Senior Political Advisor David Plouffe made the rounds yesterday attempting to make the case that President Obama--despite his blaring lack of economic accomplishments during his first term---has been a phenomenal president and that his leadership and foresight deserve another four years in office.
There was only one topic that I was anxious to hear covered in the Sunday discussions. Namely, President Obama's unprecedented move last Friday to circumvent Congress with the announcement that the White House will no longer enforce the deportation of young illegal immigrants.
The President said, "Effectively immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift deportation" for young immigrants who came here as children, but have since led law-abiding lives. He went on to say that although it is not a step towards citizenship, "It is the right thing to do."
How can it be that our president makes a little speech in the Rose Garden on a Friday afternoon which will dramatically alter immigration policies in this country---it completely ignores federal laws that are already in place---is done without congressional participation and the media has narrowly focused on the fact that one conservative reporter rudely interrupted the president during the announcement?
The focus has been on the "heckling" in the Rose Garden and the concern over an "unusual, new and growing incivility" in the political arena. Some have even questioned if racism was the motivator.
Really? That is the controversy? I guess that Sam Donaldson's interruption of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s was simply "good reporting."
 |
| Donovan Slack/Politico |
In one little speech, reporters were not even allowed to ask questions and the president unabashedly declared a disregard of his constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" and yet, no one wants to discuss the real implications of it.
Give me a break.
I get it that this announcement scored the president some major political points with a crucial demographic. I get it that politically, the president has now padded his empathy factor. I get it that his announcement will probably help him in his desperate fight to keep his job. More importantly, I get it that his announcement has effectively changed the conversation.
But those discussions were not what I wanted to hear covered on the Sunday shows. I could care less about the implications that this announcement will have on the presidents campaign, rather, I wanted to hear the brightest political minds in the country defend the president's blatant disregard for the balance of power that was established by our founders over 230 years ago.
***
On ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," pundits on the left praised the president's immigration decision as "a brilliant step that exposes the intolerance of the Republican Party" and that "the president did the right thing" and that it was a "great political move."
George Will was the only commentator who looked beyond the politics of it and the short-term impact the announcement will have on Obama's reelection efforts. Will said that he disagreed with the president's announcement because he "supports the Constitution and the separation of powers...and I think these aims should be done legislatively."
Stephanopoulos was quick to remind viewers that Obama has tried to address immigration issues, but his hands have been tied because Congress refuses to pass the Dream Act.
Will's immediate comeback was brilliant. He said, "Well, that's too bad. Our system is designed to be difficult to move, you try and try again. You don't just say, well, the Constitution is fine, I gave it a try, then we'll do something else."
I completely agree. The balance of power of our government is exactly what makes our democracy so unique. The checks and balance it creates restricts an overreach by any one branch. The Legislative Branch (House and Senate) create the laws--The Executive Branch (The President) enforces the laws which are passed by Congress and The Judicial Branch defends and interprets those laws.
A perfect balance of power envisioned by our founders who had just escaped the tyranny of an overreaching monarchy in England. This balance of power is the brilliance of the U.S. Constitution and the reason why thousands of soldiers have died to defend and protect it.
In one little political speech, our president shows that he could care less about it.
***
The president's announcement last Friday should be alarming to every single American---alarming not because of the short-term impact it will have on immigration policies in America, but because in one little speech, our president showed that he is no longer bound by the restrictions of this balance of power in our Constitution.
In one little speech, our president declared that his interpretation of "what is the right thing to do" is more important than our legislators---individuals we elected to write laws based on their interpretation of "what is the right thing to do."
In one little speech, our president declared that his power is greater than another.
John Yoo, writer for National Review, Yoo raises an interesting question in his article "Executive Overreach." He wrote, "Imagine the precedent this claim would create. President Romney would lower tax rates simply by saying that he will not use enforcement resources to prosecute anyone who refuses to pay capital-gains tax. He could repeal Obamacare simply by refusing to fine or prosecute anyone who violates it."
Yoo went on to write, "So here we have a president who is refusing to carry out federal law simply because he disagrees with Congress's policy choices."
This is a dangerous precedent. It should give every American pause to consider the notion that our president could make one little speech and have the ability to circumvent all checks and balances.
This is not okay.
Our president is frustrated with the lack of cooperation from his opponents in the House, but it does not mean that the president can leapfrog them and do his own thing.
***
The president has never adopted the best known political secret to effective leadership: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Instead, 3 1/2 years into his presidency, he continues to surround himself only with those who agree with him and are still drinking the "Hope & Change Kool-aid."
In contrast, Obama has done everything he can to discredit and belittle his opponents. Is he really surprised that no one on the right wants to help him now that he is desperate for their cooperation?
Bigger question, is President Obama even capable of leading in a bipartisan fashion?
I am sure that Obama's campaign hates the fact that Mitt Romney's record shows that he is someone who does.
As Governor, Mitt Romney never had to cheat his way, by leapfrogging the Democratically controlled legislature to get his agenda passed.
He faced resistance. He respected his opponents and then he showed everyone how to work in a bipartisan fashion. He led in a unique way. He knows how to be a bipartisan leader. That is the real difference between our sitting president and this candidate.
America deserves better. Our bitterly divided legislators in Washington DC could benefit from his leadership. America needs Mitt.
Go Mitt.
Obama is ridiculous! I have a neighbor with and Obama Biden poster and it really makes me wonder if they are even paying attention! Thanks for making it known.
ReplyDelete