I'm going out on a limb and assuming this comment is not for this article.

Then again, maybe this comment IS for this post. Were we talking about conservatives and speaking out of turn? Apparently hollering at the President during a speech is acceptable but a duly elected female public servant speaking up for her constituents is not if she uses certain words, like vagina.....or sarcasm. I would say Deb is wrong, the word here is douche-bag.

Even if the comment is misplaced, lets go with it. That's a tough word primarily because of their frontal lobotomies.

How does this help the economy?

How does it help the economy that the GOP have killed the jobs bill and the infrastructure bill which would have created 3 million jobs?

Oh, I forgot, you aren't interested in actual debate. You just like to troll for a topic in which you can ask this inane question but when this blog is actually discussing jobs legislation you disappear. Tiresome. The entire breadth of the uber-conservative is really quite tiresome.

So, 80's girl, does this not help the economy? I guess you answered that, thanks.

So, I guess you agree then that the GOP killing jobs bills is hurting the economy. Thanks.

Eric, I'm not sure how it will help the economy. I'm not sure the economic impact of this issue was even considered. But don't you think it's the right thing to do?

I'm assuming this new immigration policy will have the same affect as anti-abortion legislation. Which I'm sure Eric asked his local Republican congressperson. Right?

There is nothing in the article that relates to the economy. Therefore, Eric's posts are off topic and should be ignored.

Perhaps a bit off topic but with the events of today, does President Obama have the right to do an executive order on the Jobs Bill he wants to pass? I'm a die-hard, southern Democrat looking for answers and to be educated.

Certain laws allow Presidents to waive provisions for various reasons. I assume the prez has the discretionary power to grant work permits for individuals with immigrant status. I doubt the prez has any type of power under any law to do a big jobs executive order since that would require appropriations.

Yes, in a way it helps the economy. Now these freshly permitted undocumented workers can go south and legally work in the fields in states that passed laws against using undocumented labor. It's a bail-out for the farmers.

@Mike Paganucci - Thank you for answering.

I'm guessing a Stop Gap is the thing that can be done under executive order. Existing law emphasizes that deportation of undocumented immigrants to be based on criminal activity anyway. It was never supposed to be used for... for... undocumented "roundups". I'm sorry. I couldn't figure out any other word with same applied meaning.

@mks, I think Mike's correct. The most common interpretation of the intent of executive order use is to give clarity to, or strengthen the implementation and enforcement of existing policy/law or government functions. (War powers are a different beast.)

HOw does it help the economy? Short term.. NADDA.. Long term, we will have a new crop of educated hard working Americans. Some will even go on to open business in communities across the country. It's nice to see a long term plan and not just typical American immediate gratification policy.

If definitely helps the economy. It is estimated that simply the right to work for these young ones will add 1.3 billion dollars to revenues and decrease the deficit by over 2 billion. Folks don't understand that if these people can't work (legally) they can't pay taxes and contribute. Before the government crack down on employers, illegals were a huge boost to governmental revenues. Taxes, social security and medicare were all deducted from their paychecks, but they never filed tax returns, which usually would result in a refund. As middle to low wage earners, they would forfeit their tax refunds because they were afraid to file official tax returns. Same for Social Security and Medicare. They paid into it, but were never going to be able to claim any of the benefits. Little known fact. Now that the Repubs had a hissy and cracked down on employers, the illegals that still work here all work for cash in menial, but important jobs. Still helps the economy with their buying power and payment of incidental taxes such as sales taxes, road taxes, etc., but no payments through income taxes. That's our loss. Nose, meet spite. The conservatives are so worried about getting anyone who isn't white and speaking English out of the country that they never considered the obvious benefit. Remember, it is fear that drives the Republican machine. Don't take my guns, don't take my religion (also fear based), don't take my jobs, etc. This isn't even getting into the fact that the birthrate in this country is falling far below what is necessary to sustain a growing economy. How do you think economies keep growing? Growing demand. People can only eat so many quarter pounders and buy so many cars and homes (Unless your Mitt). So only population increases will sustain growth. That is why some European countries have allowed such an influx of Middle Easterners. Their population growth was going negative. Not good for the economy. With our illegal population, we are getting the growth that is not coming from our own procreation and that growth will help the economy overall. Nobody talks about this obvious fact, but then again, how can you foster fear if everyone knows that its really a good thing?

What I really cannot wait to hear is the next logical question for Mitt Romney. "So, if your our next president and the executive decision on immigrants expires in two years, will you, Mitt Romney, extend the temporary amnesty?" It's going to be asked. What do you think he will say? Yeah, he's going to try his hardest to answer. But what if he's pressed? What will Mitt do? If he says he'll extend it, his base goes ballistic. If he says he will not extend, there goes any chance that he will ever get a latino vote. The Republicans have groomed their base for so long to believe that the various colors of brown people are bad, and those with funny accents are even worse. How are they going to explain it to their dwindling base in the next 10 or so years that the Latino vote is more important than their old standby, the gun totin', bible versin', homo hatin', double digit IQ'd, all white base? Wow! That's going to be a show down!! Maybe we will get a third party after all. Where will all the fearful ones go? I think our President showed real political talent in making this move!

