Using -ism is a shorthand way of referring to Obama’s previous actions and including them in the conversation without listing them all. Of course, it depends on which side of the fence a person is on as to how they remember Obama’s actions.
1 - a suffix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form action nouns from verbs ( baptism); on this model, used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc. ( criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism; intellectualism).
And Obamaism.
Eric “I’m still the U.S. Attorney General” Holder has his own distinct style for choosing which laws to uphold, enforce, or ignore. A “justice” department would enforce all of the laws. That’s their job. Holder’s version of justice seems to be more inline with what he believes equates to justice and to heck with the laws that some legislature passed. It’s my belief that Holder version of justice is Just-Us.
Do I believe my terms further my position? Yes. One, it peaked your curiosity which gives me a chance to explain my use of the term, and two, if someone is so easily distracted by euphemisms that they can’t follow the rest of my posts, should I really worry about what they think?
Good government is STILL based on the ability of elected representatives to reach a compromise with the other elected representatives. 70% of something is generally better than 100% of nothing.
Congress had reached an impasse. Neither side was/is willing to reach a compromise with the others. That impasse is then settled by the voters. Early on, the Democrats had a majority. Currently, the Republicans and Tea Party have the majority. The voters have spoken.
Obama’s latest Executive Order seems to be an attempt to legalize what his administration, and Holder’s Just-Us dept has already been doing. The Democrats can’t lose any more seats for another two years. Obama may consider this challenge to the U.S. Constitution and the duly elected loyal opposition to be a reasonable gambit?
What you’re missing, of course, is the premise that the House would have passed the Senate’s bipartisan immigration bill (passed with 68 votes) if Boehner had allowed the vote. He didn’t for various political reasons, and not because the bill didn’t have the votes. So in this instance calling Congress out is a bit different from when Congress genuinely disagrees with a policy change.
Whether or not you buy that premise, your analogy here is disingenuous because it ignores the whole–expressly state by Obama–premise of the argument.
The House version of how to best solve the issue of illegal aliens did not match the Senate version of how to best solve the issue of illegal aliens. Reid, as leader of the Senate, wouldn’t bring House-passed bills to the floor. Boehner, as leader of the House, wouldn’t bring Senate-passed bills to the floor. Good government wasn’t being accomplished.
That puts the decision-making into the hands of the voters. One side or the other is going to be replaced and the business of the people will once again be a matter of compromise. It’s the Democrats who seem to have been replaced by the voters.
I suggest that Congress trash the previous attempts and start from scratch. Should the borders be secured? Should employers be penalized for hiring illegal aliens? Should the children of illegal aliens be given a pass? Should illegal aliens be moved to the front of the line for citizenship? Should legal aliens still be given priority for citizenship just because they are willing to abide by existing U.S. laws?
Obama appears to have thrown down (another) gauntlet. He will not compromise. It’s the Chicago one-party-system. I suggest that he let the new Congress, the one that the voters just elected, decide what the laws will be.
Something doesn’t become “disingenuous” just because you disagree with it.
The premise is apparently true, but IMO is not a significant distinction. Leaders of congress refusing to allow votes on things is part of the way the system works, has a long history, and is fairly common. You can stipulate a Democrat congressional leader refusing to allow a vote on the 10% tax cap (something which would very likely happen in an analogous circumstance) if you like, and it would not change the point.
So you dispute the premise that the House would have passed the Senate bill if Boehner had allowed a vote. And that’s fine. It’s an inherently speculative premise. My point was simply that to counter Obama’s rhetoric that he’s acting because of the failure of Congress, you have to have a go at that premise. Ignoring it is ignoring the whole point of that rhetoric.
No, it is disingenuous because I thought you probably knew better but wanted to make a rhetorical point by being less than candid about Obama’s actual rhetoric and argument.
I had not considered the possibility that you don’t understand the difference between Congress “failing to do its job” when it supports a policy but won’t take a vote and Congress “failing to do its job” when it just doesn’t support a policy.
Congress “supports a policy” when it votes in favor of that policy, not otherwise. If congress doesn’t vote on a policy that would theoretically pass it’s not “failing to do its job”. That’s the way the system is designed to work.
[I suppose I could add some condescending language at this point, but I’m not sure it would add anything more than yours is.]
The sense in which Congress supported the Senate bill is that, if given the chance to vote for it, they would have. That kind of support is not legally binding. If you understood anyone to be making the contrary argument, then you were confused.
The point here is that your proposed equivalence of Obama’s rhetoric to chastising Congress for not passing legislation that it does not support is misleading, and it is disingenuous since you actually agree that the House would have passed the Senate bill if given the chance.
Can you point to any immigration bill that the House passed? Rubio’s bill passed the Senate with 68 votes. If the House passed a similiar bill, it would have gone to conference where the House and Senate would attempt to hash out their differences.
Of course, that would involve compromise, which, in the classic definition of both sides ceding something they want, is anathema to the Tea Party.
But, I would like to know the details of the House passed immigration bill.
The original comparison didn’t specify whether congress would or would not support the hypothetical bill if it was brought to a vote, and the analogy covers either case.
As previous I don’t think the distinction is significant, but if you want to add that premise to the analogy you can do that and it would not change anything. I don’t think the language “congress has to do it’s job” applies if they fail to vote on a bill you support even if most congressmen would vote in favor of it, and it would be ironic if this situation rebounds on a Democratic congress in some analogous circumstance. That was the original point and continues to be the current point.
[I don’t “actually agree” - I said it’s “apparently true” because that’s what I’ve seen reported and I have no reason to doubt it.]
I’m still mad at the Republicans for preventing President Obama from doing anything legislatively concerning immigration when the Democrats controlled Congress in 2009 & 2010.
And it’s bound to help Loretta Lynch in her confirmation hearing for Attorney General: “Ms. Lynch, what is your opinion of the constitutionality and legality of the President’s Executive Order concerning immigration?”
I hope you guys won’t mind my combining your posts but my answer is the same.
Congress had gotten to the point where it was becoming impossible to pass any bills, let alone an illegal alien bill. Congress had gotten to the point where it needed a major boot in the ass. The bills of the recent past carry far too much baggage for them to be of much use IF the end result is to find a working compromise to solve the illegal alien issue.
The voters have done their part and rearranged Congress. Now the ball is back in the hands of the elected legislators and the POTUS. Obama will be gone it a few years. Congress can be change again, and again, and again until the voters find representatives that can actually provide good government.
Obama and the Congress can begin anew and find a way to reach a workable compromise or they can point middle fingers at each other and say their past (aka failed) efforts would have solved the problem if only blah, blah, blah.
Why did Obama chose to act in this matter, at this time? I have no idea. Does it seem like a good idea? Not to me. Obama’s action seems to be an intent to inflame the issue, not settle it. IMHO, of course.
Of course it doesn’t settle the issue but it’s the result of republican recalcitrance. Republicans have a well established pattern of not dealing with Obama until they HAVE to.
