POTUS on Today:
During an interview that aired Monday on NBC’s “Today” show, President Obama said that he gets “better as time goes on” at his job and that he believes the grassroots movement that propelled him to victory in 2008 will help him win a second term.
“What’s frustrated people is that I’ve not been able to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes. But what we have been able to do is move in the right direction,” Obama said.
“And you know what? One of the things about being president is you get better as time goes on,” he added.
The laugh line is POTUS saying he’s “get[ting] better” at the presidency “as time goes on.” Hey, at this rate he’ll be Lincoln by the end of his fifth term! But the real head-scratcher is the highlighted bit about Obama’s dissatisfaction with our institutional order, which he appears to view as a hindrance to the implementation of hopeychangism. It seems like Obama has been saying things like this at a regular frequency for three years, and besides getting the requisite knock by the likes of us, hasn’t really been asked to account for it.
I don’t think his comments betray the president as a secret Red or anything, but the plain meaning of them is that there are things about the separation of powers, and maybe other parts of the Constitutional order, that he would change. I’d like to see him asked to clarify at one of the debates in the general. Mr. President, if you could tweak the Founders vision anyway you wanted, what would you do?
"Repeal the XXII Amendment!" LOL
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Mr. President, if you could tweak the Founders vision anyway you wanted, what would you do?"
President Obama never said he wanted to change the Constitution. He said the checks and balances inherent in it sometimes prevent anything positive from getting done.
Exhibit A. This last year since the Republicans took control of the House, Congress has been a totally dysfunctional mess unable to get anything significant done on behalf of the American people. Now, this is due just as much to dysfunctional Republican freshman who are totally irresponsible and do not understand that governing under a system of checks and balances requires compromise as it is to the system of checks and balances itself.
That is, when you have a bunch of naive and idiotic freshman lawmakers who think they can overcome checks and balances through force of will alone, the result will not be pretty.
In any case, if this imperfect system of checks and balances we have has benefits, it also has costs.
I will answer your question though.
One way we could make progress is by eliminating means of dysfunctional obstruction that were never intended by the Framers. Exhibit A: the filibuster.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDavid:
1. You assume that it is the government's job to "get significant things done on behalf of the American people." Newsflash: Not everyone does.
2. He didn't mention the filibuster. He mentioned the Founders.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Exhibit A. This last year since the Republicans took control of the House, Congress has been a totally dysfunctional mess unable to get anything significant done on behalf of the American people."
Am I not remembering correctly that the failure to PASS A BUDGET goes back *well* before the Republicans took control of the House last year, and continues through the in/action of the DEMOCRAT-controlled Senate since the R takeover of the House?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"He said the checks and balances inherent in it sometimes prevent anything positive from getting done."
Incorrect. That's what you inferred from what he said. He said, the "Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes." It's also notable that this isn't the first time Obama has lamented not being able to declare rules unilaterally.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse> the plain meaning of them is that there are things
> about the separation of powers, and maybe other
> parts of the Constitutional order, that he would change.
> I’d like to see him asked to clarify at one of the debates
> in the general. Mr. President, if you could tweak the
> Founders vision anyway you wanted, what would you do?
Part of it has nothing to do with the Founders, really.
E.g. the Senate filibuster has really been abused in recent years by the minority party (Democrats under Bush, Republicans under Obama) and it seems things will only get worse.
MARCUS
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeriously? You can't think of anything about the original Constitution that needed to be changed? (The people who ratified it did. They added the Bill of Rights.) You think every constitutional amendment since then - each of them "tweaking" the Founders' vision - was wrong?
More to the point, you don't think there's anything about the original Constitution that a black person would want to revise? Anything?
It's impossible to tell conservatism from a parody of conservatism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Bill of Rights did not "tweak" what the Founders' vision. It enhanced it.
Same with the 13th Amendment, 14th, 15th, the 19th, the 21st only because it gets rid of the 18th.
The 16th and the 17th are Progressive dreams to undermine the Constitution and the protections it gave to individual liberty. They did not enhance the Founders' vision.
Do you think the 18th was a good thing? Do you think it enhanced the Founders' vision?
Change is not good just for the sake of change. Depends on what you are changing to or changing from.
