Is Obama America's Rob Pierre?

There is none, but did we ever get solid proof it was orders from obama that caused it, or are we truly seeing mandarins of lower levels forming in the us govt?

thinkstoomuch wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:And what of the limiting of the liberal groups as well?

Maybe he just wanted to get the extremist nutters of both sides to stay on the sidelines.....

The good thing about "Bureaucrats" influencing elections is good in what way? The Honorverse Mandarins would approve.

That we are even having this discussion about a US government agency says really bad things, IMO.

T2M

There is none, but did we ever get solid proof it was orders from obama that caused it, or are we truly seeing mandarins of lower levels forming in the us govt?

There is no solid proof that Obama was behind it directly. Personally I think he is too politically astute to do such a thing. HOWEVER, one of the most important things any president does is to select the people who work for him. The government is way to big to micromanage. It doesn't really matter from the governance side how smart (or not) a president is. What truly matters is the ability of the president to choose individuals to act in his name who are proper stewards of that authority. So even though I don't believe that he personally authorized this, I do believe that he is responsible. He choose the individuals that headed the IRS. He created an environment in his administration in which those individuals believed this behavior would be acceptable, even lauded. Obama is responsible.

This is not a partisan opinion just because Obama is a Democrat. I feel exactly the same way about Republican governor and presidential hopeful Chris Christie, who finds himself in a similar situation. (Officials in his administration ordered the closure of a major bridge to New York City during rush hour as revenge toward a perceived slight from the major of the town next to the bridge). As with Obama, I think he is too politically astute to order such a thing. However, I do believe that he is responsible. He choose the individuals in his administration who did order it. He created an environment in his administration in which those individuals believed this behavior would be acceptable, even lauded. Christie is responsible.

Absolutely agree.

biochem wrote:

There is none, but did we ever get solid proof it was orders from obama that caused it, or are we truly seeing mandarins of lower levels forming in the us govt?

There is no solid proof that Obama was behind it directly. Personally I think he is too politically astute to do such a thing. HOWEVER, one of the most important things any president does is to select the people who work for him. The government is way to big to micromanage. It doesn't really matter from the governance side how smart (or not) a president is. What truly matters is the ability of the president to choose individuals to act in his name who are proper stewards of that authority. So even though I don't believe that he personally authorized this, I do believe that he is responsible. He choose the individuals that headed the IRS. He created an environment in his administration in which those individuals believed this behavior would be acceptable, even lauded. Obama is responsible.

This is not a partisan opinion just because Obama is a Democrat. I feel exactly the same way about Republican governor and presidential hopeful Chris Christie, who finds himself in a similar situation. (Officials in his administration ordered the closure of a major bridge to New York City during rush hour as revenge toward a perceived slight from the major of the town next to the bridge). As with Obama, I think he is too politically astute to order such a thing. However, I do believe that he is responsible. He choose the individuals in his administration who did order it. He created an environment in his administration in which those individuals believed this behavior would be acceptable, even lauded. Christie is responsible.

Lol, after Florida in 2000 and 2004, fidldling elections should be a no go topic.

Not like our pure, clean, no dummy candidate no not us, elections we have down here.

Perfectly reasoned explanation of executive responsibility.

However; Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine. The place is like New York used to be when it was under Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall. This type of abuse is SOP in Chicago.

biochem wrote:

There is none, but did we ever get solid proof it was orders from obama that caused it, or are we truly seeing mandarins of lower levels forming in the us govt?

There is no solid proof that Obama was behind it directly. Personally I think he is too politically astute to do such a thing. HOWEVER, one of the most important things any president does is to select the people who work for him. The government is way to big to micromanage. It doesn't really matter from the governance side how smart (or not) a president is. What truly matters is the ability of the president to choose individuals to act in his name who are proper stewards of that authority. So even though I don't believe that he personally authorized this, I do believe that he is responsible. He choose the individuals that headed the IRS. He created an environment in his administration in which those individuals believed this behavior would be acceptable, even lauded. Obama is responsible.

This is not a partisan opinion just because Obama is a Democrat. I feel exactly the same way about Republican governor and presidential hopeful Chris Christie, who finds himself in a similar situation. (Officials in his administration ordered the closure of a major bridge to New York City during rush hour as revenge toward a perceived slight from the major of the town next to the bridge). As with Obama, I think he is too politically astute to order such a thing. However, I do believe that he is responsible. He choose the individuals in his administration who did order it. He created an environment in his administration in which those individuals believed this behavior would be acceptable, even lauded. Christie is responsible.

BrightSoul wrote:
Look up the Koch Brothers and their funding of the Tea Party. Sarah represents the Plutocracy.

Far, far more billionaires support the Democrat party and Obama than the TEA Party or Palin. By any rational definition, Obama not Palin represents the plutocrats.

namelessfly wrote:

BrightSoul wrote:
Look up the Koch Brothers and their funding of the Tea Party. Sarah represents the Plutocracy.

Far, far more billionaires support the Democrat party and Obama than the TEA Party or Palin. By any rational definition, Obama not Palin represents the plutocrats.

Please enter a list of names of national level politicians that are not
representing plutocrats.

biochem wrote:There is no solid proof that Obama was behind it directly. Personally I think he is too politically astute to do such a thing. ...snip...

Just snipped to save scroll wheels. I agree with the snipped portions. Just wish to add.

Story a I remember well from the The Good Stuff was the "New Prime" by Jack Vance. Portrays everything from the opposite angle (sort of) but the leader sets the climate. Good read in my opinion.

Also I forget which book I read it is but the paraphrase, "If the leader farts the underlings defecate mountains." Look at President Obama's speech's. Some of which are quoted in one of the links in the articles on the House document about this. How many times did he in speeches in 2010 and 2011 about the Supreme Court's decision on campaign financing fund raising being bad.

Then "surprise, surprise, surprise" the bureaucrats find ways to to get around the ruling. In such a way that the individual donations are more limited than the "rich". Rich who can hire lots of lawyers can get around it fairly easily, mostly by legally beating up bureaucrats, but John Q Public has more difficulty.

<sarcasm> "Tell me again why big government is good."<sarcasm> One thing we should have learned, IMO, in the last 13 years is it is not no matter who the leader is.

For what it is worth,
T2M

namelessfly wrote:After listening to the SOTU address, just asking.

Is Eric Holder Oscar Saint Just?

no he wants to be the 1st legislaturalist ("president for life")

MAD-4A wrote:

namelessfly wrote:After listening to the SOTU address, just asking.

Is Eric Holder Oscar Saint Just?

no he wants to be the 1st legislaturalist ("president for life")

After rereading some of the earlier books, I realize that President Obama is no Rob Pierre.

Rob Pierre actually motivated Haven's people to get off their asses and work. This led to the realization that Haven no longer needed to conquer it's neighbors to loot their economies.

Obama seems to take pride in the fact that the unemployment rate is down only because the workforce participation rate is plummeting. Obamacare is now justified because it will discourage people from having a job.

Obama is a legisatursts