Podesta: Obama Can Use ‘Armed Forces’ to Push Progressive Agenda (WTF?!?)

The Blaze ^ | 11/18/10 | Jonathon Seidl

[My Favorite Headache]

The liberal Center for American Progress doesn’t believe significant GOP gains in the House and Senate should stop the President from implementing more of his polices. The group released a report Tuesday suggesting ways Obama can bypass Congress to accomplish a progressive agenda, and it cites the president’s power as commander-in-chief to make its point.

“I think most of the conversation since the election has been about how President Obama adjusts to the new situation on Capitol Hill,” Center for American Progress head and former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta told the Daily Caller. “While that’s an important conversation, it simply ignores the president’s ability to use all levels of his power and authority to move the country forward.”

How does one “move the country forward”? In the center’s report, Podesta explains that Obama can use executive orders, rulemaking, and even the armed forces “to accomplish important change” and that such means “should not be underestimated.”

What exactly does Podesta think the president should use such powers to “accomplish”? Among others, the report suggests “job creation,“ ”quality affordable health care,“ ”sustainable security,“ and ”a clean energy future.”

The report cites specific goals such as mitigating the effects of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, supporting a Palestinian state, and reducing greenhouse gasses by 17 percent by 2020.

“The U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation grant the president significant authority to make and implement policy,” Podesta writes. ”Congressional gridlock does not mean the federal government stands still.”

Statement from John D. Podesta November 15, 2010

In the aftermath of this month’s midterm congressional elections, pundits and politicians across the ideological spectrum are focusing on how difficult it will be for President Barack Obama to advance his policy priorities through Congress. Predictions of stalemate abound. And some debate whether the administration should tack to the left or to the center and compromise with or confront the new House leadership.

As a former White House chief of staff, I believe those to be the wrong preoccupations. President Obama’s ability to govern the country as chief executive presents an opportunity to demonstrate strength, resolve, and a capacity to get things done on a host of pressing challenges of importance to the public and our economy. Progress, not positioning, is what the public wants and deserves.

The U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation grant the president significant authority to make and implement policy. These authorities can be used to ensure positive progress on many of the key issues facing the country through:

* Executive orders * Rulemaking * Agency management * Convening and creating public-private partnerships * Commanding the armed forces * Diplomacy

The ability of President Obama to accomplish important change through these powers should not be underestimated. President Bush, for example, faced a divided Congress throughout most of his term in office, yet few can doubt his ability to craft a unique and deeply conservative agenda using every aspect of the policymaking apparatus at his disposal. And, after his party lost control of Congress in 1994, President Clinton used executive authority and convening power to make significant progressive change. For instance, he protected more great spaces in the lower 48 states than any president since Theodore Roosevelt, established for the first time significant protections for Americans’ medical privacy, and urged the creation of the Welfare-to-Work Partnership that enlisted the help of 20,000 businesses in moving more than 1 million welfare recipients into the workforce.

The upshot: Congressional gridlock does not mean the federal government stands still. This administration has a similar opportunity to use available executive authorities while also working with Congress where possible. At the Center for American Progress, we look forward to our nation continuing to make progress.

Read the full report (pdf)

Download the executive summary (pdf)

Download the report to e-readers and mobile devices from Scribd

To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

Print: Megan Smith (health care, education, economic policy) 202.741.6346 or msmith@americanprogress.org

Print: Anna Soellner (foreign policy and security, energy) asoellner@americanprogress.org

Print: Raúl Arce-Contreras (ethnic media, immigration) 202.478.5318 or rarcecontreras@americanprogress.org

Radio: Laura Pereyra 202.741.6258 or lpereyra@americanprogress.org

TV: Andrea Purse 202.741.6250 or apurse@americanprogress.org

Web: Erin Lindsay 202.741.6397 or elindsay@americanprogress.org http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/11/executive_orders.html/#statement

[opentalk]

I wonder if Center for American Progress is tax exempt. If so needs to be revoked.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Thanks!

[RoadTest]

“move the country forward”?

Wrong way, Corrigan. Go back to the Constitution.

[Gilbo_3]

yesSir, and when we have Generals who actually live to *fight*, ie Patton & McArthur, we get violence directed at whomever they are unleahed upon...

[stephenjohnbanker]

I’m surprised that somebody hasn’t kicked Podesta’s azz by now.