Use your brain.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseParody? It's downright hilarious how much you import into my post, if indeed it's my post you're replying to. I'd consider changing the Constitution in a number of ways, and nothing I wrote or implied suggested otherwise. I just wanted to know how the president would change it, since he seems to have something in mind.
Seriously, you inferred from my post (go back and read it again) that I think the unamended constitution is infallible, managed to make the issue about race, and then accused me of 'parodying' conservatism. You're working on some next level stuff here!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAfter he blamed Nixon for putting NOAA at the Commerce Dept I made a joke about "next hell be blaming Warren Harding for something". Instead he's expedited the process and is now simply blaming the founders. I suppose that's progress. Having to watch him over the next few months may even convince to show up and vote for Romney. That must be what Rove et al are betting on. These Democrats, like General McClellan, always bring themselves to the fight.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe thing that strikes me is that his words come across as if he was surprised to learn about the separation of powers after he became president.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, it would be nice if he were challenged on how he'd like to change the system. I'd like to see him challenged on his expressions of surprise about how it works, as well. Isn't he supposed to have been a "Constitutional law professor?" Shouldn't he have had a pretty good understanding of how it worked before holding the office?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes."
THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly....It's a feature, not a flaw!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere did he say he wanted to change the system of checks-and-balances? The "But it turns out..." isn't about his own understanding, its his effort to rationalize to his own side (those who are "frustrated") why he has disappointed many of them. He's not saying he wants to change the Constitution, he's telling Democrats to be patient and realistic. But moreover, you don't think Paul Ryan sometimes wishes it was less difficult to implement his plan? Doesn't mean he wants to change the Constitution either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe self declared constitutional scholar wasn't aware that the constitution deliberately made it difficult to make radical changes?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the President was speaking about the filibuster. Why does the Senate have to have a super-majority (60%) to pass everything? It's anti-democratic. The filibuster guards established interests, and prevents change. As was mentioned above, it has been abused by both the right and the left. We're in a representative democracy and, last time I checked, that meant majority rule not super-majority rule.
I'm on the left, and want to thank Daniel to taking comments from both sides of the debate. It hasn't always been done by other NRO posters. It gives me more reason to go to NRO to read the opinions and the comments, and add my own opinions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUgh... the Obama Derangement Syndrome in all its glory. The gibberish regurgitated by our friend Daniel Foster is not even worth commenting on so very silly that they are.
I think the President has gotten better. He no longer entertains the crazy notion that the GOP would want to work with him on anything that might give him a slight success. He now realizes, albeit belatedly, that the GOP puts party over country every time. If anyone thinks that the GOP wishes the economy to improve at this point in time, well then I have a very handsome bridge here in Brooklyn that I may be able to interest you in.
No. the obstructionist, do nothing, 11% approval Congress is not going to work with you Mr. President, even on bills that they themselves had championed in the past, I am very glad that you now see that and move forward accordingly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1. The Bill of Rights was a deal to appease the Anti-Federalists. It was a deal in order for the Federalists to agree to ratify the constitution. Many of the Anti-Federalists were afraid that the federal government was given too much power.
2. You can argue about it all you want, but this statement: "Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes." is just about as debateable as it gets. A plethora of issues such as the elastic clause come into play here. I would tend to argue that with the broad view or any view of the constitution, things are fairly easy to "change" at this point in type, but what do I know. He basically said the "founders made a system that makes things difficult to change". This is both true and false, and no one can give a straight or correct answer.
3. It is simply another excuse for failing to accomplish the goals he foolishly said he would in 2008. Blaming Bush might get old, or maybe the people do not believe it anymore. Blaming republicans does not always work because they had the A team democrat squad in congress from 2008-2010. So the only thing left is the constitution. He has proven he is not a big fan of it with some of his actions, and now he may as well use words to express it. Also, due to the fact that we learn government from a football coach in high school, many Americans have no idea who to blame. If you do not believe this, go to google, type in "why do democrats" or "why do republicans" or "is president obama" and see what pops up in the magical crystal ball box.
Let's just hope over 50 percent of voters use the retrospective voting method in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWatch the video. He has been quoted inaccurately. What he actually said is even worse:
"What’s frustrated people is that I’ve not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008."
Force Congress to implement?
That pesky separation of powers!
Check it out for yourself (start at about the 6:20 mark):
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link