Media Prefers Obama's Rhetoric To His Command Of Issues

[Dos Equis]

The first sworn obligation of the President is to uphold the US Constitution.

Not true.  The first sworn obligation of the President is to faithfully execute the Office of President:
 
''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''

[OzmO]

Obama would not even exist, have a shot, a campaign, if it wasn't for Bush.

All his rhetoric, all his snappy lines, etc...   Would mean nothing.

[Dos Equis]

He'd still be a rock star regardless of Bush.  Part of his rapid rise is due to the void of quality Democrat candidates.  Just look at the cast that ran for president.  How could he not rise when you have people like Biden and Kucinich on a national stage running for president? 

[OzmO]

He'd still be a rock star regardless of Bush.  Part of his rapid rise is due to the void of quality Democrat candidates.  Just look at the cast that ran for president.  How could he not rise when you have people like Biden and Kucinich on a national stage running for president? 

I'm with ya there.   However, combine that with public's distaste for Bush, a super low approval rating, public opinion that feels Iraq was a mistake, faulty intel, $3+ gas, billions spent, low housing, recession etc..... all of which occurs on Bush's watch and some by Bush's hand.

[240 is Back]

I'm with ya there.   However, combine that with public's distaste for Bush, a super low approval rating, public opinion that feels Iraq was a mistake, faulty intel, $3+ gas, billions spent, low housing, recession etc..... all of which occurs on Bush's watch and some by Bush's hand.

imagine if the economy gets worse.  $4 gas.  housing hitting the shitter worse.  DOW dropping more.

If these things happen, and with mccain telling every camera he can that "the bush tax cuts are awesome!" and President Obama will waltz into the white house.

[Decker]

Not true.  The first sworn obligation of the President is to faithfully execute the Office of President:
 
''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''

I was referring to the Coach's comment about substantive duties of the president.  The first substantive duty of the president is to protect/uphold the US constitution.  The procedural statement that the president will faithfully execute the Office of president is not a substantive duty.

In other words, I promise to execute the duties of the OFfice and protecting and defending the the US constitution is my duty of the office!

[The Coach]

imagine if the economy gets worse.  $4 gas.  housing hitting the shitter worse.  DOW dropping more.

LOL, and you call me a fearmonger, I have more important things to worry about like how in the hell do I fix my slice, I was only able to hit 11 fairways on Friday

[Dos Equis]

I was referring to the Coach's comment about substantive duties of the president.  The first substantive duty of the president is to protect/uphold the US constitution.  The procedural statement that the president will faithfully execute the Office of president is not a substantive duty.

In other words, I promise to execute the duties of the OFfice and protecting and defending the the US constitution is my duty of the office!

Now there's an answer I'd expect from a lawyer.    You both referenced the first sworn duty.  The first sworn duty is to faithfully execute the office.  The second sworn duty to is preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.  I think protecting the American people falls under both of those duties. 

[Dos Equis]

I'm with ya there.   However, combine that with public's distaste for Bush, a super low approval rating, public opinion that feels Iraq was a mistake, faulty intel, $3+ gas, billions spent, low housing, recession etc..... all of which occurs on Bush's watch and some by Bush's hand.

No question all of those are factors too.  A dismal economy also contributed to Bush Sr. losing to Clinton.  Bush Sr. really wasted all of the political capital he earned from Desert Storm.   Dubya has sort of done the same thing.   

[Decker]

Now there's an answer I'd expect from a lawyer.    You both referenced the first sworn duty.  The first sworn duty is to faithfully execute the office.  The second sworn duty to is preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.  I think protecting the American people falls under both of those duties. 

What are the enumerated duties incumbent on faithfully executing the office of President?

[Dos Equis]

What are the enumerated duties incumbent on faithfully executing the office of President?

There are specific duties (which you can read as well as me), but the president has the obligation to protect the entire Constitution, which includes all rights and privileges of the people, which in turn includes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.   

[Decker]

There are specific duties (which you can read as well as me), but the president has the obligation to protect the entire Constitution, which includes all rights and privileges of the people, which in turn includes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.   

The Coach's weak yet spineless interpretation of the constitution where the president's main purpose is to protect/make safe We The People makes mush out the President's primary duty to protect the Constitution and his other role as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces.  That is a recipe for Fascism. 

Defending the US Constitution is a quantifiable qualifier of presidential purpose and power.  "Faithfully executing" the office is window dressing.  I, and most americans, can point to FISA, Iraq, and torture to show that the president is not defending the US Constitution.  I don't know what the substantive arguments are for showing a violation of "Faithfully executing" the office.

