President Obama

[Welton Toffee]

I'm pleased he won.

*end of post.

 

[Sqweeck]

As Churchill said, if you're not left as a youth you have no heart, if you're not right as an adult you have no brain

I'd (obviously) take issue with that....and Churchill, great war leader though he was, is never someone I'm going to look to for moral guidance...

"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas, I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes." 1919.

....just discovered a bit of a social conscience as I've got older.

 

[TX Tiburon]

There goes the judicial branch of our government. We shall now have an executive branch and two legislative branches. So there's my bile.

As for his policies and promises, we shall see. His election probably means quicker withdrawal from the middle-east but as for pure legislative policy, I feel that the president really has little impact. Especially if he leaves his veto pen in the drawer. It's the nimrods in congress (and the activist judges) that drive the legislation.

God help President Obama deal with the financial mess that our numbskull government has gotten itself into over the last 50 years. It is time to pay the piper. The IOU notepad is running oout of pages. It is my prayer that he preside with prudence and wisdom in this regard.

Obama's legacy will be the Supreme Court. Watch this space.

 

[Nebbiolo]

There goes the judicial branch of our government. We shall now have an executive branch and two legislative branches. So there's my bile.

As for his policies and promises, we shall see. His election probably means quicker withdrawal from the middle-east but as for pure legislative policy, I feel that the president really has little impact. Especially if he leaves his veto pen in the drawer. It's the nimrods in congress (and the activist judges) that drive the legislation.

God help President Obama deal with the financial mess that our numbskull government has gotten itself into over the last 50 years. It is time to pay the piper. The IOU notepad is running oout of pages. It is my prayer that he preside with prudence and wisdom in this regard.

Obama's legacy will be the Supreme Court. Watch this space.

Do you mean in terms of any appointments he makes to it?

Excuse my ignorance, but how is the court made up? I presume each president simply appoints people to it that he thinks are suitable.

But then isn't there something about life membership?

 

[chicoazul]

I must say I'm mildly scared by the fervour that is greeting his appointment. I know he's the first black president and all that, but we're in 2008 now, surely race has long since been a factor in life any more, especially life as elected by the general populous. I can't imagine that's the sole reason for the hooplah around the world.

But then people seem to think the guy will somehow save the world from all its sins. Bush was a numptie, make no mistake about that, but whilst he did plenty of damage even he didn't manage to mess the world up entirely. How much power do people think the US president has? He's inheriting a budget that's in an almighty mess, so once again, how much financial clout does he have to play with?

All seems rather naive that people have sucked in the message for change and amped it up ten fold. Whoever won the seat wouldn't have changed things that much. He's made a lot of promises, big ones at that, but I simply don't think things will be that easy. I doubt any of us want to see troops in Iraq for much longer but it's not as simple as saying we'll withdrawl and thus it happens. Universal healthcare the same. Very noble and all but with the budget deficit where it is, how on earth will that be possible?

All seems a rather shallow devotion akin to that of following your favourite X Factor contestant.

For the sake of balance I think the above applies to whomever gets into office. The simple facts of politics are that you have to make do with what you inherit. Undoing policies are pretty difficult. Passing new ones when you don't have any money is even more so. I just cannot see the sweeping change that people seem to be expecting over the next four years.

Im in the USA at the moment and Ive been speaking to loads of people about it. Its amazing to see how many homes have been repossessed in the area. People are very much feeling the pinch and are worried for their future as the market and economy stumble on from one crisis to another.

The big thing thats impressed me here has been the peoples undying optimism, its infectious. At the moment theres not too much optimism but Obama brings that - theres no saying whether he will be a success but he is accutely aware of the working class struggling over here while the big earners benefit from unfair tax cuts.

He's also aware of the negative standing that the USA has in the outside world and the need to use diplomacy to begin to lead responsibly once again, Im astounded that he's been critiscised from his willingness to speak with the leaders of countries such as Iran, North Korea and Cuba - thats how you get the ball rolling, the previous tactics have not worked (except North Korea where there has been some success over disarmanent recently) and caused contempt for the USA in those countries. Take Cuba for example, the embargo stifles the country and makes life much harder to the 11 million Cubans. Its been fifty years since the revolution, theyre not going to change and they have system that brings good social policies to the people so leave them to it - the US do enough trade with China so its not as if Communist states are a bad thing now?

A young dynaminc leader brings hope, something you cant put a price on. JFK brought the same, it would be foolish to put Obama on that same platform but the good thing is that millions of Americans will wake up this morning inspired and energised - and in this present times you cant put a price on that.

