I asked him to support his thesis by naming specific examples of comparably reckless, deluded behavior by Liberals as prominent/powerful as Romney, McConnell and Limbaugh.posted by muddgirl at 5:59 PM on January 17 [2 favorites]
A caveat: I write this as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independentRight. If you are a "conservative-minded independent" you should be happy with the Obama administration. No one on the liberal side has said otherwise.
For me, the Affordable Healthcare Act really trumps everything else he's done, good or bad. It's not even close to the system that I would have asked for but he pushed it through which is more than any democrat since FDR was able to do.It's a good first step on that front, but this country has a lot of problems. All of them need to be fixed.
Every piece? No, I think most critics have a few issues where they feel a less compromising position would be best. Obviously you have to work with the other party to get things done.Well, keep in mind what people are calling Obama's greatest achievement involved zero republican support, not even cloture votes. If you win a supermajority, why do you need to work with the other side? It just seems masochistic to me.
Except that Romney's goals, to the extent that he has any distinct from "get elected," are all things that both the unified Republican front and the more conservative wings of the Democratic Party are more than happy to push through. Romney would have about as much ease as Dubya had during his heyday.Well, unless they get rid of the filibuster (and it stands to good reason that they will) then Romney will also have to get some liberal senators to vote for his stuff too.
Big companies that have lots of wealthy employees will always be overrepresented on a list of donors grouped by the donor's company. That does not imply conspiracy.No one said it's a conspiracy: It's right out in the open. Everyone knows corporations donate to politicians for a reason, and Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wallstreet invested in Obama because they thought it was a good idea. Anyone who thinks that money is corrupting to politics can't suddenly make an exception when they like the guy.
Respectfully: your opinion [Looks like a depression to me.] is not a determining factor. When the real GDP starts contracting in a noticeable way, then a lot more people may consider it a depression.How about Nobel Prize Winning Economist Paul Krugman?
It’s time to start calling the current situation what it is: a depression. True, it’s not a full replay of the Great Depression, but that’s cold comfort. Unemployment in both America and Europe remains disastrously high. Leaders and institutions are increasingly discredited. And democratic values are under siege.(in terms of democratic values, he means Europe -- where there are actually huge governance problems right now)
graphnerd: Can we all agree to drop the whole 'FTFY' thing here? There are a lot of great points here, but I come to metafilter to escape the obnoxiousness of the rest of the Internet.I just don't understand this and similar complaints when they are trotted out on Metafilter.
Finally, what are your options? Mitt 'Double Guantanamo' Romney? Ron "I Swear I didn't write that" Paul? Paul, that sudden hero for those who would scrap the entire country for the few this bill affects wants to get rid of fractional reserve banking and force the country back on to the gold standard. His crackpot views notwithstanding, he's also for cutting every dollar of humanitarian aid the US gives out. So no sending the Navy in to help Tsunami victims or condom distribution in Africa.It's really funny to see you grasping at straws for reasons why Ron Paul and Romney would be such a horrible monsters to liberals, since your entire rhetorical strategy is basically to argue that whoever the republican candidate Du Jure is is totally the next Hitler (Bachman, Palin, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry).
Yes, Obama has waged a war based on a reading of executive power that many civil libertarians, including myself, oppose. And he has signed into law the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (even as he pledged never to invoke this tyrannical power himself). But he has done the most important thing of all: excising the cancer of torture from military detention and military justice. If he is not reelected, that cancer may well return. Indeed, many on the right appear eager for it to return.Apparently he's suffering the same delusion on this as EVERY OTHER NEWS SOURCE.
(Also, Romney would repeal Obamacare on "Day One"). So like his failed experiment with pro-choice, he's done with it.Wait, so now presidents can just repeal laws they don't like? Just like that? I thought you always argued presidents are totally powerless, can't do anything, bla bla bla.
Oh, please. Obama and his campaign crew will be ringing that particular gong nonstop, because it will hurt Romney, horribly, among the ultraconservative wing of the GOP.Which won't matter at all in the general election. Those people are not going to vote for Obama instead. That matters in the primary, but it looks like it doesn't matter enough. The hard-core conservatives all think Obama is the next Pol-pot, they will come out to the polls against Obama, Romneycare or no.
That's an interesting claim.Unless you're interested in gay rightsGawd, this thing... again.
In the grand scheme of things, Paul is really no better or worse than Obama on this front.
Obama, as the head of the executive branch, and not a member of the legislative branch, cannot just get rid of it, but he can stop enforcing it. Which he has.Of course, before that happened people defending Obama said that he simply had no choice but to defend, and that people complaining were complaining about something he had no power over...
