Interestingly, as has been his wont since running out of actual defenses for the president’s solutions to the nation’s problems, he appeals to the masses:
As I responded, I was thinking of my post from the other day (About that Recalcitrant, Do-Nothing Congress…):
I was thinking of Sargent’s recent use of the logical fallacy, Argumentum ad populum—Appeal to the Masses. (Which is a bit unfair in this context because in his post, Sargent was talking about one of the president’s strategies being re-connecting him with the public.)
Anyway, Sargent ignores that and just turns the tables:
What did I mean by that?
Interesting that he didn’t ask.
And there the conversation ended.
Which is true. But still doesn’t change my mind about trimming the Executive branch.
Then there’s this:
Here are some questions I have for my two journalist friends:
- If there isn’t something nefarious going on here, if Mr. Obama is simply planning to use the normal Executive Order process—why the hype? Why make it sound like the president is exercising powers in an incredibly unprecedented way? (Almost like Lincoln suspending habeas corpus?)
- After all this president and his appointees have done—political targeting by IRS, lying on an affidavit in order to tap a reporter’s phone, politicizing and corrupting the Office of Civil Rights, allowing thousands of weapons to be dispatched to Mexico and then lying to Congress about it…Why aren’t you suspicious of the president’s intentions in bypassing Congress and ruling by Executive Order?
Looks to me like this White House—and their many apologists among the press—can’t get their messaging straight.
My two favorite analyses of this ‘new’ approach by the president and his people:
John Dickerson in Slate—Obama’s MacGyver Moment
Ron Fournier in National Journal—A Pen, a Phone, and a Flailing President