But I yield.  Who cares about contextual or substantive issues?   "Faithfully executing" comes before defending the Constitution in the oath of office. 

[Dos Equis]

The Coach's weak yet spineless interpretation of the constitution where the president's main purpose is to protect/make safe We The People makes mush out the President's primary duty to protect the Constitution and his other role as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces.  That is a recipe for Fascism. 

Defending the US Constitution is a quantifiable qualifier of presidential purpose and power.  "Faithfully executing" the office is window dressing.  I, and most americans, can point to FISA, Iraq, and torture to show that the president is not defending the US Constitution.  I don't know what the substantive arguments are for showing a violation of "Faithfully executing" the office.

But I yield.  Who cares about contextual or substantive issues?   "Faithfully executing" comes before defending the Constitution in the oath of office. 

I wouldn't call any mandate in the Constitution "window dressing."   

Are you saying the president does not have any obligation to try and protect the American people? 

[The Coach]

The Coach's weak yet spineless interpretation of the constitution where the president's main purpose is to protect/make safe We The People makes mush out the President's primary duty to protect the Constitution and his other role as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces.  That is a recipe for Fascism. 

Defending the US Constitution is a quantifiable qualifier of presidential purpose and power.  "Faithfully executing" the office is window dressing.  I, and most americans, can point to FISA, Iraq, and torture to show that the president is not defending the US Constitution.  I don't know what the substantive arguments are for showing a violation of "Faithfully executing" the office.

But I yield.  Who cares about contextual or substantive issues?   "Faithfully executing" comes before defending the Constitution in the oath of office. 

Ok then Decker, as a liberal, what order do you put this countries security? 3rd, 4th? You don't think it not of the utmost importance? Or should we just wait until they hit us again on our soil?

Please don't baffle me with Atty BS and use some commonsense.

[240 is Back]

LOL, and you call me a fearmonger, I have more important things to worry about like how in the hell do I fix my slice, I was only able to hit 11 fairways on Friday

Joe, anyone who works in a field where their services aren't REQUIRED should worry about the economy fluctuating.

Doctors and garbagemen and teachers and farmers don't have to worry as much - they provice a required service.  Others - like you and I - work in an arena where our services are OPTIONAL. 

If Americans see their net worth go down by 10% due to a minor DOW drop (12000 to 10500, very possible), what happens?  They lose 10% of their spending power.  They have to pay rent, car, gas, food, medical, and education.  They don't spend that 10% on optional things - like websites and personal trainers.  People like you and me that sell things that aren't requirements to live, should be more concerned than those who sell required things.

It's not fearmongering - a large # of analysts on both sides of aisle have said economy is headed for trouble.  If you lost 10 to 20% of your monthly clients, would you be in trouble?  most of us would!

[Decker]

I wouldn't call any mandate in the Constitution "window dressing."   

Are you saying the president does not have any obligation to try and protect the American people? 

As commander and chief of the armed forces, that power is implied.  National Security is generally a trump card to personal liberty.  A free republic is a delicate balance to manage b/c it can slip so easily into fascism.

"...If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."  
--President Bush

I know where the man's heart lies.

[The Coach]

Joe, anyone who works in a field where their services aren't REQUIRED should worry about the economy fluctuating.

Doctors and garbagemen and teachers and farmers don't have to worry as much - they provice a required service.  Others - like you and I - work in an arena where our services are OPTIONAL. 

If Americans see their net worth go down by 10% due to a minor DOW drop (12000 to 10500, very possible), what happens?  They lose 10% of their spending power.  They have to pay rent, car, gas, food, medical, and education.  They don't spend that 10% on optional things - like websites and personal trainers.  People like you and me that sell things that aren't requirements to live, should be more concerned than those who sell required things.

It's not fearmongering - a large # of analysts on both sides of aisle have said economy is headed for trouble.  If you lost 10 to 20% of your monthly clients, would you be in trouble?  most of us would!

I do have a job where I'm required, I have a referal base from 6 different physical therapy offices, most of which is paid through insurance. You should know most of what I do by now Rob, I'm not the typical "trainer" who just counts reps and sets, I work with people in most medical fields as well.....I might slow during the summer months, but I will never be that slow.

[OzmO]

Joe, anyone who works in a field where their services aren't REQUIRED should worry about the economy fluctuating.

