Don't Ask Don't Tell and Presidential Power

A perfect example of a President making a promise during an election that they needed Congress to help keep was when Obama campaigned in the 2008 election on the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT). This policy was originally passed during the Clinton administration, and essentially states that a homosexual person may serve in the military, as long as they are not open about their sexuality. With the issue of legal gay marriage becoming more prominent, the overt discrimination in DADT became a more prominent issue as well. The debate is heated, and also shows the President’s dependence on Congress.

During MTV’s recent broadcast “Conversation with the President,” Obama answers a question from a woman asking why he does not end the law with an executive order, as Truman had done to desegregate the military in 1948. He also points out that in the law, it is specifically written that the president cannot use an Executive order to repeal it, and he also tells the woman that “it will end on my watch.”

The video of this exchange can be found here.

Why would Obama walk around saying that it will be repealed when he honestly has no power on this one? This is interesting, because in his previous state of the Union Address, he acknowledges that he is going to work with Congress. But he doesn’t say that he is dependent on them.

During the recent MTV town hall meeting, he states that the Senate could lift the restriction on the Executive Order so he could issue it. Enter John McCain. All it takes for Obama to look like a stagnant leader and a like President who is not producing the promised drastic change is a measly filibuster. Now Obama has to wait until McCain is no longer willing to filibuster the repeal of the policy to even make headway. Since Obama can’t repeal it, McCain and others against the repeal are refusing to repeal it, the only avenue left at this point for repeal is the court system.

On October 12, 2010, a federal judge in California ruled to stop the enforcement of DADT. The Obama administration has appealed this ruling, which can easily seem contradictory. But since this is a very complicated situation, one has to think critically about the decision. For a decision to really be in effect for the entire country, it makes sense that the Supreme Court should make the decision to suspend enforcement of the policy.

To read one soldier’s story of what it is like to serve in the military while gay, click here

Deepwater Drilling Moratorium Lifted

The Obama Administration lifted its moratorium on offshore drilling Tuesday afternoon. The move comes in the wake of an oil spill caused by a BP drilling station that devastated the Gulf Coast. In spite of the environmental consequences, Gulf area politicians and citizens alike largely opposed the moratorium, which resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. The end of the moratorium brings with it new regulations on maintenance and observation of drilling sites, as well as stricter guidelines of emergency procedures such as fail safes and cashing wells. Support for the administration's decision has been limited and mixed.
As Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal points out, the moratorium was intended for deep-water drilling but since April only 12 new shallow water permits have been issued. The slowing of the federal review process has inhibited the process of all domestic drilling. Many companies are expected to object to the new regulations, but federal officials say there is no going back to 'business as usual'. Louisiana Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu has a lock on Obama's nomination of Jack Lew as his new director of the Office of Management and Budget; one she's refused to lift until the moratorium is finished. She still refuses to lift her lock, claiming she needs to examine how the OMB will handle new contracts before she'll consent to nominating a director in the midst of re-organization.
Of course the administration's decision has it detractors. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist opposes the lift on the grounds that until real investigation and problem-solving can be completed on the devastating BP spill. He claims that while the process of claims and repair on the coast cripples business, it's not appropriate to restart deepwater drilling regardless of new precautions. Natural Resources Defense Council executive director Peter Lehner called the action premature. He claims prevention is the most important tool available. Until we understand the damage of the spill and why it happened initially, we should not risk another disaster. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar responded by saying ""The truth is, there will always be risks associated with deepwater drilling, but we have now reached a point where we have, significantly, in my view, reduced those risks,"
This decision reflects the ability of a president to seize and consolidate power during times of crisis. Be it through rally around the flag ideals, a surge in sympathy or patriotism, or classic support for leadership executives often grow in strength during times of need. Unfortunately for Obama, Hurricane Katrina and the ensuing economic difficulties in the Gulf and nationwide have his approval ratings low. His attempt to reconcile the dangers of continued drilling with the need for oil industry workers to earn was seen as arbitrary and short-sighted. Our classic respect for leadership has declined steadily since an increase in media exposure rendered the White House less formal. There were no prescribed solutions for this disaster and both the government and BP came out looking unprepared, ineffectual, and poorly managed.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/12/news/companies/deepwater_drilling_moratorium_lifted.fortune/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/10/12/130515423/deepwater-drilling-ban-no-political-plus-for-obama
http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article703915.ece/US-lifts-moratorium-on-deepwater-oil-drilling
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Lifts-Ban-on-Deepwater-Oil-Drilling-104807834.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/us/13drill.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hD3eceN6XYCd91U0H_GAfAKgJ96AD9IQC8AO3?docId=D9IQC8AO3

Advocacy Groups and Transparency

527 and 501 advocacy groups have become more of an issue in today’s politics. Individual contributors giving money to their candidate is one thing but the combined efforts of a company or group that far outweigh the efforts of a few individuals is quite another. Companies especially often only hold interests in the field of profit and are less inclined to the good of society as a whole. To mark these groups as having the same rights as individuals and then preventing the public from seeing what interests these groups serve creates a lack of transparency that Americans want in politics.

