quality care at affordable prices.

      Even my conservative and libertarian friends have been stunned at how well it is working for them.

      It may not be so everywhere, but the view presented by some that this is total disaster for everyone, is hardly true.

      As for disallowing employer ins, again I would ask, wont that need a federal law, or directive? Something anathema to conservatives?

      I've heard for years that conservatives want to repeal and replace Obamacare.

      Okay... with what are conservatives proposing we replace it? Can anyone give me an example of another, possibly free market, approach that does not need direct federal action being imposed on states or business?

    9. My agent and at least another I personally know are quitting the industry; they tell me "Wait till people get really sick, then stand back...it's going to implode on itself."
      I'm very worried for those who don't understand their plans and what could happen.

      I can't get over the fact that so many people actually don't know what the Republicans wanted to do; like the medical instruments tax removal, buying over state lines,...the media just didn't tell you and Reid hid it by not allowing any votes.
      "free market" is the whole point; the only way to success.
      We can't AFFORD the ACA and it's only going to get worse.

      I'm not happy about that, believe me. I just wish Obama'd gone slower; more methodical, in his planning. It's too much, too fast.

      Also, it's some of us who DID have great plans, albeit not cheap, who are suffering. It's almost like he said "Hey, you middle class folks...move over...the poor are now getting health care (never mind that the poor already did, for FREE, since nobody's thrown out of a hospital) and you're OUT....you can have it, but you can't have that same great doc you've had for years, and that wonderful neighborhood hospital's out of your reach now. SORRY!"

      We need to go slow....we need to be methodical, and we need more ideas than just Obama's.

      Today I'm hearing Boehner is going to have to present a REPEAL BILL because SO MANY voters wanted it and expect that; knowing full well Obama will veto it (for his legacy or for us folks?)...and then they're apparently going to start to improve it. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

    10. sorry; I read SF's after mine. He said it better. Very well said.

    11. AOW said: "Actually, a lot of people with pre-existing conditions already had access -- at a higher premium, of course. Yes, sometimes the premium was very expensive."

      Actually, a lot of people were eventually denied coverage and died as well. A big part of Obamacare are the no limits clauses. Good luck getting insurance companies keeping the if they don't have to.

    12. Ya, and wait till you have an age limit on what can be done on your. "Oh, he's 86? Skip the hip replacement..what's the point?"
      Don't be naïve.

      By the way, Obama's VA at the very least denied coverage and people died, too....were you this upset at that?

    13. This one:

      A lot of people died? Who? Name names!

      If anyone died because of denied coverage, it is the fault of the federal government.

      We have a federally-funded plan called medicaid for such cases, so if those people really did die due to lack of coverage, it was the Federal Government's fault because Medicaid failed them.

      Try again

    14. Ya, and wait till you have an age limit on what can be done on your. "Oh, he's 86? Skip the hip replacement..what's the point?"
      Don't be naïve.

      Geez and here I thought it was the tea party who were accusing the Dems of having 'death panels' My mother is 85 and had a hip replacement last month.

      Nice try.

    15. Silver....Really? You don't think anyone died before the ACA was enacted when insurance companies were allowed to drop coverage and/or deny treatment? Disingenuous much? Lol!

  20. Replies
    1. Good point! We should try some of that capitalism stuff here in America...

    2. THERE's an idea whose time has come, SF :-)!!!

    3. Commie Kronies are 10x more efficient than democratically elected ones!

      Yeah capitalism!

    4. In other words, we need laissez-faire capitalism. Not mercantilism and other Big-G "State-Sponsored" varieties of capitalism.

    5. Thersites,
      The problem, of course, is that laissez-faire capitalism has been so eroded by the state's various controls that we stand on the edge of an economic precipice. Furthermore, most Americans -- and I do believe that it is most Americans -- are quick to look to the government for some kind of benefit. Where is the spirit of independence?

    6. It used to lie in "owning" your own business and reaping the fruit of your own labour. No one owns anything anymore. We're a nation of renters drawing an hourly wage.

    7. Thersites,
      We're a nation of renters drawing an hourly wage.

      Are we ever! I just got my real-estate tax bill for the last half of 2014. Sheesh.

      Over $500/month to live in this old house, which is a tear-down. My neighbors in their megamansions must be paying at least $1200/month. Almost all of my neighbors are government employees of some sort. Along with other taxpayers, I pay their salaries, too.

