Obama May Use Executive Order for Gun Reform...

Vice President Biden is expected to submit his recommendations to President Obama sometime next week with regard to what, if any, changes we should implement on the matter of guns. Earlier this week, Biden commented that an Executive order may be used to enforce these changes as opposed to using a piece of legislation that was debated on and ultimately passed through both chambers of Congress on its way to becoming law.

The outrage from the right has been loud and rather high pitched in reaction to the possible use of Executive Order (EO) by this Administration. The Drudge Report, for example, posted this photo and headline after word on the possible use of EO's came out:

Yes, those are pictures of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, two of the worst human beings in the history of the planet. And, there's this guy. James Yeager, CEO of a company called "Tactical Response" who expressed his feelings this way:

A perfectly healthy, sensible position, wouldn't you say? 

(NOTE: As of this afternoon, Mr. Yeager's gun licence was suspended for the remarks he made in the video above. Read the story here...)

We also saw talk show host Alex Jones of Infowars.com comment in general regarding gun laws on the Piers Morgan show on CNN earlier this week:

Sigh...

There seems to be this notion that if President Obama does use an executive order to make some changes in our gun laws, that it would be:

A) Outrageous

B) Unprecedented

C) An Anti-American abuse of power

It would be none of those things. Executive Orders have been utilized since the times of Lincoln and before. According to the National Archives, which has tracked every Presidential executive order since 1937, Obama seems to use the privilege less than most recent President's have. 

As of late last Fall, Obama has used EO's 140 times. Compare that to these other President's:

GW Bush - 291 in 8 years...

Clinton - 364 in 8 years...

Bush Sr. - 166 in 4 years...

Reagan - 366 in 8 years...

Carter - 320 in 4 years...

Nixon, LBJ - both over 300...

Eisenhower - was over 500...

Truman - well over 900...

At this rate, Obama is on pace to use fewer EO's than any full term POTUS except George H. W. Bush did since tracking began. Is this the abuse of a dictator? Not hardly. Presidents can not overturn any Amendment to the Constitution that they feel like. Congress has the right to veto the order with a 2/3rds majority vote from both houses. Congress may also elect to deny funding to any executive order being fulfilled. The order can be appealed to the Supreme Court, in fact. Long term, if nothing is able to reverse an EO, it can simply be repealed by the next President who takes office. Simple. We don't need people like Mr. Yeager to take up arms against other Americans to defeat it. We're civilized and the right answer is rarely found with a gun. 

There is another take on this subject, one that I haven't seen or read much about. The politics of this are interesting. Imagine you are a Republican up for re-election in an area where the Tea Party is a presence but not in the majority just yet. You support your constituents usually but there have been whispers from your right (from the tea partiers who would love to get your seat next election) that you are not conservative enough.

You also realize that with the Obama Administration winning most of the year-end fiscal cliff battle, that Congress, especially the House, is in no mood to cooperate on anything until spending is addressed in a meaningful way. Certainly not a proposal that even remotely infringes on the Second Amendment.  Even if the Biden recommendations are nothing more than increased background checks, close the gun-show loophole and increased mental health funding, (all pretty easy to swallow reforms), how could Mr. GOP in a tea party area support such a Bill? It would be safer for that Congressman's career to reject it, be able to fight the tea party challenge on a different issue and keep the Republican leadership happy at the same time. Understand, this person wouldn't have voted against this proposal because of any credible reason except for politics. Courage, it seems, is over-rated in politics these days.

Should the Obama Administration decide to use executive orders to strengthen our gun laws with the hopes of avoiding another mass shooting, it takes it off the political table for now. For moderate republicans who may support the changes, they won't have to publicly speak in favor of it. or go on record as having voted for it. With the current dynamics between this President and the current Congress being what they are, an executive order may be the best, perhaps the only way to implement meaningful reforms. 

In a recent Gallup poll, most Americans seem to want stricter gun laws, but oppose an outright ban. If the Congress can't/won't put everything else aside and agree to work together on this, then I applaud President Obama for leading on this issue and getting some common sense measures put into place. One caveat, I do think the President should give Congress the chance to vote on his proposal. Yes, many may likely say why vote for this when we know Obama will put this into place via EO if it fails to pass Congress? The reason? To get these Congressmen and women on the record. Obama takes the high road and gives Congress a chance to participate in the action. If they agree, terrific. If they don't, at some date in the future Obama implements all of the proposals via executive order. The Congress can complain all the want, but their chance will have come and gone. If they won't lead, I suspect President Obama will. 

Sources: 

http://www.tacticalresponse.com/d/instructorYeager

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics

Vice Presidential Debate Recap...

Tonight's debate between  Vice President Joe Biden and Republican nominee Paul Ryan was clearly superior to last week's round one match-up between Messrs. Obama and Romney. The ninety minute seated discussion ranged across a variety of issues including Libya, Iran the economy, taxes, and foreign policy. The event was moderated by veteran reporter, Martha Raddatz, who I thought was very good.