Thatcher was the best thing that happened to this country.

Thats very easy to say as a Southerner exempt from the crippling communities created up north during the eighties mate. Like them or not the trade unions can play a very important role in protecting the interests of the working class people. Employers today can now, and regularly do, take the piss in stripping benefits and jobs. The trade unions have very little power indeed and this gets exploited - the shoe firmly on the other foot benefiting only the PLCs.

 

[Chris]

The American political system baffles me. Congress, the hill, supreme court yadda yadda etc. It seems incredibly over complicated to me.

I'm sort of indifferent to Obama winning. I knew he would, because even to me, he seemed the lesser of two evils and people have had a gut full of that and idiocy under Dubya. He has a mountain to climb, but I have faith that he seems capable.

The thing that is getting me now is all the African American interviews etc banging on about moral victory and how their kids will be proud to see a man of their colour in the whitehouse(that was a quote). As Bruce said earlier, what difference does the colour of his skin actually make to real people, to me its none so why would they even mention it. I don't recall Texans slapping their thighs and whooping when Dubya got his pale ass in the whitehouse. There would have been international outrage, so why is this allowed broadcast time.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Im in the USA at the moment and Ive been speaking to loads of people about it. Its amazing to see how many homes have been repossessed in the area. People are very much feeling the pinch and are worried for their future as the market and economy stumble on from one crisis to another.

The big thing thats impressed me here has been the peoples undying optimism, its infectious. At the moment theres not too much optimism but Obama brings that - theres no saying whether he will be a success but he is accutely aware of the working class struggling over here while the big earners benefit from unfair tax cuts.

He's also aware of the negative standing that the USA has in the outside world and the need to use diplomacy to begin to lead responsibly once again, Im astounded that he's been critiscised from his willingness to speak with the leaders of countries such as Iran, North Korea and Cuba - thats how you get the ball rolling, the previous tactics have not worked (except North Korea where there has been some success over disarmanent recently) and caused contempt for the USA in those countries. Take Cuba for example, the embargo stifles the country and makes life much harder to the 11 million Cubans. Its been fifty years since the revolution, theyre not going to change and they have system that brings good social policies to the people so leave them to it - the US do enough trade with China so its not as if Communist states are a bad thing now?

A young dynaminc leader brings hope, something you cant put a price on. JFK brought the same, it would be foolish to put Obama on that same platform but the good thing is that millions of Americans will wake up this morning inspired and energised - and in this present times you cant put a price on that.



Thats very easy to say as a Southerner exempt from the crippling communities created up north during the eighties mate. Like them or not the trade unions can play a very important role in protecting the interests of the working class people. Employers today can now, and regularly do, take the piss in stripping benefits and jobs. The trade unions have very little power indeed and this gets exploited - the shoe firmly on the other foot benefiting only the PLCs.

Good post, Chico. My impression of the current mood in America is echoed by your post. Let's hope this young, vital man can indeed do justice to his promises on social balancing.

With regards to the unions, Thatcher might have had a just reason to attempt to rectify some of the excesses of them. The problem was that she didn't stop at making them face reality, she destroyed them. The end result is an unbalanced system where employers can only be curtailed by the law, not by their employees. Now that is bad thing.

 

[Walter Ego]

Congratulations to America's third black President. Its amazing the power of television isn't it? Does this mean Jack Bauer will get his job back now?

 

[TX Tiburon]

Do you mean in terms of any appointments he makes to it?

Excuse my ignorance, but how is the court made up? I presume each president simply appoints people to it that he thinks are suitable.

But then isn't there something about life membership?

The president makes Supreme Court and federal judge appointments. On the surface, it would be as simple as nominating suitable, judicious appointees. Congress then has final approval of the president’s nominees.

** Disclaimer ** the opinion listed below is from a lay person’s perspective. I am not a constitutional scholar, legislator, government employee or have any vested interest out side of being a taxpayer.

The problem, in my opinion, is that the judicial branch has strayed too far away from its purpose and has become a pseudo legislative branch. Our courts now tend to make rulings that extend far beyond their purview. The executive, judicial, and legislative branches are designed to have separation of powers. The example would be: a Supreme Court judge is to evaluate whether a lower court’s ruling is constitutional. If it is not provided for in the constitution, it is not constitutional and is a matter for the states to decide. Simple as. Their decision is not to be based on whether they agree with the outcome of if it meets a conservative or liberal agenda. I am a Jeffersonian constructionist.