  21. They're going to label us as racists anyway so we might as well do what we have to do to rein in Obolo the man child's upcoming petulant frenzy.

  22. Lost in all this is an interesting phenomenon.

    Liberal ballot initiatives were largely successful.

    1. Minimum wage bills all passed.

    2. Fetal personhood measures all lost.

    3. Mandatory paid sick leave passed.

    4. Fracking bans were successful.

    5. Marijuana legalization passed.

    Makes one wonder how "conservative" the population is.
    Makes me believe that the money invested in right wing candidates along with the disinformation is what's driving the political scene.
    The low information right wing voter along with vote suppression carried the day for candidates.

    1. Voter Suppression Here we go again with another 1984 type term. Eric Holder has looked voter suppression in the face and dismissed the charges. Only the fairy tales circulate.

      I don't think even Nancy Pelosi believes her own lie about 'voter suppression' especially since she's perfected the art of the practice and knows better. So should anyone else.

    2. "Voter suppression" to ducky means no free beer or walking around money being passed out at the polling places.

    3. THAT only happens in Voting years divisible by 4.

    4. Ducky, why weren't Tennessee's Constitutional Amendments on your list?

      Tennessee’s Amendment 1 would lay the foundation for future abortion restrictions by amending the state constitution to explicitly make clear that nothing in it “secures or protects right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion.”

      Tennessee’s Constitutional Amendment 3 would ban personal income taxes in Tennessee.

      Both passed.

    5. Oh, THAT's right. They don't fit the Liberal Narrative...

    6. Ducky,
      You're logically inconsistent. How can"low information right wing voter along with vote suppression carried the day" for both GOP candidates and liberal ballot initiatives?

      Did both phenomena coincide in certain states? or did the liberal stuff pass where Dems had a good night? I don't know, I'm asking a sincere question here. For example, Florida rejected legal marijuana, while the Peoples Socialist Republic of Boulder supports a fracking ban, so there's no surprise and no inconsistency.

    7. Oh no, Silver.

      My point is that ballot initiatives are much more focused issues.

      National elections depend far too much on the perception of the state of the economy. This is open to all kinds of obfuscation.
      Not to mention the fear mongering that has some (especially the elderly who turned out for this election) believing that the Kenyan usurper is ignoring ISIS and bringing Sharia to America.
      Low information.

    8. It's like the Affordable Care Act, Silver.

      Poll people on whether or not the oppose "Obamacare" and that word is such poison that you get a widespread "yes".

      Poll them on the specific aspects of the act and the opinion is reversed.

    9. Please SF. A single ballot initiative funded by a liberal billionaire in a small town in East Texas represents a MUCH more significant result and indicator of the mood of the electorate than a national election.

    10. Thersites,
      I agree with your wittily sarcastic point.

      Here in Colorado, thankfully, every Californication ballot initiative has gone down in flames.

      Sure, recreational pot went through, but we already had people moving here just for the 'medical' marijuana.

    11. The Ducky Standard of evidence positively proving that the Left Coast has shifted to "Republican"....

      *rolls eyes*

    12. Ducky; it is amazing so many progressive agendas were winners yet the same voters elected a GOP candidate who would take it away from them as their first order of business.

      Thersites; 400,000 people in Texas had to drive 3 hours or more to get voter IDs. If that's not suppressing the vote I don't know what is.

  23. More dishonesty from the doofus duck. There were only four states (out of 50 (or 57 if you’re a Democrat) that approved minimum wage increases: Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota (population, 40). Illinois voters approved an advisory measure. Two states defeated fetal personhood measures: Colorado and North Dakota. Fracking bans involved Denton, Texas, San Benito, and Mendocino counties in California, and Athens, Ohio.


    1. Yeah, the four states where it was on the ballot.

      Fetal personhood was defeated everywhere the Teabags put it on the ballot.

      You'd be hard pressed to find many ballot initiatives that didn't go liberal.

      I think that's because the ballot initiative focuses people and you don't have the general panic over Ebola and ISIS working for you.
      Economics is a real problem because it gets the least logical analysis and while corporate pimps slam a plank up the middle class's butt they simply blame the party in power.

      That's going to present a problem if you can't turn things around.

