Intermountain Power Project coal-fired plant, Utah
The death of Republican U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has refocused attention on how much is at stake in the 2016 presidential election. We have an ongoing series on this subject, including the president’s power to nominate Supreme Court justices and other federal court judges. Another area of great importance and great difference between the parties which is at stake in November is the future of our environment, including fighting climate change.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a show of unity in 2008.
A true realist might not care who wins the 2016 Democratic presidential primary contest, so long as it’s the Democrat who is most likely to defeat the Republican nominee. The prize is winning the White House, and all the advantages that entails, from nominating U.S. Supreme Court justices to conducting foreign policy to pursuing or protecting social agendas on everything from God to guns to gay marriage. We have an ongoing series about the differences between having a Democrat versus a Republican in the White House, and the list is very long. While there are differences between the Democratic candidates, those differences pale in comparison to the Republican candidates. So let’s take a realistic look at the Democratic primary race:
Under the U.S. Constitution, presidents have certain limited powers, but in the 21st Century, the president also controls a huge machinery of government. It’s almost impossible to come up with an exhaustive list of all the things presidents exercise authority over, but we’ve started such a list. We’ll be doing a series, with each post describing one or more categories where presidents are heavily involved. Please take a look at the series, and you will see the difference between having a Republican and a Democrat in the White House, and why the 2016 elections are therefore so crucial:
President Barack Obama is undertaking an intense effort to sell his deal to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. On Tuesday, White House officials reached out to progressive voters on a joint conference call with Keystone Progress, which is “Pennsylvania’s largest online progressive action network.” Keystone’s executive director, Michael Morrill, was on the call, as well as Mary Kaszynski, the Communications Manager for Ploughshares Fund, which supports efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons and threats. They were joined by John Bisognano, the White House Associate Director of Public Engagement, and Marie Harf, Senior Advisor to Secretary of State John Kerry.
Elizabeth Lauten‘s resignation and a case pending with the U.S. Supreme Court regarding Facebook posts give us a good reminder about what’s stupid, if not outright illegal, to post on the Internet.
On Wednesday night, Organizing for Action (OFA), the grassroots organization that pushes for President Obama‘s agenda, held a conference call to discuss the Obama administration’s proposed new Environmental Protection Agency rules to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The call featured Rohan Patel, who is special assistant to President Obama and White House Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. Patel spoke about what the Obama administration seeks to accomplish with the new EPA rules, as well as the White House messaging on climate change.
Last September, we published a post about how, under the Constitution, presidents don’t have individual control over the economy, and that economic improvement requires the assistance of Congress. We noted that many voters seem to be under the mistaken impression that presidents control America’s direction themselves, in part because of the cult of personality that the media have built up around the office of the president. Sure enough, at President Barack Obama‘s press conference on the sequester last Friday (see video above), two “reporters” furthered this erroneous cult of the presidency. Here, from the press conference transcript, are their exchanges with President Obama:
