- ‹ previous
- 779 of 2719
- next ›
Compare and Contrast
President Barack Obama is morphing into George W. Bush, as administration attorneys repeatedly adopt the executive-authority and national-security rationales that their Republican predecessors preferred.
In courtroom battles and freedom-of-information fights from Washington, D.C., to California, Obama's legal arguments repeatedly mirror Bush's: White House turf is to be protected, secrets must be retained and dire warnings are wielded as weapons.
Gay rights groups expressed dismay with the Obama administration Friday over its championing of the Defense of Marriage Act, a law the president pledged to try to repeal while on the campaign trail.
The government filed a motion late Thursday to dismiss the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, who are challenging the 1996 federal act....It repeated several arguments made under Bush, including the argument that a union between a man and a woman is "the traditional, and universally recognized, version of marriage."
As a candidate for president, Barack Obama wooed environmentalists with a promise to "support and defend" pristine national forest land from road building and other development that had been pushed by the George W. Bush administration.
But five months into Obama's presidency, the new administration is actively opposing those protections on about 60 million acres of federal woodlands in a case being considered by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
....Whatever the strategy, the result has been a series of cases in which President Obama appears to be taking positions in court that run counter to his stated goals....The Interior Department this spring, for example, defended a Bush plan to lease western Colorado's picturesque Roan Plateau for oil and gas drilling....Administration lawyers have also fought environmentalists in court over a coal mining technique known as mountaintop removal.
Hope and change, baby, hope and change.
Copyright treaty subject to state secrets order?!?
Obama is also arguing that Citizens cannot see the text of the proposed international copyright treaty due to "national security concerns", and has invoked the utterly unconstitutional state secrets theory:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/20/2018255/EFF-and-PK-Reluctantly-D...
State secrets? For a copyright treaty?
GWB's 3rd term continues.
It's much easier to be the President before you have the job.
Fear of precedents
I wonder how much these stances might be driven by fear of establishing precedents? It would be nice if legal situations could be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking the intentions of the defendant into consideration and asking whether society generally was harmed by the offense, but that's not the way the legal system works.
SRS
Three million Pakistani
Three million Pakistani refugees.
While I do not at all
While I do not at all understand Dr. K's last sentence, it is excruciatingly clear we elected a status quo reactionary as this jive ass con man continues to give Progressives the finger and screw the crisis-as-opportunity moment. Read also current issue of Harper's and essay convincingly arguing how BS Obama is the Hoover of his time and his presidency WILL fail because he used his time to tinker and keep the plutocracy happy. His grandmother was a banker! And the painful irony of two blackmen (DOJ Holder) using executive power to the max to screw all but the ruling corporate oligarchs. Back to being destroyed by health care premiums and Blue Shit's rationing of coverage despite $17000 premiums.
I was expecting Obama to dishonor Cheney's precedents...
> I wonder how much these stances might be driven by
> fear of establishing precedents?
That was kinda the point of electing Obama, even over Hillary: to get someone who would have the desire and mandate to ignore and destroy the Cheney/Addington precedents. Not someone who would solidify them.
Cranky
the Beast
At this point in its life cycle, the Beast that is devouring our country is unstoppable, even with the best of intentions. Who knows what (metaphorical) gun is being held to Obama's head?
11 Dimensional Chess! We are
11 Dimensional Chess! We are fools, meddling idiots! As though our ape brains could contain the secrets of the Krell!
Anyway, I'd say the joke was on all those so-called progressives who told us how bad Hillary would be and how evil Bill was and how faptastic Obama was, except the joke is on us all, and we need to spell joke as "tragedy."
But we must remember, Obama was against the war (when he didn't have a vote that mattered.)
Three Things
I'd say three things:
First, Pres. Obama's work on environmental issues is focused principally on climate and energy. There's not nearly as much thought or focus, at least yet, on other environmental issues, such as forest protection, clean water, etc. Perhaps it's a product of the myriad other issues his administration is working on. In some instances, it seems to reflect the fact that major environmental issues -- like domestic energy production -- occur in regions that the administration views as politically conservative. So there's a political/electoral element to the administration's positions (or lack thereof) where the administration does not appear willing to expend the political capital to truly change the on-the-ground situation or to cut against the grain of local/state politicians. The problem is that Obama could lead by example and create space for local/state politicians to take stronger, more progressive stands -- or encourage citizens to do the same. And it's honestly been a disappointment and could prove short sighted. It's particularly disappointing because federal agencies and DOJ attorneys are taking legal positions that are just as aggressive as the prior administration.