If you have three different terminal diseases, you don't cure any of them. You go to hospice and hope to die comfortably.So your solution to America's problems is that we, as a country, should "go to a hospice and die comfortably"?
Former PM Kevin Rudd didn't have control of the Senate (upper house), so had to negotiate with the opposition party regarding his carbon trading scheme. Unfortunately for him, a leadership spill in the opposition party resulted in a more right wing opposition that completely opposed the legislation, so it didn't pass, and Rudd's refusal to call a double dissolution election to force it through fatally damaged his credibility, particularly with progressive voters, many of whom shifted their first preference to the Greens in the next election.That's what happens when one party doesn't have a majority. The problem was, back in 2009 the democrats had a majority in the house and senate - but still the claim was made that they had to "work with the other side." I don't know about Australia, but in most countries when one party wins a majority, they win.
Former PM John Howard didn't have a majority in the Senate either when he was introducing the GST, and had to negotiate with the Democrats (no relation to the American party) which insisted on various changes, such as exempting things like fresh food and education from the tax. Somewhat unfairly this lead to the demise of the Democrats, who were replaced by the Greens as the third party in Australian politics, and who forced current PM Julia Gillard to make various amendments to the carbon tax legislation passed last year.
The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. ... The Department is also committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. In general, United States Attorneys are vested with "plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters" within their districts. USAM 9-2.001.So peacay, are you ready to listen to an equal participant in a conversation now, or would you prefer to continue with the Internet equivalent of holding your fingers in your ears and saying "nyah nyah can't hear you"?
In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are "invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority." Id. This authority should, of course, be exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance.
The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department's efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department's investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.
He's also strongly in favor of civil unions and visitation rights and such, and has more recently said that his position on gay marriage per se is "evolving".For example, Barack Obama signed the repeal of DADT into law, while Ron Paul believes that the Constitution gives individual states the authority to outlaw, as he calls it, "gay sodomy".Did you perhaps forget Ron Paul's vote on DADT? How convenient of you.Good on Paul. Now when Obama starts talking about Texas having the right to outlaw "gay sodomy", maybe you'll have a point.Or perhaps forget Obama's position on gay marriage?“I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states.”
And the full quote is:Oh, please. Paul is all about allowing the states to do whatever the hell they want to whoever the hell they want, Constitutional protections be damned (and in fact, as shown in the quote you quote and in other places, twists the Constitution so badly in an attempt to back his position that it's questionable whether he's actually read it or not). That he phrases it in a way of sure, *I* think outlawing the gay sodomy is silly, but if Texas doesn't like the gay sodomites gay sodomizing, who am I, who is the Constitution, who are the gay sodomites to say otherwise is just a pathetic attempt at applying a veneer of respectfulness to his atrocious civil rights positions - not just to "gay sodomites", but to everybody.
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards
which seems to be more of a matter not allowing hard cases to make bad law (unless you REALLY want to invite the Federal government to start making determinations as to what is acceptable in the bedroom).
So yeah, I'd say they are about equal.OK. You're crazy.
Perhaps educate yourself?Perhaps snide?
“My attitude is that if it’s an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to grow their own or start setting up mom and pop shops because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate.” I’m not familiar with all the details of the initiative that was passed [in Oregon] and what safeguards there were in place, but I think the basic concept that using medical marijuana in the same way, with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that’s entirely appropriate. I would not punish doctors if it’s prescribed in a way that is appropriate. That may require some changes in federal law.”That's from 2008--from the exact same interview you cited. Obama wanted doctors to prescribe marijuana like regular drugs, like morphine, like you go into your doctor and get a prescription and go to a regular pharmacy. What he did not want was "mom and pop shops" because "at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate. Your edit is telling.
The Rabid Right is so hard-up for a scandal, they tried to make a Halloween party for the kids of veterens into something!What is this referring to, please? Thanks.
…there was widespread support in Iraq for such an extension, but the Obama administration was demanding that immunity for U.S. troops be endorsed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, which was never really possible. Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy’s diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity. “An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that’s done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry,” said one former senior Hill staffer. “If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass.”So why on Earth would Obama insist on some sort of special Iraqi political procedure that could never get done practically rather than an easy fix?