Hey, don't forget to let our good friend Tucker Carlson know how you feel about his reporter in the rose garden today. Look at the Daily Call website and see his ridiculous excuse! Let him know how real Americans treat their President.

I expect he'll be as famous as Joe the Plumber and Joe 'You Lie!' Wilson. I'd say he's torpedoed any chance of working anywhere except right-wing propaganda outlets, but he's already working at the Daily Caller, so he can't sink too much lower.

Do you think David Gregory will have him on his conservative talk show MTP ?...

It would not shock me at all... These republican leaning media s**mb*gs who call themselves "Journalist" have an utter dislike and certainly no respect for president Obama. They are so full of hatred for this man just for the simple fact that he is our first dully elected African American president. And ANYONE who thinks that race has nothing to do with the disrespectful treatment these imbeciles demonstrate towards this president , is really having smoke blown up their a** !...

Disrespecting the office of the President

Straight up. The office of the President is bigger than any one sitting President. Whether from a protester, a heckler, or an electoral opponent, these are public displays of disrespect for the structure of our Republic, the offices of, and for America itself.

Be careful of those waving red-white-&-blue flags in your face Uncle Sam. Some are really there to poke your eye out.

Or drive your bus around outside honking the horn. Stay classy GOP

This will continue AND get worse until there is a penalty. These people need to be treated just like they're treating Democrats: without respect. To not push back is to coddle bullies. And coddling bullies by refusing to fight for at least 20 years is the reason the country is in serious danger of being destroyed by the bullies.

Come on now "disgusted..." if we stood our ground then they would lose interest. After all it tain't no fun if'n you can't get a sissified response like oh yeah!

Personally I see this as a call to action at the polls and the pews. Which side is your church on and if it is anti-gay or anti-contraception/abortion then why are you a member?

Being liberal should not mean keeping quiet or backing up but then it should not be compromised by allowing itself to become hawkish or bigoted since that is taking on the very suit you are objecting to.

And if you point this out, right-wingers shriek, "Godwin's law! Godwin's law!" But screw that, they really are a bunch of Nazis.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wearing the Flag and carrying the cross."

Attributed to Sinclair Lewis

Entropy - you are correct about that insightful quote - it was Sinclair Lewis from his 1935 classic dystopian novel titled (with deliberate irony) It Can't Happen Here. The book considered a possible future (at least at the time he wrote it) where an avowed fascist won the 1936 Presidential election and established a dictatorship... if you've never read this deeply unsettling book, you really should. It's shocking how timely and relevant the details of it remain to this day.

Amazon link to Can't Happen

Honestly, this is still one of the most terrifying things I've ever read.

Pretzel...,

Thank you for the information. I should read It Can't Happen Here, I know. I am, however, all too familiar with that sort of mentality, which is encountered all too often. Such people typically have no good answer for why it supposedly can't happen here. Any "explanation" usually amounts to "Well, ummm, this is America, so, ummm, it can't happen here." I did start to read Main Street, but it was too depressing and I couldn't finish it. Gopher Prairie was way too much like where I lived. And in the future, one of the characteristics of its denizens kept popping up, nearly always among those on the right, the firm conviction that anything they do not know "is heresy, worthless for knowing and wicked to consider." (from the Prologue)

He should have been "escorted" out and then had his credentials revoked.

Someone needs a wahhmbulance, stat! I diagnose a severe rainbow and unicorn deficiency compounded by a sharp decrease in ponies and public options. Symptoms include intermittent bouts of rage followed by lapses into depression and maudlin gibbering about timing and drones. In extreme cases, changes in voter registration may occur.

I recommend repeated pats on the head with a cool compress and a couple of "there, theres" 3x daily.

side effects may include: foaming at the mouth, vows to vote 3rd party, fainting spells, pearl clutching, demands of fan service to "we, the base" (ie delusions of granduer) and anal bleeding.

"My biggest problem with Obama here is his timing"

Yes, timing is everything in politics. President Obama's timing is not perfect but then he has others trying to disrupt and distort the President's timing and message, constantly, and with such lies and deception of which we have not seen the likes of before.

"Look, there should be a trail of bodies behind our leader. -Bodies of those who opposed us."

One of the arguments from the left is he is leaving too many bodies lying around. Yemen, Pakistan, and other places, and we are worried that if a righty gets in the White House, we will see more bodies, but this time inside of our own country. Are the policies proposed by Paul Ryan endorsed by Mitt, to let poor people, olds, or the most vulnerable to die of starvation any better?