            In recent campaign appearances, President Obama has called for Democrats to contribute in an effort to match the money that is being given to the Republican Party (Cooper). He also mentioned a report by the Center for American Progress that asserted that the Chamber of Commerce may be mixing money from foreign contributors in with its domestic funds in its payments for political advertisements and other activities, allowing for foreign influence on our elections (Cooper). Foreign influence is the last thing that the American people want in their elections of law makers as that kind of conduct could paralyze the country in any foreign policy that has to do with a country that has a now “vested interest” in some of our leaders. This is the extreme but it is something that must be considered carefully and guarded against to prevent things from getting out of control.

            More of a realistic problem is private companies that conduct business at the expense of the American people having more of a say in government in an order to sway it in their direction. Recently President Obama refused to sign a bill that was criticized that it could facilitate foreclosure fraud (Calmes and Streitfeld). The Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform called for lenders to voluntarily suspend foreclosures until their internal investigations are completed (Calmes and Steitfeld). Is it not possible that some companies may want to contribute towards candidates that will try and override the president’s veto if it allows them more leeway in conducting their business? This specific case may not be a problem but it shows how companies who have a stake in legislation passed concerning their field of business may want to work towards promoting a candidate more favorable to their interests.

            In American industries there is a need for transparency to prevent a powerful corporation from abusing its power. The same is true of American government. If people are aware of illegalities taking place, action is more likely to be taken. This process acts as a deterrent for most companies if they are ever tempted. If government is subject to heavy corporate influence then that transparency is lost along with accountability. Governments should certainly consider the needs of industry as they help make this country strong and provide goods, services, and jobs for American citizens. There is balance that must be maintained and a standard that must be upheld.

Calmes, Jackie, and David Streitfeld. "Obama to Veto Bill That Could Speed Foreclosures." The

New York Times 08 Oct. 2010, New York ed., B1 sec. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 07 Oct. 2010. Web. 09 Oct. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/business/08mortgage.html?ref=politics>.

Cooper, Helene. "Obama Calls for Voters to Outweigh Outside Money." The New York Times 08

Oct. 2010, New York ed., A16 sec. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 07 Oct. 2010. Web. 09 Oct. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/us/politics/08campaign.html?ref=politics>.

Largest wind farm should spark government interest

When it comes to agendas and presidential policies the environment is always at the forefront of discussion. Two weeks ago the worlds largest wind farm just opened, not in the US but rather in England. This large wind farm is located in the North Sea about seven miles off the coast of Kent, England. The energy company Vattenfall is in charge of the construction and operation of the farm. The farm is composed of 100 wind turbines which will create enough power for about 200,000 homes. The UK has enough land and offshore wind turbines to produce enough energy to power all the homes in Scotland.

I find energy consumption and how we acquire our energy to be interesting and important. I think this wind farm shows that renewable energy is a legitimate source and is really just starting to be explored. I think this article shows that renewable energy is for real just on the fact they can power all the homes in Scotland on strictly wind power. Here in the US I think we are falling behind other countries especially compared to other developed nations. I find this opening of this wind farm as a model for the rest of the developed nation to use. The Obama administration can use this farm as a model to show how efficient wind power is. Its not just wind power but also other renewable energy sources such as solar power, tidal power, and geothermal power are all legitimate sources that help in curbing our carbon out put. Right now the US is and has been falling behind in renewable energy.

After this past summer the images of an oil ruined gulf are still fresh in my head. Its time to look into renewable energy for real enough of this talk . Personally I do not believe our government did enough with this man made disaster. They should of had a ship called the USS Obama out in the gulf skimming the gulf for oil. Obviously that was a joke but seriously this is the time to jump on the renewable energy band wagon and use the gulf oil spill as a image to convey it. The presidents way of combating pollution is the recovery act. The act includes $80 billion in the generation of renewable energy such as expanding maufacturing for clean energy, advancements in vehicles, and bulding a smart/ more efficent power grid. This is all stated on whiteouse. gov. I like how this policy claims all these important ideas but what I want to see is progress. Progress would be putting up the cape wind farm, I get that its not that large of a wind farm and could have effects on the fishing down on the cape but I see as it as a symbol. I get progress does not happen over night but when you see something actually functioning it gets the ball rolling. Eighty million dollars is alot of money being pumped into renewable and cleaner energy projects so in that aspect the Obama administration has done a decent job providing the funds for these projects.