  24. The hostile dominant media will do their best to control 'perception' and I don't know how you overcome that. You can be as clear as crystal and have your words twisted into the latest meme. The playbook is already written on this one, so we know what's coming. The lie will get half way around the world before truth has its boots on.

    Just look at the hatchet job Salon did on factual remarks Dennis Prager made about wild assertions of rape on campuses - attacked him, of course, but never the facts. Or calling Ted Cruz's answer to a question about Tim Cook's homosexuality 'a really gross reaction.' (For the record that 'really gross reaction' was 'it's his personal choice, and I still love my iPhone' or words to that effect!!)

    1. The hostile dominant media will do their best to control 'perception' and I don't know how you overcome that.
      You and me both Baysider.

      The media has the fringe scared out of its wits over the absolutely non existent Ebola plague in America.

      They have you convinced that ISIS is an existential threat and Sharia threatens America (rather than new corporate friendly trade pacts).

      They keep you focused on sexuality like a laser even though you've been completely defeated. But you still think you can slip that one back in the bottle.

      As I said. Look at the ballot initiatives and understand that when the electorate is free of the noise machine strap on they are much more liberal than the likes of a circus clown like Ted Cruz.

    2. Except in States like Tennessee...

      Oh wait, that state probably IS free from the MSM noise machine. They were probably watching the CMAs instead of Jon Stewart.

  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

  26. Replies
    1. Yup, that about says it, Farmer.

      Just about as analytic as the right can handle.

      Ebola, ISIS and taxes, oh my

    2. Speaking of Ebola: The Science Is (Un)Settled… Ebola Guidelines & Gear Deemed Insufficient. Note that the Scientific American has recently published an article.

      Virus mutation in process?

    3. I would be encouraged that the scientific journals are taking this seriously and publishing.

      I believe the medical community can stay on top of this.

    4. Stay on top, like through "contact tracing"...

      That must be kinda like how the federal government keeps track of illegal immigrants....

      ...Oh wait, they don't. Never mind.

    5. The Captain Hindsights of "Science" will never match the sage "foresight" of a strictly enforced quarantine.

    6. OOOOPS. More woulda coulda shoulda from the halls of "science":

      Forty-eight travelers who have returned to Minnesota from Ebola-stricken nations in West Africa are being monitored by state health officials for 21 days to make sure they don’t have any signs of the deadly virus, the Minnesota Department of Health reported Wednesday.

      All the travelers are considered low risk, according to the Health Department, meaning they might have been visiting relatives in Liberia, Guinea or Sierra Leone but never came in contact with an Ebola case. None was in the “some” or “high” risk categories of medical or relief workers who had potential contact with an infected patient’s blood, saliva or other bodily fluids.

      Voluntary monitoring involves twice-daily phone calls between state health officials and the travelers…

      Wednesday’s report cited an additional 12 people who either returned recently and still are being contacted, or haven’t been located yet because of inadequate or incorrect contact information.

  27. Oh, this is rich!

    Reporters GASP & LAUGH AT Josh Earnest Trying Spin Election Results (Video)

    The bloom is not only off the Obama Rose. It's withered and lying on the ground -- and self-combusting.

    1. AOW, the Obama administration had four objectives:

      ▪ Health care “reform” — a privatized alternative to Medicare expansion
      ▪ A “Grand Bargain” in which social insurance benefits are rolled back
      ▪ Plentiful oil & gas, and passage of the Keystone pipeline
      ▪ Passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement

      Please tell me which of those objectives are in any danger.

      While you're at it, please tell me which benefit the middle class.

      The Republican Senate will be completely behind these objectives and they all get done only he can pin it on the right. Pretty clever, no?

    2. Duck,
      It remains to be seen what gets done over the next two years.

    3. AOW,
      The bloom is off the rose. For this reason, the Gohmerts and the Ted Cruz's need to keep their mouths shut about Obama, stand back and let the press do the work.

      I've been amazed at what I've seen reported over the past few weeks.

      I have a theory that a press that has provided fawning coverage will always exact its revenge.

      Remember how they went along with the patriotic fervor after 9/11, Rummy's popular daily briefings, etc? Even Bush was above criticism for awhile.

      Then, in the last two years, the press pulled out the wrecking balls, the long knives and the booby traps.

      We could see that again, if the wild-eyed loonies on the right can learn to keep their %$#*!ing mouths shut and act like respectable adults!

