Democrats' Quiet Changes Pile Up

Wall Street Journal:

While President Barack Obama still faces stiff headwinds on a range of major legislation on his agenda, he has been signing into law a slew of smaller initiatives that had gathered dust on the Democratic wish list for years.

Read the whole story: Wall Street Journal

Comments

[JBleep]

Not much of a list. Waste of time reading this article, as well as waste of newspaper it's printed in. I guess Rupe Murdoch's WSJ has about as much REAL news as his TV station - the names escapes me, but it's named after some 4 legged scavenger.

[underthegun1]

Quiet changes=insignificant changes

[pumpupthevolume]

The problem with republican they don't speak out on the wrongs, they let their leaders dictate to them what is important. Dems know whats going on and what needs to be done. Dems are vocal repubs become vocal when their elected leaders tell them.

[Coinyer101]

He's doing a good job, imo. Not a 'great' job, but, a good job....., He should take this opportunity of crises, to move 'back to the left', some, and make reforms more meaningful, than ,say, the watered-down HC reform, Credit-card reform, delay in Iraq withdrawal, lack of 'regulations', etc......,

[loki]

He isnt initiating changes, it looks more like he is trying to undo the wrongs done under 8 years of the Bush administration.

[ajwriter]

This article makes it sound like the Republicans did nothing under George Bush, when the Republicans got virtually everything they wanted. They're just trying to whitewash it because they just can't understand that their ideology hurts rather than helps long-term prosperity in this country, and they want another crack at shaking this country down again.

I mean, can you say "signing statement"? (Remember, when George Bush simply set aside laws passed by Congress because he interpreted them as Unconstitutional -- he did this how many times? 900? 1000? more?) The Right's all-out takeover of the judiciary will ensure we are living their utopian (hell) because of how laws have been interpreted in courts all over the country, esp at the Supreme Court level. In this country, interpretation of laws is based on precedents, and it's not easy to undo the damage just because Democrats have a temporary majority.

[Shashi0224]

Methodically, carefully, intelligently, President Obama is getting down what needs to be done. I am so proud he is our President! If the press would do its job.......these accomplishments would be out there for all of us to see...but, we all know the press can only cover 1 story at a time. They cover each story until we've heard the same talking points from various pundits over and over again and could repeat them without thinking. Meanwhile, we learn nothing of all the other happenings in the world. What a waste of air time our MSM has turned out to be. They are either pushing an agenda or just going about their business as lazily and irresponsibly as possible.

[Shashi0224]

typo, sorry....getting done what needs to be done.

[hereinlou]

I completely agree. The stuff we've been 'arguing' about for decades, takes time to get right... and this is not an impetuous man. Anyone whose really paying attention catches the 'under the radar' changes that will benefit us in the long run.

[highflag]

Seems to me that the Dems should throw up something that the right will go absolutely bananas over, maybe gun control or something along those lines. The GOP will be so busy screaming all over FOX, maybe we could slip health care past them.

They seem to be either too slow, or too lazy, or both, to concentrate on more than one battle at a time...

[PepeLepew]

SCHIP was a big one for me personally. I was finally able to sign up for it. I h@ted Bush for a lot of reasons, but his vetoing SCHIP expansion twice was right at the top of the list.

[Marcospinelli]

And refresh us with position on healthcare reform?

[Marcospinelli]

Refresh us with YOUR position on healthcare reform.

[Furby2]

Why? You're not really listening.

[rockyb26]

To all the h8rs and naysayers, GRAB A MOP!!!!

[RTIII]

What so many here seem to forget is that to give Obama credit for these things is mostly a mistake. These have been acts of CONGRESS. Sure, he signed them into law, but it's not like he had to spend a lot of time on these things or expend any political capital. Meanwhile, things that require his time and capital are going unaddressed.

And we shouldn't forget that many of these measures are partial in nature. For example, we have well less than a single percent of old growth forrest left and he saves some and opens up other for clear cutting. This Is NOT OK - as but a single example. Drilling off Alaska while ignoring the much larger opportunities in the Gulf near Cuba in Intl waters...
.
.

[HWNA]

I've called the waa-mbulance, they will be at your house shortly.

[DougChristian]

What people need to realize is that Obama deserves none of the credit for anything good congress ever passes, and deserves all of the blame for everything congress does wrong or fails to do. Come on people. What part of that don't you understand?

If people don't start doing that, they may actually start to like this hard-working, intelligent, reasonable and passionate President. And then how will we get a neo-con back in office to start WW3 and the apocalypse?

[whit4brains]

LOL!

[tiredofthesameoldstuff]

Actually a few things he did expend political capital on. The Lily Ledbetter act was one thing he was campaigning for.

[RTIII]

You're right - I forgot about that one.

I'm not _against_ Obama - I want him to succeed in the greatest ways. I just ALSO want honest appraisal, neither star struck nor Republicanesque.
.

[Elbrando]

Your statement could be called right, but it is not. If these things could just be passed by Congress than they would have done so while Bush was in office. He either vetoed tham or they couldn't even get to his desk.