Doctors and garbagemen and teachers and farmers don't have to worry as much - they provice a required service.  Others - like you and I - work in an arena where our services are OPTIONAL. 

If Americans see their net worth go down by 10% due to a minor DOW drop (12000 to 10500, very possible), what happens?  They lose 10% of their spending power.  They have to pay rent, car, gas, food, medical, and education.  They don't spend that 10% on optional things - like websites and personal trainers.  People like you and me that sell things that aren't requirements to live, should be more concerned than those who sell required things.

It's not fearmongering - a large # of analysts on both sides of aisle have said economy is headed for trouble.  If you lost 10 to 20% of your monthly clients, would you be in trouble?  most of us would!

My experience with this in the past is that people stop buying Big ticket items like cars and houses.   Consequentially they are freer to buy lower ticket items from the excess.

Both your businesses shouldn't suffer.

[Decker]

Ok then Decker, as a liberal, what order do you put this countries security? 3rd, 4th? You don't think it not of the utmost importance? Or should we just wait until they hit us again on our soil?

Please don't baffle me with Atty BS and use some commonsense.

Here is my pecking order importance:

1.  US Constitution
2.  National Security
3.  Illegal Wars of Aggression against marginally armed countries with large oil reserves.

Coach, if you want 100% security, you'll never get it.  100% Security in life does not exist.  Even if you get your republican police state where individual liberties are secondary to the State Security Interest and spying on citizens is the norm, there will still be risk.  
.....A lot less freedom, more security, but still, there will be risk.

This is not an either or proposition.  National Security done intelligently will not result in the sacrifice of the constitutional freedoms that define what it means to be an american.

National Security done stupidly is what we have with Bush--clumsy, ineffectual, fascist, etc.

[Dos Equis]

As commander and chief of the armed forces, that power is implied.  National Security is generally a trump card to personal liberty.  A free republic is a delicate balance to manage b/c it can slip so easily into fascism.

"...If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."  
--President Bush

I know where the man's heart lies.

If you say the first "substantive" duty of the president is to preserve, protect, and serve the Constitution and part of the Constitution includes an implied duty to protect the American people, then where is your disagreement with Coach?  Sounds like you're saying the same thing.  

[Decker]

If you say the first "substantive" duty of the president is to preserve, protect, and serve the Constitution and part of the Constitution includes an implied duty to protect the American people, then where is your disagreement with Coach?  Sounds like you're saying the same thing.  

No we are not saying the same thing.  The Coach is parroting the Bush line of National Security as the ultimate duty of the president.  That's exactly what I am not saying. 

Inherent in the constitution are a couple of ideas:  protection of the minority, checks and balances of the exercise of federal power, guarantees of personal liberty etc.

These ideas work in the framework of a representative democracy where We the People are the ultimate arbiters of our political system.

The Coach/Bush approach to prioritizing National Security as #1 makes all other aspects of our constitutional system of governance suffer.  Gone is transparency of open government.  In with "State Secrets".  Gone is a reasonable expectation of privacy.  In with spying on anyone for any reason with any nexus to State Security. 

In short, under the Coach's view, the State reigns supreme all in the name security and done with the knowledge that there is no such thing as a 100% risk free environment.  National Security is the end all be all of our existence.  That's paranoid.  I don't condone that.

[240 is Back]

cool, that is reassuring.  Good to hear you're tied into medical, Joe.  While I love to debate you, I'd hate to see any getbigger in the poor house.

[Dos Equis]

No we are not saying the same thing.  The Coach is parroting the Bush line of National Security as the ultimate duty of the president.  That's exactly what I am not saying. 

Inherent in the constitution are a couple of ideas:  protection of the minority, checks and balances of the exercise of federal power, guarantees of personal liberty etc.

These ideas work in the framework of a representative democracy where We the People are the ultimate arbiters of our political system.

The Coach/Bush approach to prioritizing National Security as #1 makes all other aspects of our constitutional system of governance suffer.  Gone is transparency of open government.  In with "State Secrets".  Gone is a reasonable expectation of privacy.  In with spying on anyone for any reason with any nexus to State Security. 

In short, under the Coach's view, the State reigns supreme all in the name security and done with the knowledge that there is no such thing as a 100% risk free environment.  National Security is the end all be all of our existence.  That's paranoid.  I don't condone that.

Sounds like semantics to me.  

