the Obama administration shouldn't try to defend their policies to Republicans or anyone else

A1) Wrong, President Obama has to explain his policies to me and convince me, as he works for me and the American public, "no comment" does not cut it. My opponent is naive to think that the Govt works for him and cares what he thinks about anything. Only 7% of registered voters polled were for ant type of bailouts But the gov't did exactly the opposite which is proof that it does not care what you think. One would think that if 93% of registered voters polled were against a bailout it would have not even made it to congress for a vote if they were representing the voters. . http://www.rasmussenreports.com... "*)Do you mean every policy by saying "some policy " Yes any policy it does not matter "A2) By the term, "this" my opponent must be referring to an explanation of some action; please provide an example supporting this contention. " Ah how about health care reform, Does anyone even have a clue as to what they are going to do. There is no logical intellectual argument that you can make by saying gov't is going to provide free medical care if you want it and then say, if you want to keep your existing private health care you can. Then expect the private sector to compete with something that people only think is free, but of course it will be paid for by me the tax payer in addition to paying for my own private health care. It is absurd. They say you will be able to keep your own doctors under gov't health care. This is totally and completely misleading. They have to participate in gov't funded health care system in order to keep them. Any Doctor with half a brain would never participate in gov't run health care. They will dictate what he can charge, dictate what procedures or treatments he can make and still hang the noose of malpractice over his head. I defy my opponent to explain Obama's health care plans other than to say the gov't will pay for everything. The govt pays for nothing, the 50% of the people who actually pay taxes pays for everything. "I am very interested in knowing how the Obama administration controls the judicial branch of government" Fiscal policy The judicial branch of gov't has little or nothing to do with what gets passed through Congress fiscally. Anything that gets passed is only challenged by the Judicial branch after it has passed. Congress has yet to be challenged by the judicial branch for anything that congress has passed fiscally and never will regardless of who is in power. Source: In 1936, the Court construed the Spending Power Clause as giving Congress broad power to spend for the general welfare (United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 56 S. Ct. 312, 80 L. Ed. 477). According to the Butler decision, under the Spending Power Clause Congress was not limited to spending money to carry out the direct grants of legislative power found elsewhere in the Constitution; rather, it could tax and spend for what it determined to be the general welfare of the country. Because Congress has discretion to determine what is the general welfare, no court since Butler has ever invalidated a federal spending program on the ground that the general welfare of the country was not being promoted. Also "budget reconciliation can be used as a filibuster proof way of ramming any spending policy they want through congress. They will use this to shove gov't health care down your throat whether you like it or not" . http://online.wsj.com... Foreign policy: That is the power of the Executive branch The Administration can do what ever it feels is right. No other branch of Gov't can dictate to the President as to how he talks to other countries or treats them. Obama can wage war without Congressional approval for 45 days. Social policy: The speaker of the house determines what bills will be brought to the floor for a vote. The speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi has yet allowed a single Republican bill to the floor to be voted on. I shall now Quote Nancy Pelosi word for word: "We reached out to the Republicans all along the way, and they know it. And they know it. . .. They just didn't have the ideas that had the support of the majority of the people in the Congress. " As you can see, it is not what the "people" think it is what the current Congress thinks. And if any bill that does not tow the line of the current Administration and Congress it will never be considered for a vote. So you see any social policy if any will be what Nancy Pelosi thinks. You can go ahead and stick your head in the sand and think this women represents the people of America. One only look at the police Dept of the people she represents in California to see what will be brought before congress as far as social issues go. I am going to be called a bigot and and all sorts of other names for this post but it is just to funny and is a perfect representation of Nancy Pelosi and how far out of touch she is with the rest of America and how she will determine which social policies will make it to the floor for a vote in order to promote her personal agendas. . http://www.theospark.net... "He ignores sub-groups in the majority parties and independents" "Of course I ignore them they are out numbered and irrelevant" "Legislation makes concessions to the varying groups " To those who don't speak gov't policy wonk, this is another way of saying "bribe with pork in the bill" "The administration does not have a "filibuster proof" Congress. " It does if it wants to with all fiscal legislation. I refer you back to "Budget Reconciliation" "Support this statement. My opponent claims he can support his statements using the voting record, I challenge him to do so. " Can anyone say 817 billion dollar stimulus package loaded with everything from free ketchup to the study of why pigs smell. 0 republicans voted for this bill and any bills they did vote for were just turn coats who want to get re elected like Arlin specter. "A9) If my opponent can show that Congress does not come to compromises in any capacity concerning legislation and can back up his statement with legislative history showing that no bill started in either the House or the Senate changed as it went through committees, floor votes, between both houses, and the White House, back to the Senate and the House " Again I refer you back to "policy wonk speak" "Bribe other congressmen with pork to get their vote" "I need only show one government program eliminated in the last 35 years to refute the last portion. Yes indeed please show us "one" "Obama administration cannot do what my opponent proposes" I have shown that it can be done in almost all cases and what tactics it can use to get it done. I believe I have successfully responded to all my opponents rebuttals and have proven that it is possible for the Obama administration to ramrod what ever it wants through congress using the tactics I have out lined above.