Can you define "American Exceptionalism"? I used to know this, but the definition has been changed by the right wingers.

Money backed racism is what is driving this election, not jobs, not the economy, not foreign policy. It boils down to President Obama is black, his family is black, and the GOP/tea baggers only want the blacks to pick cotton and STFU.

Kief, on The Dream Act:

Consider: Obama could have done this in his first 100 days.

Since 2001, The Dream Act has failed to come to the congressional floor, failed passage by majority vote, or been filibustered. As one of the last bills of the extremely successful lame duck session of 2010, The Dream Act failed to pass again. Most recently, Senator Reid (NV) packaged it in an immigration bill in early 2011; which now sits in committee.

There should have been no surprises that the early days of President Obama's term and the 111th Congress focused efforts on stopping our economic free fall, worked on policies for immediate relief and recovery, and initializing a health care reform package to begin the long installment of reforms that may help our nation get a grip on the succubus that health care costs have become on our national GDP. ...Yes, immigration reform was put on a shelf.

There is a difference between proposing fine legislation, and getting Congress to act on it. More public attention should be put on the responsibility, accountability, and recognized works of congressional members. When political parties, congressional members, state officials, and media reserve responsibility and accountability exclusively for our President; when public mentality is cohorted to support (or condemn) each decision framed as a politicized opportunity, instead of the resulting greater good; it is small wonder he would have to consider timing and process in any decision.

"It's a pre-emptive strike against Senate Bill 1070. The timing is unbelievable," [AZ Gov] Brewer said.

It is also possible the time for action has become more apparent with the recent aggressive immigration enforcement state policies that still have anti-immigrant popular appeal.

well said!

Did an American throw a shoe at President Bush? If so, I was unaware of such disrespectful, exceptionally rude American behavior.

There are a few things missing from your post Martin. One, this wasn't a "press conference" it was a policy announcement. Two, while you're correct that in the Parliamentary system the Prime Minister can get pretty roughed up during Question Period, it's actually Members of Parliament doing the roughing up, not reporters. And, while conservatives love to bash Europe at every opportunity when it suits their purpose, then suggest that Europe does something better, again when it suits the conservative purpose, you can be assured that if a reporter ever yelled at the PM during a policy announcement as this lout did, he would be dealt with in no uncertain terms. It simply would be considered "bad form" (which is worse than it sounds) and an embarrassment to the media community.

I didn't disregard the first half, I just don't see much point in trying to discuss what is clearly not up for discussion. What is it you're expecting exactly? You've made your point. Nothing this president does is ever good enough, there will always be those who seek to ignore his accomplishments and amplify his failings. Is he a perfect president? Good lord, no. Has there ever been a perfect one?

I reject wholeheartedly your premise that he's shown no ability to govern and that he's playing both sides against each other. His mistakes in the first two years were trying to compromise past the point when everyone else could see there was zero point. Still, he tried and the GOP rejected every attempt, how it that Obama playing both sides against each other? How is compromise not trying to govern?

No matter what, it's not good enough because certain people don't want it to be good enough. He works on the economy, why is he not working on social issues? He works on social issues, why isn't he focused on the economy? Why isn't he helping with college tuition? Who the hell does he think he is getting into states rights issues like college tuition?

He is doing something, even if you choose to ignore it. He's governing a large country that is in chaos and has legislators more interested in vagina's than in job creation ... but yeah, it's him playing games.

There, there, sweetie! *pat pat pat*

All better now?

@Tperky, Kiev is bringing to light a valid opinion. I don't appreciate the typical suggestive character assessment they're throwing in, ie. "illegitimate"; but you apparently do with your return serve at an exponential level absent any real feedback. Waiting for a mirrored right wing standing ovation, are we?

So, Mr. Anti-semite's opinion is valid and my mockery of the mewling for ponies even after Obama does something good is not? In fact, it's exponentially not real feedback, but right wingnut worthy because it doesn't comport with your assessment of what is valid opinion? Perhaps I should have suggested that his opinion means there's something wrong with his head; that, or he works for dirty, dirty Jews, as Mr. Kiev stated above? That's valid, right?

Here's my valid opinion, then, unadorned for your pleasure: I think the professional left are more dangerous to this country than rightwingers or drone strikes because they give cover to the right wingers by agreeing that Obama is the devil, and I believe it is their fault we can't have nice things. Their all-or-nothing approach to politics is the exact mirror of the teabagging whiners, which is why they're called "firebaggers," and why mockery is the only way to deal with them, because when they're not whinging about drones, they're calling for violence on their political enemies, like your buddy did up above. You can't reason with them, because they're always right, so pointing and laughing is my valid opinion of their antics.