Under Obama, a crucial state, New York, made marriage equality for gays an irreversible fact of American life. Gays now openly serve in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act is dying in the courts, undefended by the Obama Justice Department.Obama had nothing to do with marriage equality in New York (and very little to do with the legal challenges to DOMA) and to roll it up with DADT as if it were all part of his master plan to promote gay rights is absurd. It's also offensive to those of us in New York who actually were there on the front lines of that struggle.
Is everybody forgetting that Obama came into office with vast majorities in both the House and the Senate? If he had shown a little leadership, and played a little hardball, he could have accomplished great things. He simply chose not to."Majority" is essentially irrelevant in the current Senate. The de facto situation is that you need 60% of senators to do anything. Obama came into office with 58% in the Democratic caucus, including two who are not actually Democrats and several who are significantly farther right than the typical Democrat or the typical Democratic senator.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.Is it possible that you're interpreting that paragraph (which only refers to 'this section') incorrectly, while every mainstream media site, including Newsweek here with Andrew Sullivan is getting it right? Seems like a definite possibility, especially when considering U.S. citizens captured outside of the U.S.
Of course, the Constitution and posse comitatus already made such protections. The NDAA doesn't expand the power to detain, in reality, it probably narrows it.Obviously the "lawfair blog" is a more credible source then ABC, NBC, CNN, Newsweek, etc.
My opinion? Everyone takes politics way too personally. And they talk too much, too.It's easy to take personally when it personally affects you, as something like SOPA might. If you're gay DOMA is really a big deal in your personal life.
What The Fuck Has Obama Done So Far?What in the fuck has Obama done so far? (etc, etc, etc)
The guy said he was going to kill himself so they put him on a suicide watch. Then they took him off it. That's not torture.Holy fuck dude do you have zero scruples at all? What happened to that guy was not at all a normal 'suicide watch'. I've never heard of a suicide watch that involves preventing you from sleeping. How many "Suicide Watches" result in UN officials complaining? or Amnesty international calling your treatment "inhumane"?
There are two fundamental differences between the parties in which all others are rooted. The first one is structural: In the Democratic Party power flows upward and in the Republican Party power flows downward. The second is attitudinal: Republicans perceive themselves as insiders even when they are out of power and Democrats perceive themselves as outsiders even when they are in power.The Republican Party is literally organized in such a way that it's run as more of a top-down hierarchy than the Democratic Party. That's probably part of the reason the Republican Party has traditionally been easier for economic elites to capture.
The automatic filibuster is not a reality. It is precisely the opposite: an unconstitutional political fictionIn what specific way is it "unconstitutional"? The Constitution specifically says that each house of Congress is allowed to determine its own rules.
How many suicide watches relate to high-profile military detainees, though, and offer obvious opportunities to make political hay, gain political leverage and potentially weaken what should be strong political coalitions of mutual interest?You're talking about PJ Crowly, who was the head spokesperson for the state department? That was a 'political enemy' of Obama? Many Obama supporters complained about Manning's treatment. Including Andrew Sullivan
There is only one word to describe the treatment of this model prisoner: sadism. Glenn Greenwald has been following the case closely and has two disturbing must-reads here and here. We all hoped that under Obama, brutal treatment of military prisoners and lies about it would end. In this case, they haven't.So, if your thesis is only Obama opponents complained, you're either seriously confused or lying.
Remember, that guy personally directed his Secret Service to have one couple arrested just for peaceably wearing t-shirts critical of him to a public event at the Capitol.None of that has anything to do with Bradly Manning. He was not a protestor. Bush not only didn't execute leakers, he didn't even really go after them. Obama has been far harder on leakers then bush , including prosecuting bush-era leaks that bush basically ignored. You cannot compare the treatment of leakers to the treatment of protestors. And as I said, Obama has been worse for leakers then bush.
Obama, in contrast, let Tea Party protesters openly brandish guns in protest during the health care town hall debates. And while there may have been arrests during the XL pipeline protests, there's no indication those were specifically directed by the executive or involved a disproportionate response (that is, those protesters likely wanted to be arrested for tactical reasons).
In what specific way is it "unconstitutional"? The Constitution specifically says that each house of Congress is allowed to determine its own rules."not required by the constitution" would be a better term or "unrelated to the constitution" "aconstitutional" or 'nonconstitutional" might make sense but people would probably read those as synonyms for unconstitutional
Putting DADT on this list strikes me as a tad bit, well, weird. Up to the eve of passage of the repeal amendment, advocates of the n-dimensional chess theory of Obama's tenure claimed it to be an albatross that would burn political capital best saved for the second term. Now they claim it as a vindication of Obama. While Obama openly praised the multi-decade long campaign to force DADT repeal in his HRC speech, his press office repeatedly attacked gay rights advocates for their activism on the issue.The fact that DADT was repealed has to do with the fact that the gay community was absolutely unwilling to support him if they didn't see action. It was a win for activism. Of course Obama, nor his supporters are going to say "Oh yeah, we were going to just ignore the issue but because people wouldn't let up we had to do it".