Where did he say all this?  He simply said the president's main job is to protect the American people.  He didn't say the state reigns supreme, strip personal liberties, etc.  I can't speak for him, but I doubt that's what he intended to say.  (He can correct me if I'm wrong.)  

Personally, in terms of the president's job, I don't view national security any differently than free speech, freedom of religion, or any other personal liberty.  They're all important.  

And query which of you has the more paranoid viewpoint?  The Gestapo isn't beating down your door.  What specific freedoms have you lost lately (particularly since 911)?      

[Decker]

Sounds like semantics to me. 

Everything is semantics.
 

Where did he say all this?  He simply said the president's main job is to protect the American people.  He didn't say the state reigns supreme, strip personal liberties, etc.  I can't speak for him, but I doubt that's what he intended to say.  (He can correct me if I'm wrong.) 

"Rob, security of this country is something like 3rd on Obama's agenda........the first obligation as a President is to protect your country." --The Coach

"But no one should doubt that we are determined to do what has to be done to protect the American people. As President, I have no higher duty." --President Bush

Bush has acted upon this "higher duty" by feloniously spying on americans, torturing detainees, ordering a war crime of aggression, and abusing presidential signing statements to usurp Congressional power of legislation.

Personally, in terms of the president's job, I don't view national security any differently than free speech, freedom of religion, or any other personal liberty.  They're all important. 

Not to Bush or to the Coach:  first obligation as a President is to protect your country (Coach);

to protect the American people. As President, I have no higher duty (Bush)

And query which of you has the more paranoid viewpoint?  The Gestapo isn't beating down your door.  What specific freedoms have you lost lately (particularly since 911)?

An answer to your query, you and the Coach support Bush and his crimes.  Bush paranoia surpasses that of Tricky Dick Nixon.  Or have you missed the "there's a terrorist under every rock" Bush tour?

Specific freedoms I have lost include my 4th amendment right to privacy (FISA spying/Patriot Act I & II) probable cause is now a thing of the past where our "security" is concerned (do I even have to point out how ridiculous it is that we protect our freedoms by eliminating them?  I think I do); I have had my tax dollars used for war crimes in Iraq, That includes Bush's use of my tax money to fund torture chambers for the CIA.

Maybe that's ok with you, but not me.

God forbid if my name surfaces in any sort of connection to the Bush war on terror: Bush has reserved the right to deem me an "enemy combatant" if he sees fit; Bush has violated the 8th amendment prohibition of Cruel and Unusual punishment by permitting CIA torture of detainees, Bush has jettisoned the right to habeus corpus, the right to a speedy trial by peers, the use of hearsay evidence etc.

It seems like you don't mind losing your 4th amendment constitutional rights to privacy.  Why is that?

[Dos Equis]

Everything is semantics.
  "Rob, security of this country is something like 3rd on Obama's agenda........the first obligation as a President is to protect your country." --The Coach

"But no one should doubt that we are determined to do what has to be done to protect the American people. As President, I have no higher duty." --President Bush

Bush has acted upon this "higher duty" by feloniously spying on americans, torturing detainees, ordering a war crime of aggression, and abusing presidential signing statements to usurp Congressional power of legislation.
Not to Bush or to the Coach:  first obligation as a President is to protect your country (Coach);

to protect the American people. As President, I have no higher duty (Bush)
An answer to your query, you and the Coach support Bush and his crimes.  Bush paranoia surpasses that of Tricky Dick Nixon.  Or have you missed the "there's a terrorist under every rock" Bush tour?

Specific freedoms I have lost include my 4th amendment right to privacy (FISA spying/Patriot Act I & II) probable cause is now a thing of the past where our "security" is concerned (do I even have to point out how ridiculous it is that we protect our freedoms by eliminating them?  I think I do); I have had my tax dollars used for war crimes in Iraq, That includes Bush's use of my tax money to fund torture chambers for the CIA.

Maybe that's ok with you, but not me.

God forbid if my name surfaces in any sort of connection to the Bush war on terror: Bush has reserved the right to deem me an "enemy combatant" if he sees fit; Bush has violated the 8th amendment prohibition of Cruel and Unusual punishment by permitting CIA torture of detainees, Bush has jettisoned the right to habeus corpus, the right to a speedy trial by peers, the use of hearsay evidence etc.

It seems like you don't mind losing your 4th amendment constitutional rights to privacy.  Why is that?

Because I haven't lost any Constitutional right to privacy, or the privacy protections provided by my state constitution. 

So when did the government spy on you and why haven't you contacted the ACLU about this?