“We would have been screaming if BUSH had sign this EO”

“…why should we feel comfortable with Obama doing it?”

Bingo. That quote is from a website called the Democratic Underground in response to the news that Obama signed an Executive Order last Friday to basically do this:

I’m begging for a backstory to understand this one. I don’t want to give into the idea the Tea Party is promoting – that Obama is attempting to nationalize America prior to the election. Pooey. That kind of chatter doesn’t do anyone any good.

What does worry me is that this might be an attempt to line things up before WWIII.

Did you know, and I’m quite serious about this, that I found a woman holding a sign asking to remove Obama from office before he starts WWIII? What if I told you this woman was standing at the exit from the Brookfield, WI post office?

I don’t like it when things won’t make sense. 1) This order was slipped in on a Friday, and it’s just hitting the news circle on Sunday, and even then so barely there I can only find three articles right now. 2) The initial response is a Tea Party paranoid mess. 3) Dems don’t seem to like it either.

I need some dots connected. Help! I mean if the only point of the EO was to draw out a paranoid response in front of the election, that missed, because the Democrats aren’t liking it either. OBAMA CAN’T EVEN GET A BUDGET THROUGH so what the heck made his people work hours and hours on something that sounds like a complete dictatorial takeover after the first reading? And if it’s not a complete dictatorial takeover, then why toss it out in a Friday news dump?

I suppose a good question to have answered is what actions were taken in the last 48 hours using this EO as a tool? I’ll keep searching.

Comments

  1. Randy in Richmond says:

    There’s not much out there on this. But it doesn’t look good. No President should have this much power, especially granting it to himself in the guise of defense and security. My guess is this is an end run around the Congress. It’s possible the White House’s early polling doesn’t look good for the Dems holding the Senate this fall.

    I see no way this helps the President in the election and I would think that once publicized independents will be wary of it’s implications. You know the W.H. has a stock, generic response waiting for when the questions come–and my bet is it will be vague and about our security and national defense.

  2. Well, I still think I’ll dig around through the week to see if anything was directed as a result of this change, but it’s probably not that big of a deal.

    What it may be, and I alluded as such in the first post, is something to draw a knee-jerk reaction from the far right. We got caught by Fluke. Wonder if they are trying it again?

    Let’s be careful out there. ;)

  3. It sounds relatively routine, but yes, when Bush was president these things got a lot more press.

    That said, I do think too much power is concentrated at the executive branch, and neither party has done much to reverse it. Obama and the Left complained about the “imperial presidency” during the Bush Administration, but now the Left doesn’t seem to have an issue since “their guy” is exercising the power.

  4. Yes, I would really enjoy a little more outrage, wouldn’t you? ;)

  5. jimspice says:
  6. So my next question…when is this kind of thing used, and if it’s never used, why does it exist?

  7. The Lorax says:

    Any credible sources reporting on this?

  8. Randy in Richmond says:
  9. I think the answer, Lorax, is that no, the mainstream media just kind of ignored the order completely. May I assume that’s what you meant by credible?