Fundamentally, repeal of DADT wouldn't have happened at all if it were not for 20+ years of protests that kept the issue in the public eye, pressure on congress, and legislative allies who kept putting it up for a vote, starting under Bush. You don't wait for the votes, you make the votes. And that's a lesson, I'm sorry to say, that Republicans have owned since the Reagan years.
"not required by the constitution" would be a better termYes, in that it would actually be true. However, it would also be completely unrelated to what seems to be Matt Bird's point.
For example, Barack Obama signed the repeal of DADT into law, while Ron Paul... voted, against 97% of his fellow House Republicans and against the wishes of most of the primary voters he's currently hoping to win over, to pass the repeal of DADT.
Putting DADT on this list strikes me as a tad bit, well, weird. Up to the eve of passage of the repeal amendment, advocates of the n-dimensional chess theory of Obama's tenure claimed it to be an albatross that would burn political capital best saved for the second term.That's pretty much the opposite of how I remember it going on Metafilter. The whole time, there were Obama-Is-A-Traitor-To-The-Cause types who were swearing up and down that he was going to veto it. I mean, literally up to the moment that he signed it.
I don't think he is equal to Paul, I have already said in this thread Paul is worseThen who were you arguing with when you sarcastically said "Yeah, Obama is so much better on this, he wants them to have as much ass sex as they want as long as they want, just make sure they aren't allowed to marry like real couples"? Was it me? If so, maybe you should be made aware that I was also saying that Paul is worse, and was not saying that Obama should get a "free pass". If it wasn't me, maybe you shouldn't have replied to me.
(2) Talk to me about how they're equivalent on this issue when Obama starts opining that the Constitution gives individual states the authority to outlaw "gay sodomy".He was talking about a specific case about a law that, specifically, targeted "gay sodomy"(in fact the law explicitly legalized straight sodomy).
It was going to be a permanent presence much like we have in other nations where we maintain bases. The Iraqis were open to this as well but negotiations fell apart because of demands that US troops be answerable to the law of the country they would be stationed in. Wikileaks provided a major role in breaking up negotiationsExactly. It's deeply ironic that Obama's defenders herald getting troops out of Iraq as one of Obama's accomplishments, when the person most responsible is Bradley Manning.
You can't be serious.Feel free to explain how it's wrong. I'm talking about why there are zero troupes in Iraq, which is because the Iraq government refused to allow the U.S. troops to have legal immunity under Iraqi law, which is in turn because of Wikileak'd documents that went over war crimes perpetrated by U.S troops, which weren't prosecuted.
I think it's kind of silly to think that the Iraqis needed to the leaked cables to realize that US troops had committed atrocities there, btw. It was more news to Americans, I'm sure, and most Americans don't care, sadly enough.Well, what they had was documented proof that crimes were committed, and not prosecuted despite the knowledge of people in charge.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top brass have repeatedly said any deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal deadline would require a guarantee of legal protection for American soldiers.So you are, once again, arguing against what's being reported in the mainstream news media, based apparently on your deep and intimate knowledge of the Iraqi position on the SOFA negotiations, which seems unlikely.
But the Iraqis refused to agree to that, opening up the prospect of Americans being tried in Iraqi courts and subjected to Iraqi punishment.
The negotiations were strained following WikiLeaks' release of a diplomatic cable that alleged Iraqi civilians, including children, were killed in a 2006 raid by American troops rather than in an airstrike as the U.S. military initially reported.
Why do you think an argument from authority is valid? I'm basing my interpretation of the bill on what the bill says.That's nice, but I was actually asking Ironmouth, which is why I wrote "Hey, Ironmouth: Do you disagree with what Andrew Sullivan about NDAA in this article?" -- That said, the plain language you refer to:
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
The only thing that's 'muddled', as Greenwald put it, is whether American citizens captured abroad are covered under the section.Which is what I just said. But an American captured overseas is still a U.S. citizen. Which makes the statement "NDAA allows the capture and indefinite detainment of U.S. Citizens" factually true.
and is as much as it might be interpreted to allow thatLots of people think that it's not unconstitutional.
More importantly, the bill was gonna pass, veto or no veto. US house reps gonna vote against it and fuck up money to districts and soldier's pay? Get real. Overriden in a heartbeat.Then why not veto it?
And just to repeat another sentence for emphasis:Keep in mind the main sticking point for the administration was their ability to use civilian process. The fact that Obama or any president can choose to give people a trial is not the important point, but whether or not they can choose not too.
You do realize that the bill passed with a veto-proof majority, yes? That a veto would have been symbolic and meaningless?Right, in which case at least we'd be here complaining about congress, not Obama. But in any event we don't know what would have happened if Obama had fought harder. Look what's happening with SOPA: massive public protest and Senators are dropping their support. Maybe if the president had actually tried to rally people, instead of just having his spokesperson blaber about 'flexability' things might be different.
The Republicans would still need Democratic votes to override, the Republicans don't magically get everything they want.Ironmouth seems to assume that republicans never suffer any political consequences, or at least don't care about them. It may be true that they don't care as much but it's pretty obvious that they are suffering greatly due to their inability to work with the dems.
Don't kid yourself. There are huge corporations writing big checks right now to stop SOPA. The popular outcry is just convenient cover. And some version of SOPA is still going to pass.Just like how they passed the CBDTPA
enjoys crafting compromises more than he likes arm twisting…
...probably to his and the country's detriment
I don't know why this should be a surprise for a guy who got on the map by saying "there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America." That's a big reason why I voted for him for President.Just out of curiosity, why is it that you think centrism and bipartisanship are such great things? To me, it means stuff like SOPA, while hyper-partisanship gets us stuff like Obamacare (passed without a single republican vote)
"The guy [Bradly manning] said he was going to kill himself so they put him on a suicide watch. Then they took him off it. That's not torture."And the sort of hectoring demand that everyone should love Obama and they're an idiot if they don't.
But Romney wants to raise taxes on the poor and lower them for the rich.Clearly wealth inequality is a problem, but not everyone values the tax code over civil liberties. In fact for poor people in this country their taxes are a pretty minor component of their problem portfolio.
It also helps to remember that a Democratic majority doesn't mean very much unless there are 60 or more "good" Democrats. Having 58 Democrats, when that 58 includes Lieberman et al., doesn't do much of anything.Only if you keep the filibuster, which they should have disposed of along with Lieberman. Again, the 60 senator thing may be true today but it wasn't really true 10 years ago and wasn't even on the radar 20 years ago. Why should we expect it to be true in 10 years or 20? Why should it have stayed true in 2009?
No, my thesis is that lesser known inmates get treated quite poorly by everyday standards in military brigs every day--it's not typically considered torture, and it doesn't typically get as much scrutiny.Thesis based on what? I've heard that for US military members in prison, the military prison system is far superior to state and national prisons. Can you give any other examples of members of the military being mistreated in military prison? this guy, for example claims to have been in a military prison and said it had none of the usual problems present in non-military prisons.
Mind you, by "bipartisanship" I am referring to "both sides honestly giving in and compromising, rather than turning every damn discussion into a red-side/blue-side grudge match". It's what Obama was hoping to achieve, and it's what I want too. The reason it didn't work, though, is entirely because the Republican's didn't want to play that game and retreated further into the grudge match.Yeah but like I said, SOPA was a truly bipartisan thing. So was the Iraq War. Joe Lieberman is the archetypal bi-partisan. Like I said, it could be nice if the two sides got together and hammered things out but why assume that the result will be something you like or that will be good for the country, as opposed to whatever lobbyists are asking for at the moment.
So yes, "hyperpartisanship" got us Obamacare, but TRUE bipartisanship -- in which the Republican hardliners got the hell OVER themselves and honestly sought compromise -- would have gotten us something better.
What I'm asking is, how do we know they'll end up passing good stuff on a bipartisan basis, rather then bad things like SOPA or NDAA?
1) the more cooperation between republicans and democrats, the more bills they can pass.
2) How do we know those bills will be good?
like Ben Nelson quite frankly don't give a shit what the party in Washington has to say. He only cares about the party in his home state. You are not going to arm twist someone like Joe Lieberman who has his own local power base. You are not going to arm twist someone like Joe Lieberman who has his own local power base.Lieberman nearly lost to a primary challenge in '06, and has zero chance of winning again, thus he's not even trying. There's no leverage over him because he has nothing to worry about. Lincoln lost re-election, Nelson's not running again either. So it's not like their positions did them any good.
« Older A Philadelphia program is bringing families, airpo... | John Lennon's cats... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Postroad at 5:05 PM on January 17 [3 favorites]