First of all, I should announce that we actually had two people on stage that seemed interested in making their cases to the American people. Joe Biden was clearly locked and loaded and came out of the gate hard, as expected. Paul Ryan was composed, focused and similarly had a lot to say. From an optics perspective, however, Mr. Biden dominated the debate. That's not to say he won the debate, though I do think it was a slight but clear win for the VP.

I felt Biden was more direct with his answers than Ryan was through most of the evening. That said the VP dodged the opening question of the evening about the security issues in Banghazi two weeks ago, opting instead to detail a broader/safer themed response about this Administration pledging to hold those responsible for these attacks and that via an in-house review, whatever mistakes were made, will not be repeated. Ryan also chose not to answer direct questions about the Romney tax plan by (still) not providing any details about what loopholes would be cut, instead preferring to comment on the value of "bi-partisanship," which I thought was pretty brassy.

Demeanor wise, Mr. Ryan was very appropriate, professional and reasonable with his physical self. Mr. Biden was, at times, too animated. The VP laughed and chuckled a lot during the Ryan responses and after a few moments it became uncomfortable and a bit distracting. Was Biden laughing at the younger man? Trying to portray some opinion of his opponents comments? Something else? Whatever the case, he took it too far and will receive some heat for his conduct. Which on one hand I understand, yet for the Republican party, which hasn't exactly behaved like choir boys during President Obama's first term, to cry foul, is pathetic.

Stylistically, to my eyes, Mr. Biden seemed more confident, quick and Presidential. Mr. Ryan certainly didn't embarrass himself and this experience will likely serve as a warm-up act for 2016. I think both men are nice guys, both perhaps warmer and more genuine than the upper halves of their respective tickets. I would've like to seen less chortling from Biden and more details from Ryan.

Biden's job tonight was to steady the ship for his boss, which I'd say he clearly did. Ryan's job was to not say anything severely stupid, which I'd say he also did. Debates between Vice Presidential candidates don't usually make that much of an impact on the election. Remember when Democratic VP nominee Lloyd Bentsen bitch-slapped Dan Quayle with the "you're no Jack Kennedy" line? Bentsen's boss, Mike Dukakis got crushed by George Bush, Sr.

Twitter reported far fewer tweets during this debate than in the presidential debate from last week. Last week, twitter says that 10.3 Million tweets went out during the Obama/Romney debate, versus just 3.5 million for tonight's debate.

Bottom line, Biden comes out ahead because of a high quality set of answers. Ryan didn't really hurt himself or his ticket-mate. I think the polls will begin to reverse back in Mister Obama's direction by the time of the next presidential debate, next Tuesday.

A few words on the Republican / Democratic Conventions...

I have no essay prepared for either political convention. I have no long-winded thoughts to share on either Party's group hugfest. These are nothing more than political pep rallies where each Party will demonize the other Party's nominee's to no end, describe the fall of a nation that will surely transpire if "fill in the blank" is or isn't elected. This election will be described as the most important election in our lifetimes. There will be praise aimed at the nominees from each of their Party's-much of which is undeserved. 

This week, if you're a Republican or to a lessor degree a Conservative, you'll probably enjoy the speeches, the feigned drama, etc. unfolding in Tampa. You'll hear all the great things about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and all the terrible things about Barack Obama and Joe Biden. You'll hear countless speeches from fellow Party members all basically saying the same things. There is a Party line that needs to be adhered to, and woe to anyone (Todd Akin?) who wanders too far off the reservation. 

Next week, if you're a Democrat or to a lessor degree a Progressive, you'll probably enjoy the speeches, the feigned drama, etc. unfolding in Charlotte. You'll hear all the great things about Barack Obama and Joe Biden and all the terrible things about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. You'll hear countless speeches from fellow Party members all basically saying the same things. There is a Party line that needs to be adhered to, and woe to anyone (Joe Biden?) who wanders too far off the reservation. 

We'll meet Mrs. Romney and Mrs. Obama. Both will take time to paint their husbands as the consummate husband, father, partner. They will share stories they reflect sides of their personalities that we don't often get to see. Mrs. Romney especially will drive home the warmth and character of her husband, who has been portrayed as a cold, money-grabbing sort. The real Mr. Romney lies somewhere in between the two representations of him.

This week, various attack dogs will be unleashed upon Barack Obama's record. Tonight Rick Santorum and then in the headliner speech of the evening, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will pull no punches. I suspect Mr. Santorum will address Obama's alleged "war on religion", while Christie hammers him on everything else. (This is batting practice for Christie...I suspect it to be quite rough and the crowd to be in an absolute frenzy by the time he's done.)