Renewable energy creates innovative jobs and these projects can be made by American companies, there should be no outsourcing here. The main point of me blogging tonite was to show that renewable energy is real and its not being headlined by the US but by European countries. I belive is up to us and our government to really step up. Its time to make this real, wether it be wind solar or tidal power. We have the technology, we need the jobs its almost like killing two birds with one stone. We rely on energy, without it we would plunge into a third world country within weeks. The Obama administration has the funding its time to make this happen and once we complete a massive wind far it will show how well it works and in return help the administration succed in there environmental policy.
Sources:
http://technorati.com/lifestyle/green/article/worlds-largest-wind-farm-now-operational/
www.whitehouse.gov/issues/energy-and-environment
Used both Websites

The President has multiple roles and it takes a great deal to fulfill these roles, especially when one considers the ever-changing tide of public opinion and always shifting party rhetoric. Currently President Obama is actively working to fulfill his presidential roles though he is only one man and as such can only do so much at one time. In trying to meet several goals at once, President Obama is trying to energize Democratic voters to get them to vote in the upcoming midterm elections. Some in the Democratic Party have criticized Obama for not being as driven in this campaign as he was in his presidential race. I must admit this seems a little unfair as that was the presidency and it was his campaign to run. Yes he should be supportive of his own party as it helps him in the long run but these elections are for those in Congress to run and they shouldn’t have to rely heavily on the president. Maybe the Democrats should step up their strategy and stop letting the Republicans have all the say. In trying to get Democratic voters to vote, President Obama is fulfilling his role as party/opinion leader as well as partly carrying out his duty as a legislative leader in trying to form a “friendly” Congress that will make it easier for him to pass his legislation. Should this be a major issue concerning the Obama Administration or are there more pressing issues? Is this advanced planning of his own reelection more strategically sound or does it betray a lack of confidence in the party?

            In trying to carry out the role of Commander and Chief, President Obama has had a real problem in Afghanistan. The book “Obama’s War” by Bob Woodward, according to Peter Baker of the New York Times, shows that the strategy in Afghanistan seems to be more about extracting the US from its involvement there. It is strange how this war has been labeled Obama’s war because he did not start this conflict and is trying to finish it. Obviously the history of Afghanistan doesn’t give much hope for America leaving it with pride or even a sense of accomplishment. Do you think that Obama should just look for an exit strategy in Afghanistan or should he maintain a policy of staying there to accomplish what we “set out to do”? Do you defend or oppose more troops? Will it be like Vietnam if we gradually increase the number of soldiers or should we stop at a certain troop level to prevent ourselves from being sucked into a bigger conflict similar to what happened in Vietnam?

            Concerning the role of Chief Diplomat, the Mid-East peace talks between Israel and Palestine are starting to deteriorate again. A week seems to be about all the time that is left for those involved to find a solution to the continuation of expansion of Israeli settlements. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are taking active roles in trying to promote peace between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. The Obama administration certainly has taken steps in urging both sides to remain with the peace talks but Obama himself isn’t taken an active role in visiting with the two leaders Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas. How important are these peace talks? Are they more of a priority than the midterm elections? Both issues are pressing at the moment but with Americans so concerned about matters in the United States, more focus on Palestinian-Israeli peace talks would probably be frowned upon by the general public. The Republicans, with all their past stress on homeland security and these peace talks would be a part of securing us at home, would use it as another attack on the president for not letting the concerns of the American people take priority.

            The president has a role to play in making sure that the economy is running smoothly. This is going to be difficult in that his director of the National Economic Council, Lawrence H. Summers, is leaving his post. This will give the president the opportunity to restructure his economic team. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Is it too early to tell? With Rahm Emanuel leaving to run for mayor of Chicago and David Axelrod is leaving to begin working on President Obama’s re-election. Is this smart planning to get the ball rolling so soon? Such advance planning maybe what the Democrats as a whole need to do. The republicans are constantly letting their positions be known and are quick to jump and attack the other side for not fulfilling its promises. They do this with elections in mind, planting that doubt with the voters. With many leaders leaving there is a chance for the president to rearrange the bureaucracy and get some different policies going. Is this a good thing or should he stick to what he has going?  

           

Baker, Peter. "Woodward Book Says Afghanistan Divided White House." The New York Times

22 Sept. 2010, New York ed., A12 sec. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 21 Sept. 2010. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/world/asia/22policy.html?scp=1&sq=obama and the war in afghanistan&st=cse>.

Bronner, Ethan. "Diplomats Try to Save Mideast Talks." The New York Times 28 Sept. 2010,

New York ed., A10 sec. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 27 Sept. 2010. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/world/middleeast/28mideast.html?ref=middleeast>.

Feller, Ben. "Obama: Democratic Voter Apathy 'inexcusable' - Yahoo! News." Obama:

Democratic Voter Apathy 'inexcusable' 28 Sept. 2010. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_interview>.

Stolberg, Sheryl G. "Obama’s Economics Chief Is Set to Leave." The New York Times 22 Sept.

2010, New York ed., A1 sec. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 21 Sept. 2010. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/business/22summers.html?scp=1&sq=Obama%E2%80%99s%20Economics%20Chief%20Is%20Set%20to%20Leave&st=cse >.

Stolberg, Sheryl G. "Obama Puts Campaigning Back on His Agenda." The New York Times 28

Sept. 2010, New York ed., A20 sec. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 27 Sept. 2010. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/politics/28obama.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1285704126-NCaQ2H5MuMt6R4LLig940A>.