Second, and relatedly, its incumbent upon advocates not to fold up their tents and simply assume that the Obama administration is going to change the world. One of the most inspiring elements of his candidacy -- and his presidency (I hope) -- is the idea of citizen involvement and accountability. WE need to continue our work, WE need to continue to change the dialogue to reflect progressive values and ideas. And WE need to be quite careful to not fall in the trap of cozying up to the administration so closely that we compromise our own values and ideas. A robust, vigorous dialogue is essential. But I'm nervous that progressive advocates will want to play too much of an insiders game and, accordingly, not want to piss off the administration or rock the boat too much and thus undermine our own ability to get the job done.
Third, keep in mind the long view. We want change, now, and many of us believe strongly in our issues. But our country is still quite dysfunctional and many of our major problems are symptomatic of a failure of our governing institutions and political discourse. It's going to take time to heal. Restoration of strong, health governing institutions and political discourse transcends any one of our issues. And we shouldn't lose our faith and hope that Obama is going to play a key role on this front. But again, we can speed that process through our own hard work, our own smart politics, and our own big-hearted values and ideas.
Obama vs. Emaneul
> Second, and relatedly, its incumbent upon advocates not to fold up their
> tents and simply assume that the Obama administration is going to change
> the world. One of the most inspiring elements of his candidacy -- and his
> presidency (I hope) -- is the idea of citizen involvement and accountability.
> WE need to continue our work, WE need to continue to change the dialogue
Obama seems to be playing a pretty brutal game of good cop-bad cop using Rahm Emanuel as the foil. Obama and Plouff _talk_ quite a bit about dialogue, "teaching moments", and citizen involvement. Then Emanuel pokes a sharp flaming stick in the eye of any person, group, or idea more progressive than Joe Lieberman will permit, and Obama "reluctantly" follows Emanuel's direction.
Cranky
re: Obama vs. Emaneul
Perhaps. But I also think that many issues aren't even on their radar and that they don't have the political capital/will to invest in figuring them out. And so they make "easy" political choices. For example, I just don't think that Obama thinks a whole lot about protection of our remaining roadless wildlands, although I think their protection is incredibly important. Thus, we carry the burden to push the ball forward on those issues and to create the political space for our values and ideas to make a difference.
But....
Obama isn't alone in the WH or DC. It's only normal for any single individual to be more informed, more interested and more involved in some issues rather than others But that's what his advisors, cabinet and deparment heads are for! Why isn't he getting the right advice from the EPA or Dept of Interior. Aha. Now I know the answer. I just googled 'Department of the Interior' and found that Obama appointed Ken Salazar as head of the department. Here's the headline from Democracy Now:
"Shunning Environmental Groups, Obama Taps Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar for Interior Dept."
And this about Salazar and Vilsack, Head of Agriculture:
"...the likes of Ken Salazar and Tom Vilsack are going to be as big of friends of industry as they are of the environment. Salazar's selection has been praised by mining and oil interests, while Vilsack's support for industrial agriculture (epitomized by companies like Monsanto) is well-known."
So what IS going on here? From financial advisors the like of Summers and Geithner to these guys, even to Clinton (forgive me) as SoS. I think the handwriting is pretty clearly on the wall. Where can I get one of those 'Bush Again' bumper stickers? Damn.
Second Thoughts
After doing a bit of research I think I spoke too quickly in criticizing Obama's environmental record so far. He and Congress have done some very good things, like the Land Conservation Act which protects more than 2 million acres as wilderness area.
The administration's reason for defending some Bush policies in court is:
"Administration officials say that in some cases, they are defending the policies to prevent the courts from settling the issues -- a prospect that would restrict the government's ability to set the environmental agenda. They say the task of setting policy is better left to government agencies and legislators."
This is rather convoluted logic but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt at this point. I think we can rest assured that Obama's environmental record will be quite a bit better than Bush's.
State secrets and copyright?