[mojitojoe]

Exactly. There’s a reason they never want those military ballots to be counted. They know exactly how the military votes.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

AS I have posted before,I worked with a young National Guardsman who stated most forcefully that he would not hesitate to bayonet American citizens engaged in passive resistance;so how ready do you think he would be to fire if given the order? And this is ANOTHER reason I think SWAT police teams are dangerous to liberty.

These are the 20% that frighten me.

And I'm more afraid of the SWAT adrenaline junkies turning their guns on us than I am of the military doing the same. Those guys have proven time and time again that they merely "follow orders," and don't give a flying f*ck about anything else.

[butterdezillion]

And I should say that I do think there is gray area. I recognize there’s a very thin tight-rope that has to be walked regarding obedience v accountability. I don’t envy anybody having to make those decisions. I would also feel safer with a US soldier than with just about anybody except my immediate family.

I do fear that the communists will bury their “progressive” moves inside some measures they justify for other reasons - just like Homeland Security defies the 4th Amendment for “security” reasons, even though we’re not gaining any security by these measures. And just like the DOJ defies the Constitution’s statement that the federal government needs to secure all the states from foreign invasion, by claiming that doing so in concrete ways is “discrimination”.

These people serve the Father of Lies, so that’s their native language, and with their sophistry they have already done incredible amounts of damage very quickly. I’m afraid that even honorable, well-intentioned people may easily be sucked into something beyond their control.

[PATRIOT1876]

*If you're a liberal, under what scenario could you possibly perceive that your side would be able to match a conservative force on the field of battle? It's our side that's all about private firearms ownership. It's our side that dominates the ranks in the military.*

I've posted that idea on the Internet a couple times on other sites.

When the Left threatens violence or killing of the patriots, I point out that they are afraid of guns and they do everything they can to keep people away from firearms of any kind.

Seems like they would be terrible shots if they did get ahold of a gun. I think the awful marksmanship that gang members have supports my statement.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

The “good” 80% of the military would be fighting....literally....the “bad” 20% of the military in your scenario.

There is a two-word term for this....it’s called “Civil War.”

[dynachrome]

CWII ping if you haven’t seen this.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

The “good” 80% of the military would be fighting....literally....the “bad” 20% of the military in your scenario.

Understood.

But the question was under what possible scenario would that propose a viable option to them? That 20% of the military would get its ass destroyed by the other 80% in a heartbeat. The use of force is simply a no-win for American liberals.

[hoosierham]

The fact that most of the miltary do not have access to weapons means they could easily be restricted to barracks ;all the bad people need do is seize the armory first.This is so obvious and so often a tactic of tyrants that I feel sure that posting this doesn't give the enemies of freedom hel;,just perhaps we can warn a few of the more naive among the free.

This is another reason to oppose all forms of firearms registration,no matter the reason or cover name given,the goal is an unarmed populace that dare not disobey the tyrants.

Everyone needs a weapon at hand and good information to protect against the criminals at all 8l325vels.

[LizardQueen]

I was just thinking that I’m glad our side has the guns.

[Karliner]

plus

plus

Hizbollah, Pelosi and Obama's nazi goose stepping armyplus

plus( ignorance and apologies are a virtue?

plus everyday shar'ai law does creep, i.e. Oklahoma

plus and plus

plus

Obama ponders...what?

Tanzania 283 killed, one conviction,"We're so sorry muslims of peace," whines Obama and libbies the world over

I had a GOOD friend die in Tanzania, another is still suffering F*** Y** Ghalani

plus Arizona tossed to the wolves of the UN Human Rights Comission. Is there enough evidence? 29,000 killed is almost as many as Americans killed in all of the Korean conflict(33,629)!

Chihuahua drug dealers killing

10 minutes on illegal aliens & Meg Whitman(the racist?)

plus Oh so much more

= Equals presidential maxi pad fail

[ScottinVA]

Ubanga better make damn sure where the military’s loyalties are before he tries to sic armed forces on Americans.

The majority of professional military members despise types like 0bama. They know the difference between lawful orders and the whims of a Mugabe wannabe.

[ScottinVA]

This has the look of a trial balloon... just to see what the public’s reaction would be...

[TexasTransplant]

***** “New tag line” *****

Beat me to it.

TT

[Darksheare]

I thought he’d been sprayed with Lysol once before.

[Mortrey]

“I asked a military friend of mine whether SCOTUS was evading the eligibility issue because they feared riots and he said no, riots wouldn’t be a problem.”

Just curious....did your military friend have any explanation for why he thought SCOTUS was evading the eligibility question?