    4. SF,
      Absolutely with you on htat comment @ 9:49:00 AM!

  28. I notice that the vast majority of the commenters here missed the point of your question completely.

    Where, exactly, in the Constitution does it give the Executive branch the ability to issue "executive orders"? I don't see it anywhere in there.

    Anything that isn't in the Constitution is, by definition, illegal. Therefore, Congress can either refuse to fund them or pass laws against them.

    It really is that easy. Or, would be, if our system wasn't so screwed up. The GOP would be horrified at the thought of trying something like that.

    1. Since the President is in charge of the executive branch, why wouldn't the President issue orders to executive agencies?

    2. Congress has the power of the purse. Trim those agencies. Such trimming will limit the possibility of such over-reaching executive orders.

    3. Exile,
      Welcome back!

      Anything that isn't in the Constitution is, by definition, illegal. Therefore, Congress can either refuse to fund them or pass laws against them.

      It really is that easy.

      In principle, it should be that easy.

      At the same time, of course, WE THE PEOPLE must see that something is getting done. The Era of Instant Gratification has gone far to allow the executive branch to assume the tyrannical power that it has been wielding under the Obama regime.

    4. There is nothing wrong with the President issuing orders to Executive branch agencies - assuming that those orders are legal and Constitutional.

      Legalizing millions of people who are here illegally is illegal.

      Rewriting laws that Congress passed is unconstitutional - see Obamacare waivers.

      Was it really necessary for me to explain that to you?

  29. (so many comments. Sorry, will be rude and not read them before relying.)

    What should the Republicans do?

    Be sensible (and appeal to people's common sense), pass popular bills or bills the majority of Americans will like, get a reputation of caring about the nation. This will be next to impossible in between the media and Obama, but well worth it if done correctly.

    And, for the love of everything good and sacred, re-claim their legislative power from the President. Ya want to talk Constitutional Law? That's my class this semester. To say the least, Congress has given up or allowed the executive to take all it's powers. Mostly because they're wimps. And half those powers they made up in the first place (*cough EPA cough*)

    Whether or not it's an over-reach of power is, at this point, not the issue. The issue is keeping our monarch in check. A little reminder from Congress that THEY make the rules would be nice. Pass their own versions of the major executive guys (IRS, EPA, Department of Transportation- well, most of those damn departments), or SOMETHING.

    Just stop the monarch and restore some confidence in the people. Congress is useless in part because they gave away so much of their power. How can people respect Congress when frankly, the executive does way more than they do? And flatly abuses its power, unchecked?

    Fixing the massive mess we're in will take generations. It took generations to set up the legal precedent for executive orders, regulations (of everything), federal power (over states and otherwise,) etc. It's fascinating to study some of the Supreme Court cases to see where they got the ideas from- and to see how OLD some of the cases are! 1930's, 50's, or earlier laid the foundation for the mess we are in now.

    But what is most crucial is getting the people behind all this. Few know the Constitution or the law, and fewer care. This Senate was elected because people were fed-up, not because they suddenly read our founding document. That fickleness will change again, and quickly. And changing everyone into scholars ain't goina work. Trying to appeal to their emotions, while cheap, is the most effective way. Win them over on the basics. "We've done nothing (really) for years. We let the Pres. do everything. Now we, representatives of you, want to do things. We got problems we need to fix, and we are determined to find a solution."

    Oh, and one more tiny thing: ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING.


    1. Wildstar,
      Thank goodness you have weighed in here! I was waiting for you to stop by.

      Let's look at this portion of what your above comment:

      What should the Republicans do?

      Be sensible (and appeal to people's common sense), pass popular bills or bills the majority of Americans will like, get a reputation of caring about the nation. This will be next to impossible in between the media and Obama, but well worth it if done correctly.


      ... A little reminder from Congress that THEY make the rules would be nice. Pass their own versions of the major executive guys (IRS, EPA, Department of Transportation- well, most of those damn departments), or SOMETHING. ...

      Yes, Congress has the power to regulate the regulators (those agencies you mentioned). Furthermore, Congress has the power of the purse. Use it wisely, and stop the monarch.

      I understand the post-election euphoria which many feel. However, once the new Congress is sworn in (January), it will be time for our public servants to get to the business of governing.

      What can the new Congress do right away? See this recent essay by George F. Will:

      Abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

      Repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

      Repeal the Affordable Care Act’s tax on medical devices.