@Tperky

First, that commenter is not my buddy. I'm sorry if any of my previous sarcasm eluded you, but I wasn't really considering you at the time.

Secondly, I think it's worthwhile to distinguish between individual opinion on a leader's approach to directing popular policy (or not) through congress, and a personal opinion of each commenter's character. I am empathetic as to how difficult this can be.

Thirdly, I have not taken the time to categorize him/her as "professional left", nor do I think my assessment would be reliable. I missed that training.

I believe you do have a point that some people have unrealistic expectations when so many variables are involved in successfully passing and implementing good policy. And certainly there are times when our discussions are driven by venting passion, subsequently overshadowing any points of substance.

But neither Kiev, nor you, would be able to convince me that the satisfaction derived from character assassinations and alienation are more imperative to the future of our country than civil discourse and a comprehensive inclusion of all available strengths.

What I want is a legitimate and widespread discussion of the performance of president Obama based on commonly accepted criteria.

Really? So, in a thread about Obama's announcement of a change in policy and the out and out disrespect of the President, you think everyone should discuss what you want to discuss, and on your own terms? Go back and look at your comment at #14. You dismissed the change in policy, which has made a lot of people happy, btw, aside from being the topic at hand, and launched into a rant of epic proportions, after which, I made fun of your silliness. And I'm the one "preventing debate and discussion?" You don't give yourself enough credit-well, until I got to this part:

That is how I intend to hold Obama's feet to the fire and therefore compel him to move with urgency on issues we care about.

What, by bullying people on a message board into talking about what you want to talk about? Hate to break it to you, but I really doubt Obama's reading this now, so I'm not sure how he'll be compelled to do anything differently. Osmosis? I'm still curious as to what AIPAC has to do with it, since you keep bringing them up, but not enough to continue this silliness. TTFN

Regarding Obama's executive order allowing some non-citizens to remain, in post 14, I said “personally, I'm for letting all of them stay.” “All” in that context meaning not just that portion which Obama’s order applies to, but everyone.

"You dismissed the change in policy..."

I questioned the timing of that executive order. Obama has done this twice now. With his position statement on gay rights and marriage (which BTW I support), Obama has framed the presidential race as "vote for Romney, and you are voting for someone who will DENY these people equal rights. Likewise, with his executive order for allowing non-citizens to remain, Obama has again framed the presidential issue as "vote for Romney, and you are voting for a man who will throw these innocent children out of the country."

THIS smells like manipulation designed specifically to further his agenda, an agenda which I believe is not our democratic party agenda, nor the platform we voted for when we elected him. Rather, it is the agenda of drone strikes and regime change in the mid east, the agenda of preventing investigation of alleged torture of POWs, and of continued tax cuts for wealthy Americans, -the agenda of keeping Guantanamo open because the military establishment plans for more wars that continue far into the future.

As for interrupting the decorum of this blog with an “inappropriate” set of off-topic comments, that’s called civil disobedience. Protest for a cause that brings attention to an issue which the administration and it’s backers would prefer to have buried and forgotten. You shouldn’t conflate my behavior here with interrupting the president during a press conference. I do respect the office, if not the current occupant.

“you think everyone should discuss what you want to discuss…”

I do and you are. I appreciate that. Thanks.

“Hate to break it to you, but I really doubt Obama's reading this now, so I'm not sure how he'll be compelled to do anything differently.”

Are you saying we shouldn’t even try to affect positive political change by social protest and civil disobedience? That’s effectively what I suggested you were doing when you made a personal attack against me earlier. Like the status quo, do you?

“

I think I know where this started. Earlier in this thread, I remarked: Truth is the GOP sees them (latino non-citizens) as a growing demographic problem that must be snuffed out like Hitler's Jews. (sorry, but what the GOP is doing DOES have some parallels to Hitler's Final Solution).”

If that is the basis for your labeling me as an anti-Semite, remember what side of the issue I am on. What Hitler did was wrong, and what the GOP is doing is wrong for many of the same reasons.

I'm still curious as to what AIPAC has to do with it, since you keep bringing them up”

Do I get a pat on the head for that?

Crazy machine...

The last part of the above comment should read:

“I'm still curious as to what AIPAC has to do with it, since you keep bringing them up”

I think I know where this started. Earlier in this thread, I remarked: Truth is the GOP sees them (latino non-citizens) as a growing demographic problem that must be snuffed out like Hitler's Jews. (sorry, but what the GOP is doing DOES have some parallels to Hitler's Final Solution).”

If that is the basis for your labeling me as an anti-Semite, remember what side of the issue I am on. What Hitler did was wrong, and what the GOP is doing is wrong for many of the same reasons.

AIPAC's manipulation of American politics is wrong for the same reasons republicans claim Union manipulation is wrong, and democrats claim unlimited corporate money is wrong.

Do I get a pat on the head for that?