Next week, various attack dogs from the Left will attack the Romney/Ryan ticket with equal fervor. I'm not sure of the order, but we'll be hearing from former President Bill Clinton, former Chief of Staff and current Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel, plus Elizabeth Warren, Caroline Kennedy and Sandra Fluke. (I suspect Emanuel will be the Democratic attack dog...)

There is no question as to whom each Party will officially nominate as its candidate. None. There will be a slight bump in the polls, a temporary one, for each candidate after the conventions are over. I'm aware of no political scientist or pundit who feels the election will be won or lost over the next two weeks. Yes, if Romney can re-introduce himself as a caring, compassionate, warm, capable executive it'll help his cause. If he can't, it won't help his cause. Barack Obama is mostly well-known to his supporters and has no such challenge before him. I suppose in that vein, the Convention is more important to Mr. Romney than it is to Mr. Obama. 

After the Conventions, we'll spend a month of more stump speeches and a few interviews, which bring us to the debates, the first of which is scheduled for Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012. There will be two additional Presidential Debates and one Vice Presidential Debate by October 22, 2012. 

The debates will be far more important to determining the outcome on Election Day than either of the Conventions. I caution supporters on both sides of the debate to take the next two weeks with a grain of salt. They are pep rallies and you're supposed to walk away from those feeling like there's no way in the world your team candidate can lose. Republican's will be on cloud nine by late Thursday evening, as Democrats will be by late next week. Look for a heightened level of rhetoric on facebook and your favorite message boards. Take that too with a grain of salt. Or put another way, I'll share a favorite quote from Mr. Shakespeare:

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing. — Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5, lines 17-28)

Does Paul Ryan Increase Mitt Romney's Chance At Winning?

In a word, yes.

Since being selected by Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan has elevated the general tone and focus of the campaign. We now hear daily sound bites on Medicare, which has not been traditional GOP fare during campaigns for the highest office in the land. That would've been hard to imagine a few months ago.

I have watched and listened to Ryan's performance on the stump over the last few days and I must admit, I'm pretty impressed. I've known for a few years he's a smart man, well versed in the wonky world of congressional budgets and financial forecasts. I've known for a few years he's well regarded as a "serious guy" in Washington D.C. and has a reputation for doing the hard fiscal foundational work that leaves so many politicians running the other way. He has a reputation of not only being good at the numbers, but enjoying that type work. In addition to brains, he possesses a certain charm and likability that will serve both he and Mr. Romney very well over the next few months in the run-up to Election day.

This is the second Republican ticket in a row where the light and energy seems to be coming from the bottom  half of the ticket versus the upper half. In 2008 we saw a relative unknown politician from Alaska named Sarah Palin explode onto the scene and create such an excitement that neither the media, or Mrs. Palin could barely contain themselves. The situation this year isn't quite so flashy or sparkly, but Mr. Romney isn't complaining. The biggest difference between Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan is that Palin wound up needing to be "brought up to speed" on a plethora of basic issues ranging from economics, foreign policy and so on. Simple questions so baffled her that she looked foolish. The campaign wasn't blameless. First off, they picked her with more concern about the splash she might make to help a struggling John McCain than her experience or knowledge. It was a train wreck with both sides pointing fingers at the other one before it was all said and done.

Mr. Ryan hasn't been hiding out in Alaska these last thirteen years. He's been an up and coming legislator representing Wisconsin's 1st District and ascending the ladder in terms of position and power in the House. Now Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Ryan takes a back seat to no one in terms of a high level of understanding on national fiscal matters. Safe to say, comparing Ryan to Palin, Ryan is the hands down stronger more competent addition to the ticket.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Usually a VP candidate will add some constituency to the top half of the ticket's support. Sarah Palin brought along the far right conservatives who weren't enamored with John McCain and the same argument could be (easily) made this time. Romney seems to be in the active process of "converting" to a more conservative stance on many issues, whereas Ryan has already planted his flag well right of the former Governor. At first glance, the far right, conventional wisdom tells us, will flock to Romney because of his more conservative partner. The problem with that line of reasoning is that the far right is already so determined, so energized to replace Barack Obama that I say their votes are mostly unaffected by Ryan joining the ticket. This is not a voting block that was ever up for grabs. Romney already has these votes in his pocket. Ryan doesn't help with this group.

Its not a lock that Ryan will be able to bring the Badger's State ten electoral votes with him in November. Wisconsin swung hard right in the 2010 mid terms, but keep in mind Barack Obama won Wisconsin in '08. Currently, the State is considered a toss-up for November.

Ryan has very little meaningful work or business experience other than his career in D.C. So, there's no big labor block that will follow him to Romney's benefit. He never served in the military, so beyond voting consistently to grow the size of the armed forces, there's no strong connection there to gain from.

There's plenty of reasons why Ryan may have been a risky pick. He's too wonky, his controversial stances on privatizing Social Security. His Medicare/Medicaid plans contained within his budget proposal are viewed as too severe by many. His votes of support for the Medicare Advantage fiasco, which added to the deficit and his votes in support of President Obama's stimulus package turn a lot of conservatives off. His public admiration for Ayn Rand may be offensive to many on the religious right. Ryan is a practicing Catholic and with Romney being a Morman, its been postulated that not having a traditional Protestant Christian on the ticket might hurt them in the General. Neither man has any military experience, which is rare and hasn't happened in 80 years for a national level presidential ticket for either party.

I wouldn't worry however if you're a Romney/Ryan fan. Once again, those constituencies of conservatives
won't let a few small issues like those get in the way of them voting against Obama. They folks aren't staying home in November and there's not a chance in hell they'll cross over and vote Democrat. Again, in spite of any of these shortcomings, they're not big enough to work against the Romney campaign. Remember a vote for Romney is no bigger than a vote against Obama.

Even those who point out some of Romney/Ryan's mis-representations about what President Obama's health care program, the Affordable Care Act, does or doesn't do, especially with regard to Medicare, in the end, I don't think will be a problem. The ACA when broken down into its various components polls well, but when bundled under the "Obamacare" label, support falls. Its not rational, but its a reality. Romney and Ryan both know this and will continue to beat the drum of vagueness for as long as they possibly can. Let Obama try to explain why or how we're misrepresenting his Socialist healthcare program. The ACA is wonky, dense stuff that bores people to tears. Its like cake. The good for you, healthy tastes like crap cake doesn't usually fare well against the cake loaded with fat grams, sugar and binding agents (that may cause anal leakage) but tastes great, does it?

With the national polls too close to call, it won't take much of a swing for one candidate to move ahead of the other. If the undecided independent voters, I say, vote with their hearts and feelings- I think that bodes very, very well for Romney/Ryan. If they are somehow turned off by the R&R campaign, and are willing to seriously dig below the surface and fact check the campaign ads and rhetoric, then I think it bodes well for the incumbent. My faith that the undecideds are likely to do the heavy lifting isn't very high. Other factors like the unemployment rate, pocketbook issues, something terrorist related occurs, then all bets are off.

Bottom line, while Paul Ryan is far more knowledgeable and serious than Palin ever was, he will pick his spots carefully on providing details. The less details he or Romney release, the harder it is for President to attack them. The convention will provide an emotional lift for the ticket and the debates will also be important in how the two sides find themselves heading into November. I suspect Obama will do well against Mr. Romney, but I tend to think Joe Biden will have his hands full with Ryan. Biden knows his way around a debate but he better plan on a more worthy opponent than he faced the last time. Ryan is a gifted public speaker, perhaps even more skilled than his new boss is.

In summary, two weeks ago the Romney campaign was slowly but surely losing ground to Obama. Now, with the addition of Paul Ryan, Romney seems stronger, more confident, more...Presidential perhaps. If he had chosen almost any of the fellow GOP-ers he defeated during the primary season, I would put him at a huge disadvantage heading into the conventions. Can you imagine Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Michelle  Bachmann as his running mate? They would've been laughed at. It was reported shortly after the Ryan selection became official that the Democrats were delighted that Paul Ryan was chosen. Most likely that was posturing, predictable posturing at that.

The President has his hands full, and Mitt Romney's chances of sending Mr. Obama back to Chicago have improved greatly with the addition of Paul Ryan to the ticket.


Sources:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/25/505526/poll-most-americans-support-obamacare-provisions/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=277385

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/some-campaign-clarifications-on-medicare/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

VP Biden Remarks for Gold Star Families...

Vice President Joe Biden was asked to give some remarks at a recent meeting of Gold Star Families for Peace, families who have lost a loved one who had been serving in the United States military in the Iraq war. Biden has a unique experience that certainly qualifies him to be a compelling speaker for such a group as Gold Star. Forty years ago his wife and daughter where both killed in an auto accident when a tractor trailer broadsided his wife's car.

Vice President Biden's comments:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Its not often I find a politician's comments to be so genuine, so heartfelt as Mr. Biden's were. Perhaps this was all just a dog and pony show, but I doubt it. I think losing your wife and little girl in the way he did leaves a mark on a man, that never goes away. I thought it very giving of him to share his experience, his feelings, his anger, etc. with the families that no doubt all have felt many of the same emotions.

I think Mr. Biden is probably one helluva of a decent guy. Who cares if he goes off script sometimes? He speaks from the heart, and doesn't seem to always be looking out for himself. (I say that because Biden is widely known as one of the "poorer" politicians in Washington DC.) I really respected what he said and how he said it to this group. From various reports I've heard on the event, the audience was blown away by the VP's remarks. They loved them.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Star_Families_for_Peace

http://www.gsfp.org/