      Improve energy, economic and environmental conditions by authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

      Mandate completion of the nuclear waste repository in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain.

      Pass the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act.

      More information at the above link.

    2. Can you states rights people explain to me why Nevada, which does not want the Yucca Mountain site used as a national nuclear garbage dump should be forced to take waste from other states? Why not adopt a "you used it, you store it" option for each state?

    3. Dave,
      For the same reason the federal government can push around ranchers like Cliven Bundy. It's federal land.

      Many states rights people in the west want it all turned back over to the states, but that is not the case right now.

      Federal land, so the feds can store nuclear waste there (actually, they can't. Harry Reid played a double game there, controlling federal contracts to develop the facility, enriching himself in the process, and then blocking it in the Senate. He's a particularly crafty devil, that one).

      And it's not as simple as dumping nuclear garbage. It's a special facility.

  30. I have published a new blog post: "A Few Ideas," about political reality check.

  31. Silver... exactly... and you used the exact example I've used for years to describe Liberal extremism...

    1. Silver... the above was in response to the Baysider thread above... I would still say regarding the dump, that the people of Nevada have said loud and clear they don't want it.

    2. Dave,
      If the people of Nevada have said loud and clear they don't want it, what about the $15 billion already allocated for the storage?

      Where is that money?

      Oh, and one more thing: the public good -- that is, the good of the many outweighs the good of the few; many millions of people all over the United States are living next door to nuclear waste that was designated for safe storage in Nevada. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few is a core principal of the Left, is it not?

  32. AOW... I'm not sure what the core principles of the left are as I'm rather centrist, albeit slightly left. The concern in Nevada is this... one small screw up and we lose our main industry, tourism.

    It Is interés ring though that people who generally detest federal Fiat are supporting this...

    1. Dave, you're 'rather centrist' until you get on big-time liberal blogs!! And there you insult conservatives with the best of 'em. "albeit slightly left" :-)

    2. Dave,
      people who generally detest federal Fiat are supporting this...

      Not federal Fiat, but rather an act of Congress.

      Elections have consequences.

      That nuclear waste has to go somewhere. The best place for safe storage is deep under Yucca Mountain. The alternative to fueling those electricity plants is coal. Wanna go back to that?

  33. Z... no Z, you are wrong... I've never used the language to insult conservatives that I was subject to at your blog. NEVER. I've never personally called you, or anyone of your commenters an idiot, asshole, dimwit or any of the other names you say you you don't allow at your blog.

    The fact is, and a simple review of your old site will confirm, that you regularly allowed it when your regulars did not agree with the viewpoint of another commenter.

    The fact is, I am centrist, but very strong on people who don't even try to see the other side.

    I've admitted that Obama is not the greatest, and unlike you in regards to Bush, I am, and have been willing to criticize him while he is in office. Most people, if they read my comment fairly, as SIlverfiddle frequently does, can see where I sometimes make good points, even for a leftist.

    AOW... you, like many conservatives are quick to say that elections have consequences. Yet you, like many, including Z, were not so quick to affirm that principle after the 2008 and 2012 elections.

    Z has stated that the reason was because those that lost at the polls were right and the winners wrong.

    But I would ask, if elections have consequences, what difference does it make who's right, or wrong?

    If winning gives you the right to legislate the ideas upon which you campaigned and won, shouldn't it be the same for both libs and conservatives?

    1. Dave,
      AOW... you, like many conservatives are quick to say that elections have consequences. Yet you, like many, including Z, were not so quick to affirm that principle after the 2008 and 2012 elections.

      I may never have stated that outright, but I certainly know that fact. For that reason, I worked hard not to see Obama elected in 2012.

      If winning gives you the right to legislate the ideas upon which you campaigned and won, shouldn't it be the same for both libs and conservatives?

      Within the bounds of the Constitution, that's the way our system is supposed to work.

      Furthermore, when Congress doesn't go along with what the POTUS wants, that "obstruction" is clearly within the bounds of the Constitution and a slow pace deliberately designed to slow down the process so that thought goes into the laws enacted.

      The POTUS does not have the Constitutional right to bypass a Congress that is obstructing him.

      For the record, I don't advocate that the Congress just elected to office go hog wild and exact payback. They should, however, heed the will of those they represent.

      In sum, every man should not be a law unto himself -- both Constitutional and Biblical.


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective