• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to limit signing statements on bills

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The title is another exercise in ridiculous spin, but the content is interesting:

Obama to limit signing statements on bills

President Obama promised Monday that he would rarely impose his own interpretation of legislation by attaching statements when he signs bills, pulling back significantly from the controversial use of the tactic by his predecessor, George W. Bush.

So, Obama criticizes Bush for using signing statements, and then turns around and announces that he will do the exact same thing, but says that he plans to do it less.

"There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused," Obama said in the memo. "I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities."

Funny, because that's the exact same rationale that Bush used for issuing his signing statements. I guess it's okay now though, because it's Obama instead of Bush.

Some aren't buying it though:
Longtime Bush critics, however, excoriated Obama for failing to put a complete end to the practice.

"There should be a clean break with the past on this," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union. "The president shouldn't be asserting - as President Bush did - wholesale objections to entire sections of statutes and claiming some kind of presidential authority to ignore them."

Anders said his group appreciates Obama's pledge to reduce the number of signing statements. But he said the danger remains that, instead of using the statements to provide guidance to government officials, the new president could use them to ignore the will of the Congress.

Former Bush administration officials said they could detect little difference between Obama's promise and Bush's standards for issuing signing statements.

"This has been a standard practice going back decades. It's just when President Bush did it, his critics pounced," said former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer. "They're going to do the same thing, whenever they feel like it."

And to be fair, Obama didn't pledge to get rid of them entirely:

Both presidential candidates last year criticized Bush for the practice. Obama accused Bush of attempting to change the meaning of legislation and of trying to thwart enforcement of some statutes. But Obama did not pledge to get rid of the practice, saying at the time that its limited use could help protect a president's "constitutional prerogatives."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said during the campaign that he would never issue a signing statement as president. "Never, never, never, never. If I disagree with a law that passed, I'll veto it," he told the Washington Post.
 
But its Obama Right, that naturally means its a CHANGE. It doesn't matter if the facts say its pretty much the same thing as Bush, its Obama so its CHANGE! Get with the program here.

No surprise here really. The funny thing is a lot of what Bush did that I disliked were more liberal things traditionally (in a modern sense), and it was humerous watching liberals complain about it cause I knew their guys would be chomping at the bit to do the same thing and they'd remain strangely silent.
 
This is everything I had hoped for.
 
This is yet another issue that will seperate the Democrat partisans (who will ignore this) and the liberal ideologues (who will complain about this).
 
This is yet another issue that will seperate the Democrat partisans (who will ignore this) and the liberal ideologues (who will complain about this).

Please explain to me the difference between the Democrat partisans and liberal ideologues, and the Republican partisans and conservative ideologues, other than the fact that you support the side of one of them.
 
BWAHAHAHAHA now a liberal has all that power bush amassed:lol:
 
Please explain to me the difference between the Democrat partisans and liberal ideologues, and the Republican partisans and conservative ideologues, other than the fact that you support the side of one of them.
Why? It doesnt change anything I said.

The people that support The Obama because He is a Democrat will give him a pass on this, without question. The only "change" these people were interested in was the (D) behind The Obama's name.

The liberals that supported The Obama because He was suppoed to bring 'real change' should be up in arms about this -- and to be fair, may of them will be.
 
BWAHAHAHAHA now a liberal has all that power bush amassed:lol:
I'll put you in the "partisan that will give The Obama a pass on this" camp.
Thanks.
 
Please explain to me the difference between the Democrat partisans and liberal ideologues, and the Republican partisans and conservative ideologues, other than the fact that you support the side of one of them.
How can you enter a debate and not know something about this?
 
:lol: at what would happen if the Good Reverend started a thread like this, eh CC? ;) (I tease I tease)




James Monroe was the first to use them. Bush I, Clinton, Reagan used them as well...


I do find it odd that Obama was against them, but will still use them..... Is this another "change" to his promises?
 
So in effect, Obama is simply a President like any other in recent history. At his core, he's a politician. What he says and what he does may end up being different things.

If he actually reduces the number of times he uses them as opposed to Bush, that is a change. A change in frequency of use.

Big deal?
 
So in effect, Obama is simply a President like any other in recent history. At his core, he's a politician. What he says and what he does may end up being different things.

If he actually reduces the number of times he uses them as opposed to Bush, that is a change. A change in frequency of use.

Big deal?




I don't think signing statments are a big deal at all actually. I do however see a pattern of lies by the Obama administration as a disturbing trend.


This excuse making of "but everyone is doing it" is not an excuse. If I am speeding, and 5 others are as well, will I get out of a ticket by saying "Well I was going with the flow of traffic"?


I don't think so. Why do we not hold all of our politicians, right and left to the same standard?
 
So in effect, Obama is simply a President like any other in recent history. At his core, he's a politician. What he says and what he does may end up being different things.

If he actually reduces the number of times he uses them as opposed to Bush, that is a change. A change in frequency of use.

Big deal?

Aside from the fact that his most constant and routine campaign message was that he was a "Change" from politics as usual?

No, not at all.

Just that he basically pulled the wool over a vast amount of Democrats eyes who kept telling us how much of a "Change" he was going to be from politics as usual and Bush's tactics as a politician.
 
So in effect, Obama is simply a President like any other in recent history. At his core, he's a politician. What he says and what he does may end up being different things.

If he actually reduces the number of times he uses them as opposed to Bush, that is a change. A change in frequency of use.

Big deal?

Call me naive, but I like consistency. If a politician rips into someone for doing something and then turns around and does the same thing, they should be called out on it. Same applies to posters.
 
Aside from the fact that his most constant and routine campaign message was that he was a "Change" from politics as usual?

No, not at all.

Just that he basically pulled the wool over a vast amount of Democrats eyes who kept telling us how much of a "Change" he was going to be from politics as usual and Bush's tactics as a politician.

What can I say, he's a politician. I don't like it, but you know what...show me one President in recent history that has actually done everything they said they would do?

I suppose I am a bit jaded, but then again I never fully expected him to do some of the things he promised. I supported him because of his position on certain issues. One of which restoring support to state and local law enforcement, which he is absolutely doing.

It's a mixed bag with politicians. This is never going to change. There is no "ONE." The Obama campaign team did like any other succesful Presidential campaign team has done...they developed a strategy and got their man elected. But I suppose if we're not going to gripe about what they do why be here right?
 
Call me naive, but I like consistency. If a politician rips into someone for doing something and then turns around and does the same thing, they should be called out on it. Same applies to posters.

So you don't like them saying one thing and doing another. I get it. I don't think anybody does. Show me a President in recent history who hasn't done this. I'm not excusing it, I suppose I'm asking what did you really expect?
 
What can I say, he's a politician. I don't like it, but you know what...show me one President in recent history that has actually done everything they said they would do?
In your mind, does this excuse Bush of all his failings?
 
So you don't like them saying one thing and doing another. I get it. I don't think anybody does. Show me a President in recent history who hasn't done this. I'm not excusing it, I suppose I'm asking what did you really expect?

If everyone shared that attitude, I suspect they'd do it a lot more often. If everyone called them out on it, I suspect they'd do it a lot less often.

The fact is, there are many examples in recent history of ways in which vigilant constituents can force politicians to abide by their promises. Many groups have managed to get politicians to promise not to do things, such as raise taxes, which the politicians are incredibly scared to break. Just look at the most recent CA budget situation where Republicans refused to agree to raise taxes because they knew they would catch hell for it.
 
Last edited:
What can I say, he's a politician. I don't like it, but you know what...show me one President in recent history that has actually done everything they said they would do?

I suppose I am a bit jaded, but then again I never fully expected him to do some of the things he promised. I supported him because of his position on certain issues. One of which restoring support to state and local law enforcement, which he is absolutely doing.

It's a mixed bag with politicians. This is never going to change. There is no "ONE." The Obama campaign team did like any other succesful Presidential campaign team has done...they developed a strategy and got their man elected. But I suppose if we're not going to gripe about what they do why be here right?

But this is the problem and why we're making a fuss out of it. Many of us were saying EXACTLY what you're saying now. That Obama is not some big Change from politics as usual, Obama isn't this fresh faced new spin on politics. He's a politician saying **** to people that they want to hear and not being fully truthful.

We were shouted down, insulted, and told "Nuh uh!" for saying such things. We were told just wait and see, he was going to be different, that we should be voting for him because he's really going to be different.

He ran on being a "Change" from typical politics more than any Presidential candidate I can think of. It was pretty much his core, central point in the campaign. All politicians talk about it a bit, but he made it a central issue. And his followers bought into it hook, line, and sinker and attacked anyone that dared to say that wasn't the case.

So now, after he hoodwinked the American population, those that were saying he was just like every other politician before hand are pointing out examples showing they were right. Not surprisingly, those that attacked them before now are either silent or make excuses.

You can't run on a central issue, get your followers going rabid at people that dare to question his integrity on that central issue, get elected and basically go back greatly on that central issue that helped get him elected, and then expect not to be called on it.
 
There you go.
You dont get my meaning.

Your complaints about the Bush adminsitration -- are they effectively answered, in your mind, by the response you gave - show me one President in recent history that has actually done everything they said they would do?
 
But this is the problem and why we're making a fuss out of it. Many of us were saying EXACTLY what you're saying now. That Obama is not some big Change from politics as usual, Obama isn't this fresh faced new spin on politics. He's a politician saying **** to people that they want to hear and not being fully truthful.
I stated long ago that The Obama was JAFLD*.
Nothing that's happened since the election gives me any reason to think I am wrong.

* - Just Another F-ing Liberal Democrat.
 
If everyone shared that attitude, I suspect they'd do it a lot more often. If everyone called them out on it, I suspect they'd do it a lot less often.

The fact is, there are many examples in recent history of ways in which vigilant constituents can force politicians to abide by their promises. Many groups have managed to get politicians to promise not to do things, such as raise taxes, which the politicians are incredibly scared to break. Just look at the most recent CA budget situation where Republicans refused to agree to raise taxes because they knew they would catch hell for it.




excatly, complacency and acceptence of crap like this breeds tyranny.
 
If everyone shared that attitude, I suspect they'd do it a lot more often. If everyone called them out on it, I suspect they'd do it a lot less often.
My attitude is born of the fact that I can't remember a time when the voters didn't scream at the top of their lungs to hold our political leaders accountable. When has this not happened? And how much has actually changed? It's not us, it's them.

My attitude is not one of laying down, my comments were simply an observation of the frustration and what seems to be surprise among some posters here. Where did I ever say "don't hold them accountable?" Try not to read so much into it please.

The fact is, there are many examples in recent history of ways in which vigilant constituents can force politicians to abide by their promises. Many groups have managed to get politicians to promise not to do things, such as raise taxes, which the politicians are incredibly scared to break. Just look at the most recent CA budget situation where Republicans refused to agree to raise taxes because they knew they would catch hell for it.

And I'm pretty sure I said that I simply asked someone to show me any President who has done everything they said they were going to do. I'm not saying we don't stay on top of them...I'm just addressing the reality that campaign promises have a long history of being broken. This is no surprise.
 
Back
Top Bottom