You are correct about the life-time appointment to the Supreme Court. Perhaps that is part of the problem. Since the judges sit on the bench for so long, their appointments are highly scrutinized. And since their final approval comes from the legislative branch, the party wrangling begins. Litmus tests are put in place by both parties as to whether the appointees are conservative or liberal enough. But that’s really beside the point. The federal judicial branch’s sole purpose is to evaluate constitutionality. Anything more, and they are legislating from the bench.

Some judges tend to view the constitution as a living document that must continually be refreshed. Because the constitution is constantly evolving in their eyes, they give themselve more liberty to extend rulings and, in effect, legislate. To me, this is dangerous.

 

[TX Bill]

I must admit I was a little suprised when reading CNN's exit polls that a majority in almost every state believes that gay marriage should be banned. Now, America is supposed to be 'the land of the free'... whose business is it anyway if a gay couple wishes to marry? South Africas constitution is more progressive than that.

Also, why do they do this electoral college thing? How is it democratic if the one candidate wins the percentage of peoples votes, but doesnt get enough electoral points? Its like setting a value on peoples votes depending on which state they're from.

I'm not trying to blast American policies, but maybe some American forum posters could provide some input into these sort of things

Sorry but I had to respond to these two points.

1) I have a moral issue regarding gay marriage. I could bring up all the reasons that gay marriage is the complete antithesis of traditional family values but I digress. More importantly, let's say that gay marriage is approved in this country. That means that there will be spousal benefits for gay couples. Who pays for those benefits? My tax dollars. I don't want my tax dollars going towards "spousal support" for gay couples.

So, while I have no issue with people who want to live/cohabitate with members of the same sex, I do have a very big issue with my tax dollars supporting that lifestyle. Where are my "rights" in this?

2) The electoral college was designed (and with great foresight by our founding fathers) to prevent certain pockets of the population from usurping the election process and voting the same type of candidate year after year, thereby "invalidating" the vote of someone in a rural areas.

If we went purely by popular vote, the major metropolitan areas in this country would select our President every election while those in rural and less populated areas wouldn't be well represented in the election process and wouldn't have a chance of seeing a candidate that represents them elected.

I'm sure that if you do a bit of research on the net, you can find a much better description of the Electoral College and why it was formed over 200 years ago.

 

[Nebbiolo]

The president makes Supreme Court and federal judge appointments. On the surface, it would be as simple as nominating suitable, judicious appointees. Congress then has final approval of the president’s nominees.

So effectively, the president should be wary of his appointments in that Congress would veto anyone that is not considered suitable. Although, of course, a new president with a majority in the senate and in the house of representatives is probably going to get his way. A less popular president would no doubt be more likely to look at middle-ground appointees?

The federal judicial branch’s sole purpose is to evaluate constitutionality. Anything more, and they are legislating from the bench. Some judges tend to view the constitution as a living document that must continually be refreshed. Because the constitution is constantly evolving in their eyes, they give themselve more liberty to extend rulings and, in effect, legislate. To me, this is dangerous.

I can see the danger you speak of, but I can also see why people might think the constitution is a living, breathing entity that needs to be redefined and rethought as society changes.

Is there no way of appeal once the supreme court has passed its decision? That is, would not congress take any controversial decision back into its remit and possible overturn it?

The American system is pretty complicated to be honest. There so many houses running side-by-side.

 

[chicoazul]

Sorry but I had to respond to these two points.

1) I have a moral issue regarding gay marriage. I could bring up all the reasons that gay marriage is the complete antithesis of traditional family values but I digress. More importantly, let's say that gay marriage is approved in this country. That means that there will be spousal benefits for gay couples. Who pays for those benefits? My tax dollars. I don't want my tax dollars going towards "spousal support" for gay couples.

So, while I have no issue with people who want to live/cohabitate with members of the same sex, I do have a very big issue with my tax dollars supporting that lifestyle. Where are my "rights" in this?

2) The electoral college was designed (and with great foresight by our founding fathers) to prevent certain pockets of the population from usurping the election process and voting the same type of candidate year after year, thereby "invalidating" the vote of someone in a rural areas.

If we went purely by popular vote, the major metropolitan areas in this country would select our President every election while those in rural and less populated areas wouldn't be well represented in the election process and wouldn't have a chance of seeing a candidate that represents them elected.

I'm sure that if you do a bit of research on the net, you can find a much better description of the Electoral College and why it was formed over 200 years ago.

Two very good points there Bill.

Its all about opinions folks, join us after the break for more GOTgoesallpolitico.

 

[TX Bill]

Do you mean in terms of any appointments he makes to it?

