Mad at Obama? Blame Republicans

It’s hard to see what the GOP has gained from obstructionism other than a president willing to stretch the limits of executive power beyond recognition.

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 14: US President Barack Obama (R) walks with Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) after a luncheon at the US Capitol, on March 14, 2014 in Washington, DC. Speaker Boehner hosted a lunch for Prime Minister Enda Kenny of Ireland in honor of St. Patricks Day on Sunday. 
National Journal
James Oliphant
June 3, 2014, 6:38 a.m.

The carp­ing is fa­mil­i­ar. Pres­id­ent Obama has “over­reached” and ab­used his au­thor­ity by re­leas­ing ter­ror­ist pris­on­ers without no­ti­fy­ing Con­gress and in pro­mul­gat­ing new en­vir­on­ment­al rules. But, as usu­al, Re­pub­lic­ans have few rem­ed­ies bey­ond press re­leases and the prom­ises of hear­ings.

That’s the state of play in Wash­ing­ton: trench war­fare that has las­ted more than three years.

Obama began 2014 vow­ing that he would no longer be side­lined by Re­pub­lic­an ob­struc­tion­ists — and he ap­pears to be mak­ing good on his threat. More ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tions are likely on the way, as the pres­id­ent may well im­pose de­port­a­tion curbs if the GOP won’t con­struct­ively work to­ward im­mig­ra­tion-re­form le­gis­la­tion.

House Re­pub­lic­ans should stop and con­sider it — not be­cause of the polit­ic­al be­ne­fit the party might, maybe, en­joy by help­ing to broker an im­mig­ra­tion solu­tion. No, the bet­ter reas­on is this: If they truly fear the un­checked growth of pres­id­en­tial power, then their best op­tion is to come to the table and force com­prom­ise. It’s the one sure way to keep Obama from go­ing cow­boy (or, in their minds, tyr­ant).

As it is, the tox­ic at­mo­sphere in the cap­it­al and the nearly total lack of trust between the two sides has brought about a situ­ation that should make few who care about func­tion­al gov­ern­ment happy. As evid­enced by the con­tinu­ing battles over the Af­ford­able Care Act, which was passed only with Demo­crat­ic votes, ac­tions that carry the pat­ina of bi­par­tis­an­ship en­joy wider pub­lic sup­port. But the cur­rent polit­ic­al stale­mate has made such out­comes al­most im­possible.

That leaves Obama to act on his own. And not only does that en­gender fur­ther mis­trust, but it risks fun­da­ment­ally al­ter­ing the dy­nam­ic of power between the ex­ec­ut­ive and le­gis­lat­ive branches.

Take the En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency’s pro­posed car­bon-emis­sions rules. Cap-and-trade died a grisly death on the floor of the Sen­ate in 2010 (coal-state Demo­crats helped slay it, too), but now the prin­ciple lives on in the new power-plant regs.

Re­pub­lic­ans have long re­fused to en­gage at all on the sub­ject of glob­al warm­ing even as it has slowly moved closer to the fore­front of do­mest­ic policy is­sues. Broker­ing a le­gis­lat­ive com­prom­ise might have made the rules more in­dustry-friendly and, polit­ic­ally, the GOP would have been viewed as a ser­i­ous act­or on an is­sue that has Amer­ic­ans in­creas­ingly wor­ried. But that now may be a lost op­por­tun­ity.

And Obama’s lack of re­straint doesn’t end there. The Guantanamo pris­on­er trans­fer is a prime ex­ample. When the White House ob­jec­ted to a pro­vi­sion in the de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion bill that re­quired con­gres­sion­al no­ti­fic­a­tion 30 days pri­or to a pris­on­er trans­fer at Guantanamo, it did so through a mech­an­ism that be­came no­tori­ous in the George W. Bush years for its po­ten­tial for ab­use: the pres­id­en­tial sign­ing state­ment. That gave Obama the free­dom, the ad­min­is­tra­tion ar­gues, to ig­nore the pro­vi­sion as it saw fit when it came to swap­ping five Taliban fight­ers for POW Bowe Ber­g­dahl. “We have re­peatedly noted con­cerns with this re­quire­ment,” Jay Car­ney, the White House press sec­ret­ary, main­tained on Monday.

Would it have gone down this way if the White House viewed the GOP as bet­ter part­ners? It’s im­possible to say. But the end res­ult is a tattered law that was passed to rein in the ex­ec­ut­ive branch and now has largely been evis­cer­ated. Con­gress loses and the pres­id­ent wins — again. And that’s usu­ally what hap­pens in these situ­ations.

You would think the GOP might have learned a les­son about the cost of total ob­struc­tion­ism after Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id last year triggered the nuc­le­ar op­tion and did away with the fili­buster for ex­ec­ut­ive-branch nom­in­ees. Since then, Re­pub­lic­ans have been forced to sit on their hands as one Obama nom­in­ee after an­oth­er has sailed through the Sen­ate, which has had the ef­fect, among oth­er things, of tip­ping the fed­er­al ap­peals courts in fa­vor of Demo­crat­ic judges. Some­where along the line, a deal could have been cut that would have pre­served the fili­buster for use when it was truly needed.

In fact, when you stand back and search amid the ru­ins, it’s hard to see what ex­actly the GOP has got­ten out of its Hell No, We Won’t Go Along strategy. Yes, the pres­id­ent’s ap­prov­al rat­ing is down — and yes, the in­cess­ant at­tacks on Obama­care have played a role in that. But there are signs that the is­sue is los­ing steam with the midterm elect­or­ate just when the party needs it the most. And moreover, who is even less pop­u­lar than the pres­id­ent? Right: con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans.

The best press the GOP has got­ten here in years is when it ac­tu­ally cut a budget deal and avoided a gov­ern­ment shut­down. But that’s been the out­lier. And as the sum­mer ar­rives and the midterms loom, what will the House be do­ing with their lazy days, try­ing to reach a com­prom­ise on im­mig­ra­tion re­form or prob­ing #Benghazi even fur­ther? You already know the an­swer. And if and when the ad­min­is­tra­tion rolls out a new policy on de­port­a­tions (time-stamped shortly be­fore Elec­tion Day), Re­pub­lic­ans will again holler about over­reach but won’t have much else to show.

This is not to sug­gest the GOP should ever just roll over on the pres­id­ent’s agenda, but its con­tin­ued op­pos­i­tion to just about everything is a mis­read of the cur­rent state of ex­ec­ut­ive power. The play­ing field is tilted in the pres­id­ent’s fa­vor. Des­pite Obama’s fre­quent prot­est­a­tions to the con­trary, the mod­ern pres­id­ency comes equipped with a for­mid­able ar­ray of tools, ones that let him by­pass Con­gress with im­pun­ity.

The mon­ster is loose. With each passing week, Obama shows that he is grow­ing more com­fort­able with push­ing the lim­its of of­fice — and he could de­part in two years hav­ing ac­ted al­most on his own on everything from health­care to edu­ca­tion, cli­mate change and im­mig­ra­tion.

If he does, he ends up with a leg­acy. The Re­pub­lic­ans? Maybe a t-shirt.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4995) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×