This is even mentioned in the article.

[DRaymond]

And if McCain had been elected they all would have been vetoed so Congress wouldn't even have bothered. Presidents enable congress to do things. That's not a trivial matter.

[BryantG]

Well said.

[wijg]

The WH and Congress have pocketed the big change and given the people little change. All in the hopes you think they're doing something.

[JohnJames]

Sure seems that way.

[HWNA]

Naysayer says nay.

Not surprising you want to drag everyone else down into your hole of pessimism.

[Wombaticus]

1. Yay. Some positive actions ARE being done, but its not surprising that the mass media can't seem to find the time to mention any of it.

[sarcasm on]
2. After reading that article, I sure do miss that fair and impartial George Bush. He didnt seem to pass ANY bad ole regulation changes or do anything that messed up the USA.
[S off]
I am tempted to link to a list of his many many destructive actions, but that would be preaching to the choir. This WSJ article seems to look at the Dem's successes in a fairly impartial way, but then has to do a FAIR AND BALANCED comparison to Bush, rewriting history to make him seem equitable.

[Zipzop]

So far, nothing Obama has done really counts. It's like the first thing Republicans do when they get in, is to stop funding foreign family planning organizations that give abortion advice. Then, when the Democrats get in, they reverse that order. It's a game. I want to see real change that shines a spotlight on corruption, especially at the highest levels and takes steps to prosecute them. More regulation on trade and the air waves would help, too.
We need changes that we can use in our everyday life, changes that stop the disappearance of the middle class.
Right now, the GOP is still stirring up fear about the gay abortionist demons. Keeping that fear alive, they hope, will keep blinders on the voters so they won't see what the banks and monster corporations are doing.
However, if those paranoid voters saw their lifestyles change because good jobs came back and the air waves went back to varied, responsible quality programming, they might stop clinging so hard to guns, antigay leaders and antiabortion leaders who offer them nothing in the way of quality of life changes.

[Marcospinelli]

"Quiet Changes"

How much did we pay to have that phrase focus-group-tested?

From the paid political operatives working off the White House's talking points with their comments on this thread, clearly it polled well.

[jmpurser]

True, but there have been some "nice to see" changes. I won't knock that. It DOESN'T let them off the hook for the major course corrections our nation needs. As long as the "pretty" doesn't get in the way of the "critical" I'm all for "pretty".

[Marcospinelli]

They're actually not "nice to see" changes; they're phony distractors that dissipate the movement for real change. Like a pressure valve on a pressure cooker. When you're trying to get SinglePayerUniversalHealthcare, you don't buy off your most 'red meat' constituencies (children who need medical care). Those who buy the 'incrementalism' argument don't realize that incrementalism has only worked for furthering the conservative agenda and not real Democratic policies, but that's a post for another day.

[Marcospinelli]

I'm certainly not unsympathetic to the stated purpose of hate crimes legislation & the cause of ending violent acts against gays -- I support just about any effort to combat ig.no.rance & end tyranny); I'm just not convinced hate crimes legislation is the way to do it. I'm actually positive that it isn't. I think it's just a cynical political effort with ulterior motives having nothing to do with protecting gays.

There are much better methods, like Obama signing an executive order ending DADT until Congress passes permanent legislation. And working on the prevention end (the carrot) instead of more 'sticks'; these 'sticks' open the door to more resentment about bias under the law.

These laws wind up being used by the government against people that, on the face of the legislation, was never intended. Like the Patriot Act being used NOT to protect people from terrorist acts, but to prosecute people for drug trafficking.

Hate crimes legislation is about moving crimes against minorities into the political arena, for triangulating on wedge issues. A presidential administration can hype or bury any case depending on whatever is politically expedient at the time. That's not equal justice under the law.

[Marcospinelli]

I'm certainly not unsympathetic to the stated purpose of hate crimes legislation & the cause of ending vi0lent acts against gays -- I support just about any effort to combat ig.no.rance & end tyr@nny); I'm just not convinced h@te crimes legislation is the way to do it. I'm actually positive that it isn't. I think it's just a cynical political effort with ulterior motives having nothing to do with protecting gays.

There are much better methods, like Obama signing an executive order ending DADT until Congress passes permanent legislation. And working on the prevention end (the carrot) instead of more 'sticks'; these 'sticks' open the door to more resentment about bias under the law.

These laws wind up being used by the government against people that, on the face of the legislation, it was never intended for. Like the Patriot Act being used NOT to protect people from terr0rist acts, but to prosecute people for drug trafficking.

H@te crimes legislation is about moving crimes against minorities into the political arena, for triangulating on wedge issues. A presidential administration can hype or bury any case depending on whatever is politically expedient at the time. That's not equal justice under the law.

[Wombaticus]

And the problem with having a nice catch phrase to describe it is????

How long did you search for a typo to criticize before falling back on making fun of the name?

These Issues are important for all Americans and by extension, the rest of the world. Your post is an irrelevant waste of pixels that sheds no additional light on the discussion.