Bob Schieffer just before SOTU

[Amelia]

Jake posted the numbers.

Executive orders aren't the only abuse of executive power Obama has done. But Jake already posted the proof.

Obama's numbers are comparable to Bush's. They do not merit the claim that he has use executive power "sparingly". Jake gave you the proof. I don't need to link to it.

He has signed fewer executive orders but not that many fewer, and he has done things he decried Bush for doing, and promised to do even more of that.

Senator Obama would have given President Obama a drubbing, if he were honest. And so would you. And so would Bob Schieffer.

But you can't. And Bob can't. Because Obama is a Dem. But you sure could if he were a Republican doing the things Senator Obama was so opposed to.


Quit asking for the proof. Jake already provided it. The numbers Jake provided belie the claim that Obama's use of executive power has been employed sparingly. Since that one figure is all that seems to matter to you guys, leave it at that. It speaks for itself.

Sallow just posted some numbers that states that in his 1st term GWB signed about 173, and thus far obama has signed about 168. (approx) Bush did a total of 291 (approx) So Obama has a bit to go to catch up to that by the end of his term.

So are you asserting that you yourself are AGAINST Executive Orders in general? No matter WHO the President is?

Is that it?

Thank you for repeating again the numbers showing that Obama's number of EO's is comparable to Bush's at this stage of his presidency. There is nothing in those numbers to suggest that Obama's use of EO's has been sparing.

And one last time, there is much more to consider in terms of use of executive power -- such as the cases which are working their way through the courts -- but all you guys seem to care about is the EO's, and those very numbers which you have stated for yourself, show that Schieffer was wrong to use the adverb "sparingly".

You know the numbers. You've stated them yourself. They do not justify Schieffer's minimization of Obama's history in this regard. The end.

 

[MarcATL]

Jake posted the numbers.

Executive orders aren't the only abuse of executive power Obama has done. But Jake already posted the proof.

Obama's numbers are comparable to Bush's. They do not merit the claim that he has use executive power "sparingly". Jake gave you the proof. I don't need to link to it.

He has signed fewer executive orders but not that many fewer, and he has done things he decried Bush for doing, and promised to do even more of that.

Senator Obama would have given President Obama a drubbing, if he were honest. And so would you. And so would Bob Schieffer.

But you can't. And Bob can't. Because Obama is a Dem. But you sure could if he were a Republican doing the things Senator Obama was so opposed to.


Quit asking for the proof. Jake already provided it. The numbers Jake provided belie the claim that Obama's use of executive power has been employed sparingly. Since that one figure is all that seems to matter to you guys, leave it at that. It speaks for itself.

Sallow just posted some numbers that states that in his 1st term GWB signed about 173, and thus far obama has signed about 168. (approx) Bush did a total of 291 (approx) So Obama has a bit to go to catch up to that by the end of his term.

So are you asserting that you yourself are AGAINST Executive Orders in general? No matter WHO the President is?

Is that it?

Thank you for repeating again the numbers showing that Obama's number of EO's is comparable to Bush's at this stage of his presidency. There is nothing in those numbers to suggest that Obama's use of EO's has been sparing.

And one last time, there is much more to consider in terms of use of executive power -- such as the cases which are working their way through the courts -- but all you guys seem to care about is the EO's, and those very numbers which you have stated for yourself, show that Schieffer was wrong to use the adverb "sparingly".

You know the numbers. You've stated them yourself. They do not justify Schieffer's minimization of Obama's history in this regard. The end.

Perhaps you missed it somehow amongst all the excitement and confusion, so let me repeat my question to you...

So are you asserting that you yourself are AGAINST Executive Orders in general? No matter WHO the President is?

Is that it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If she is against the principle of EOs, then Wilson, with 1800 would have driven her crazy.

And, yes, in terms of numbers, Obama's and Bush's are among the lowest in a century.

 

[hortysir]

Sallow just posted some numbers that states that in his 1st term GWB signed about 173, and thus far obama has signed about 168. (approx) Bush did a total of 291 (approx) So Obama has a bit to go to catch up to that by the end of his term.

So are you asserting that you yourself are AGAINST Executive Orders in general? No matter WHO the President is?

Is that it?

Thank you for repeating again the numbers showing that Obama's number of EO's is comparable to Bush's at this stage of his presidency. There is nothing in those numbers to suggest that Obama's use of EO's has been sparing.

And one last time, there is much more to consider in terms of use of executive power -- such as the cases which are working their way through the courts -- but all you guys seem to care about is the EO's, and those very numbers which you have stated for yourself, show that Schieffer was wrong to use the adverb "sparingly".

You know the numbers. You've stated them yourself. They do not justify Schieffer's minimization of Obama's history in this regard. The end.

Perhaps you missed it somehow amongst all the excitement and confusion, so let me repeat my question to you...

So are you asserting that you yourself are AGAINST Executive Orders in general? No matter WHO the President is?

Is that it?

Though not asked of me, I'll throw my opinion against the wall;

It would depend on the intent of said EO.
If used to circumvent the separation of powers, YES
If not, NO

 

[hjmick]

1/15/2013 at 3:14 PM President Obama Has Issued Fewer Executive Orders Than Any President in Over 100 Years Obama: Fewest Executive Orders in Over 100 Years -- Daily Intelligencer

That was a year ago.

Barack Obama

Barack Obama issued 166 executive orders between 2009 and 2013. https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-orders
2013 EO 13635 - EO 13655 21
2012 EO 13597 - EO 13634 38
2011 EO 13563 - EO 13596 33
2010 EO 13526 - EO 13562 35
2009 EO 13489 - EO 15323 39

George W. Bush

George W. Bush issued 287 executive orders between 2001 and 2009.
2009 EO 13484 - EO 13488 5
2008 EO 13454 - EO 13483 29
2007 EO 13421 - EO 13453 32
2006 EO 13395 - EO 13420 25
2005 EO 13368 - EO 13394 27
2004 EO 13322 - EO 13367 46
2003 EO 13282 - EO 13321 40
2002 EO 13249 - EO 13281 32
2001 EO 13198 - EO 13248 51

So in eight years Bush signed a total of 287. In four Obama has signed 166. That means that, should the pace remain constant, Obama is on track to sign a total of 332...


Personally, I think this particular privilege is used in excess, maybe even to the point of being abused.

 

[hortysir]

Slick Willie: 361

 

[Plasmaball]

1/15/2013 at 3:14 PM President Obama Has Issued Fewer Executive Orders Than Any President in Over 100 Years Obama: Fewest Executive Orders in Over 100 Years -- Daily Intelligencer

That was a year ago.

Barack Obama

Barack Obama issued 166 executive orders between 2009 and 2013. https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-orders
2013 EO 13635 - EO 13655 21
2012 EO 13597 - EO 13634 38
2011 EO 13563 - EO 13596 33
2010 EO 13526 - EO 13562 35
2009 EO 13489 - EO 15323 39

George W. Bush

George W. Bush issued 287 executive orders between 2001 and 2009.
2009 EO 13484 - EO 13488 5
2008 EO 13454 - EO 13483 29
2007 EO 13421 - EO 13453 32
2006 EO 13395 - EO 13420 25
2005 EO 13368 - EO 13394 27
2004 EO 13322 - EO 13367 46
2003 EO 13282 - EO 13321 40
2002 EO 13249 - EO 13281 32
2001 EO 13198 - EO 13248 51

Only comparing Obama's last 4 years to Bush's total 8 years?

tsk, tsk

you have a time machine to go into the future?
as of right now he has less. he could end up with more by the time he is done, or less than Bush.

Seriously fucking stupid thread.

 

[asaratis]

The SOTU is always crap no matter who is giving it. as Jake pointed out Obama is on track to make W look like a school boy because many of his stunts have not been by executive order.

In sheer numbers of executive orders -- by the figures Jake so thoughtfully provided -- Obama is on track to have approximately the same number as Bush by the end of his term. Obama is just over 6/10 of the way through his tenure and has just under 6/10 as many executive orders as Bush.

And Obama has done things like declaring that the Senate was in recess when the Senate said it wasn't.

"Sparingly" is simply a lie. And Senator Obama would have laughed at anyone who suggested that as president he would do what he has done.

But with message shapers like Bob Schieffer out there to massage the story, Obama still thinks he can get away with the ongoing betrayal of democratic principles and his own supposed principles.


Silver lining: Probably not that many people, relatively speaking, were listening to Schieffer shill for Obama.

Jake addressed your OP about his "sparing" used of the EO.

Clinton had more than Bush if I recall correctly. Nobody has talked about signing statements that can basically EOs by a different name. I see conflicting data on how many Bush signed.

------

The end result is that the hysteria (and hysterical) responses to Obama have largely been exaggerated by folks on the right.

Who has used it MORE is not as important as what they used it FOR. Renaming a fucking bridge is not a dastardly act..whereas circumventing the Constitution is. You people are showing your idiocy!

 

[Sallow]

In sheer numbers of executive orders -- by the figures Jake so thoughtfully provided -- Obama is on track to have approximately the same number as Bush by the end of his term. Obama is just over 6/10 of the way through his tenure and has just under 6/10 as many executive orders as Bush.

And Obama has done things like declaring that the Senate was in recess when the Senate said it wasn't.

"Sparingly" is simply a lie. And Senator Obama would have laughed at anyone who suggested that as president he would do what he has done.

But with message shapers like Bob Schieffer out there to massage the story, Obama still thinks he can get away with the ongoing betrayal of democratic principles and his own supposed principles.


Silver lining: Probably not that many people, relatively speaking, were listening to Schieffer shill for Obama.

Jake addressed your OP about his "sparing" used of the EO.

Clinton had more than Bush if I recall correctly. Nobody has talked about signing statements that can basically EOs by a different name. I see conflicting data on how many Bush signed.

------

The end result is that the hysteria (and hysterical) responses to Obama have largely been exaggerated by folks on the right.

Who has used it MORE is not as important as what they used it FOR. Renaming a fucking bridge is not a dastardly act..whereas circumventing the Constitution is. You people are showing your idiocy!

You mean like Reagan did with Iran/Contra?

Spare me.

None of you guys even mention that.

 

[MarcATL]

Thank you for repeating again the numbers showing that Obama's number of EO's is comparable to Bush's at this stage of his presidency. There is nothing in those numbers to suggest that Obama's use of EO's has been sparing.

And one last time, there is much more to consider in terms of use of executive power -- such as the cases which are working their way through the courts -- but all you guys seem to care about is the EO's, and those very numbers which you have stated for yourself, show that Schieffer was wrong to use the adverb "sparingly".

You know the numbers. You've stated them yourself. They do not justify Schieffer's minimization of Obama's history in this regard. The end.

Perhaps you missed it somehow amongst all the excitement and confusion, so let me repeat my question to you...

So are you asserting that you yourself are AGAINST Executive Orders in general? No matter WHO the President is?

Is that it?

Though not asked of me, I'll throw my opinion against the wall;

It would depend on the intent of said EO.
If used to circumvent the separation of powers, YES
If not, NO

The power has been granted to the President for a reason.

Whether it be used to "circumvent the separation of powers" or not, the power is there and it's legal.

Common sense tells us that when it's used by the other side, a partisan is going to view it as abuse, that, however, does not make it true.

The important thing in this issue is whether it's legal or not, and as far as the Constitution stands, it's a legal power granted to the President.

So unless one is against it totally in principle, there should be no disagreements. Certainly no talk of abuse or illegality, because there is none.

 

[Amelia]

Perhaps you missed it somehow amongst all the excitement and confusion, so let me repeat my question to you...

So are you asserting that you yourself are AGAINST Executive Orders in general? No matter WHO the President is?

Is that it?

Though not asked of me, I'll throw my opinion against the wall;

It would depend on the intent of said EO.
If used to circumvent the separation of powers, YES
If not, NO

The power has been granted to the President for a reason.

Whether it be used to "circumvent the separation of powers" or not, the power is there and it's legal.

Common sense tells us that when it's used by the other side, a partisan is going to view it as abuse, that, however, does not make it true.

The important thing in this issue is whether it's legal or not, and as far as the Constitution stands, it's a legal power granted to the President.

So unless one is against it totally in principle, there should be no disagreements. Certainly no talk of abuse or illegality, because there is none.

If this were a thread about the merits of executive orders it wouldn't be in the media forum.

This thread is about Bob Schieffer and his mischaracterization of matters he is supposed to be reporting neutrally on. This is ongoing malfeasance on his part.

 

[hortysir]

Perhaps you missed it somehow amongst all the excitement and confusion, so let me repeat my question to you...

So are you asserting that you yourself are AGAINST Executive Orders in general? No matter WHO the President is?

Is that it?

Though not asked of me, I'll throw my opinion against the wall;

It would depend on the intent of said EO.
If used to circumvent the separation of powers, YES
If not, NO

The power has been granted to the President for a reason.

Whether it be used to "circumvent the separation of powers" or not, the power is there and it's legal.

Common sense tells us that when it's used by the other side, a partisan is going to view it as abuse, that, however, does not make it true.

The important thing in this issue is whether it's legal or not, and as far as the Constitution stands, it's a legal power granted to the President.

So unless one is against it totally in principle, there should be no disagreements. Certainly no talk of abuse or illegality, because there is none.

And, regardless of its intent, it can easily be cancelled out by his predecessor

 

[LoneLaugher]

The subject of Obama's executive actions was broached and Schieffer said that Obama has used the executive power sparingly up until now, much less than his recent predecessors.

I just about choked. Walked out of the room. CBS lost a viewer tonight. What a joke.

I'm so disgusted with and exhausted by Obama that I almost didn't tune in for the SOTU tonight, but I decided to go ahead and listen and then I was greeted with that whopper from Schieffer.

Give me a break!

He spoke truth.

 

[Amelia]

Perhaps liberals define "sparingly" differently from how the majority of the population does. I need a Liberal-to-English dictionary.