Excuse my ignorance, but how is the court made up? I presume each president simply appoints people to it that he thinks are suitable.

But then isn't there something about life membership?

Nebbiolo.

I had discussed this very real issue in one of the other threads and stated that this was my biggest fear of an Obama Presidency.

The liberal agenda in the USA, regardless of what the press here tells you, is still unpopular. How do we know this? Because liberal ideas that are brought to the public at large are consistently voted down (gay marriage, etc....)

Liberals in our country know this.

So how do you get unpopular polices to transform from ideas and beliefs into laws if you know the people won't vote for them?

Simple. You bypass the will of the people and get the courts to make the decisions for the people. So, instead of interpreting law from the bench, we have courts MAKING LAW from the bench. Anyone can see the big problems posed by that.

Further more, in past administrations, Congressional approval of Presidential Supreme Court appointments was pretty much a given. Generally speaking, Democrats would sign off on Republican appointments and vice versa. You'd have your occasional issues but nothing major.

That all changed under Bush II when the Dems tried to obstruct his appointment of fairly conservative judges to the Supreme Court (yes, they are life appointments) in order to advance their agenda. Judges who were committed to the US Constitution as it was written, not as if it's some "living, breathing document" up for many different interpretiations as the liberals in this country would have you believe.

Even if the conventional wisdom is correct, and Ginsburg and Stevens retire from the court during Obama's term, the conservatives will still have the majority 5 to 4.

But believe me, we don't need anymore uber liberal judges on the highest court in the land usurping the will of the people and making law vs. interpreting law.

(EDIT: Saw TX Tiburon's response and he put it in much more eloquent terms than I ever could.)

 

[chicoazul]

I always liked that thing you said Bill, about being Democratic when youre young and Republican when youre older. Thats very true that.

Im into this Socialism thing at the moment like. Once I get money then I'll sneer at them working class types, with soot on the faces the bad tramps.

 

[TX Bill]

Im in the USA at the moment and Ive been speaking to loads of people about it. Its amazing to see how many homes have been repossessed in the area. People are very much feeling the pinch and are worried for their future as the market and economy stumble on from one crisis to another.

The big thing thats impressed me here has been the peoples undying optimism, its infectious. At the moment theres not too much optimism but Obama brings that - theres no saying whether he will be a success but he is accutely aware of the working class struggling over here while the big earners benefit from unfair tax cuts.

He's also aware of the negative standing that the USA has in the outside world and the need to use diplomacy to begin to lead responsibly once again, Im astounded that he's been critiscised from his willingness to speak with the leaders of countries such as Iran, North Korea and Cuba - thats how you get the ball rolling, the previous tactics have not worked (except North Korea where there has been some success over disarmanent recently) and caused contempt for the USA in those countries. Take Cuba for example, the embargo stifles the country and makes life much harder to the 11 million Cubans. Its been fifty years since the revolution, theyre not going to change and they have system that brings good social policies to the people so leave them to it - the US do enough trade with China so its not as if Communist states are a bad thing now?

A young dynaminc leader brings hope, something you cant put a price on. JFK brought the same, it would be foolish to put Obama on that same platform but the good thing is that millions of Americans will wake up this morning inspired and energised - and in this present times you cant put a price on that.



Thats very easy to say as a Southerner exempt from the crippling communities created up north during the eighties mate. Like them or not the trade unions can play a very important role in protecting the interests of the working class people. Employers today can now, and regularly do, take the piss in stripping benefits and jobs. The trade unions have very little power indeed and this gets exploited - the shoe firmly on the other foot benefiting only the PLCs.

Chico.

Rather than respond to your post here, I'm going to ask you to go an do a bit of simple research and then post your finding here if you are willing. Two questions:

1) What percentage of the population in the USA pays what percentage of the tax revenues in this country?

2) Please (in 100 words or less) explain what happened as a result of past adminstrations diplomatic efforts with countries such as Iran, Iraq, & North Korea (hint: start with the Carter Administration and the Clinton Administration)

On that last emboldened part. Yes, I'm sure millions of Americans woke up this morning energized (I'm confident that the majority of those are people who think that Obama is going to pay their mortgage or for their gas) while millions of Americans woke up today knowing potentially how destructive and Obama Presidency could be for this country.

Notice I qualified it with "could be." I'm willing to give the guy a chance like I would have expected McCain to get had he won but let me be very clear. Millions of us weren't deceived by his rhetoric and oration. He's got a tough road ahead and in my opinion, he won't be the man for the job when it's all said and done. Jimmy Carter mark II.