On January 5, 2012, the famed (or infamous to some) Rush Limbaugh, broadcast a pretty remarkable interpretation of President Obama’s recent decision to make controversial appointments through executive fiat during a Senate recess.
I think you may like reading his opening statement to his radio show today. Shortly after attempting to articulate my concern for Obama’s recent message, I realized I cannot summarize those concerns better than Rush Limbaugh’s broadcast.
RUSH: All right, some people in the e-mail have taken exception with my description of Obama as “lawless” and acting outside the Constitution. Let me share with you a quote, and this is from a video. It might have been from yesterday out in Ohio, but it’s within the past couple days. Obama said, “When Congress refuses to act — and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk — then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.” He got applause. “I have an obligation to act on behalf of the American people. I’m not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people that we elected to serve. Not with so much at stake, not at this make-or-break moment for middle class Americans. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
Now, the Founding Fathers said this is exactly what’s supposed to happen! It’s called “the separation of powers,” and it’s to make sure that things like this do not happen, that an all-powerful executive does not run roughshod over the government. But President Obama has just said: Because the Congress won’t do what I want them to do I’m gonna do it myself. That is extraconstitutional! That is not the way this government was set up. It was not the idea of the Founders. That’s acting outside the Constitution, and there’s no question about it — and the Obama campaign is claiming he’s doing all these recess appointments and things like this “to help the economy.” Reuters again: “Hammering populist themes that show him to be a champion of the middle class, aides say the president will keep taking steps to show voters he’ll make moves on his own to help the economy if Congress refuses to act.”
If Congress “refuses to act,” it is his job to sit down and talk to ’em and make ’em act and get them to vote the way he wants. He does not have — unless they grant it to him (and they’re doing it, by the way) — the authority to run roughshod over them. But if they don’t stop him, he can do it. We can’t. Congress has to stand up for itself. Now, the Democrats run the Senate. I think they’re happy for this to happen. Dingy Harry loves for this to happen because they’re sitting there blaming it on the House Republicans who have no role in this. It’s an election year, so blame the Republicans for it. Folks, it is clearly lawless. If you regard the Constitution as law, this is lawless behavior by an out-of-control, rogue executive. This is what happens in banana republics, tinhorn dictatorships. In places like Venezuela, this is what happens — all under the guise of populism and helping the middle class.
Rush Limbaugh; January 05, 2012
Yet again Obama frightens me not simply because of the short-sighted issue at hand–like Obamacare, there is much more at stake here. The President continues to award himself the immortal and superhuman honor of attributing his self to be greater than the Office of the President of the United States of America.
Obama deviated yesterday from a tradition set by the master negotiator and leader–Bill Clinton, which understood rather informally that the President would not appoint politically sensitive agents to politically sensitive offices during a Congressional recess. This understanding embodied the most undeniably important and beautifully eloquent achievements of our Founding Fathers–a three party system with ‘checks-and-balances’.
No matter, Obama knows what is right for The People. To him, the Congressional gridlock caused by the historic elections on November 2, 2010 that re-balanced the super-majority Democratic Congress is just annoying. To him, the Congressional gridlock is attributable to the most superficial of political analysis: the Republicans just want to vote ‘No’; they are the party of “No”; “they want dirty air and dirty water–and on and on.
Someone that respected the office of the President as greater than any one person or one person’s political agenda, would sort through the matter with integrity and with transparent negotiations well intioned negotiations. Not to evoke ‘compromise’, which is one of the most loaded words ever created, but to understand the conflicting ideology so that said ideologies may be prioritized contextually.
Quite frankly this guy has ‘zero’ negotiation skills. If he wanted to attempt to lead, he would try to envision the conflicting party’s philosophy. While he would oppose it, he would respect it enough to agree that the other person at least believes their opinion and is not just Stonewalling for the sake of Stonewalling. How childish? How self-centered?
What do you think? Am I being hypocritical? Do you think it is easier for the conservative to step in the liberal’s shoes, or vice-versa? Can you truly understand your opposition like a contrarian and feel all the more confident in your opinions?
Remember, Your Opinion Matters, and it is up to you to craft your opinions into grounded pillars so that they can eventually become Principals.