> Third, keep in mind the long view. We want change, now, and many of
> us believe strongly in our issues. But our country is still quite dysfunctional
> and many of our major problems are symptomatic of a failure of our
> governing institutions and political discourse. It's going to take time to heal
So, help me understand how invoking an unconstitutional "state secrets" privilege to prevent US Citizens from reading the text of a proposed _copyright treaty_ helps us get on the path to "healing"? A copyright treaty? I understand the the big content corporations would love to have the ability to sign secret treaties and torture Citizens who disagree with them on the constitutionality of various recent copyright laws, but what path is Obama putting us on when he back them?
Cranky
State Secrets/Copyright
Didn't mean to imply that invoking "state secrets" was proper or acceptable, and I'm right with you on that point. Only meant to suggest that we should be cognizant, in identifying and implementing strategies, to think about how issues play out in the short and long term, and to recognize that as we seek immediate redress and change, to also lay the groundwork for fundamental, long-term, permanent reform. Too many bad ideas out. Too much time given to talking heads with no credibility who have done our country wrong. I'd like the past eight years -- and its legacy -- placed in the dustbin of history, remembered only as an example of how even a great country can do very bad things, and to be ever vigilant in safeguarding our rights and future. And that's not so suggest an incrementalist approach either -- only to suggest the need for good, long-term, strategic thinking and advocacy.
Keep his feet to the fire.
Let's judge this administration, as we would any administration, by its deeds, not its words. Good intentions and inspiring rhetoric are swell, but don't mean much. Results count, and in many areas, the Obama administration isn't making much of an effort. On executive privilege, state secrets, health care, banking reform, and the wars, count me as disappointed. I didn't expect him to be the second coming, but I expected better than this. I expected him to at least try, not to shore up Bush-era policies or make feeble attempts at the easiest way out. He has the political capital, but he acts as if he's saving it for something more important, like some amorphous, bipartisan, trust-building exercise to make us all feel good about government again. I'll feel good when I see some real progress on the agenda he promised, at least a real effort to make it happen.
Well today I saw what
Well today I saw what appeared to be a pretty new bumpersticker on a car with an anti-W sticker that said "Bush Again". I took it to be basically an anti-Obama sticker.
Maybe Obama just found that
Maybe Obama just found that at least some liberal ideas don't have a place in the real world? I don't have a problem with the guy being a moderate.
Bush Again
It's month 6 - by month 40 you're all going to be ready to vote for Romney. And I've seen the secret copyright bill. It provides for compulsory waterboarding for single moms who illegally download 24 songs from Kazaa. Hope and change - I hope the parking meter is going to give me the six bucks change on my twenty.
Let's try the same thing
Let's try the same thing with all the other Democratic presidents of the last 80 years, to get some perspective...
Clinton slashed welfare, actively supported DOMA and don't ask, don't tell, declared "the era of big government is over", and totally failed on health care
Carter didn't even try to get a progressive domestic agenda through Congress (at least nothing that got in the history books), and foreshadowed Reagan's policies of deregulation and Cold War confrontation.
LBJ got us into Vietnam. Nuff said
Kennedy dragged his feet on civil rights and engaged in fearmongering over the Soviet Union to beat Nixon, and his main contribution to progressive reform was getting shot.
Truman....well truman would seem to be a progressive hero (except of course for dropping the bomb). But look at his approval ratings, fifties people knew stuff that we don't. His ineptness helped put the Republicans back into power after 20 years in the wilderness
FDR imprisoned 100,000 American citizens for committing no other crime than being Japanese. He also allowed southern conservatives to water down the New Deal to leave out black people.
I know all of this and still admire these men as, by and large, good presidents. Obama's sins pale in comparison to many of them. I can see the point of Obama having a left flank, but the progressive base (which somehow seems not to include the 90% of Democrats who still support the president) is starting to believe their own rhetoric. This is getting dangerous. Remember 2000 and Ralph Nader? It only took 5-10% of democrats deserting the party to elect Bush. It seemed like we had learned our lesson in 2004, maybe too well (did the liberal blogosphere *ever* get remotely annoyed at John Kerry before election day?). But will the purists be up to their old tricks again in 2012?
It's all a balance, isn't it?
Of course, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or of at least the better-than-Bush. And of course we will never get everything we want. But, my disappointment with Obama is that he seems to be barely trying on some issues, and is continuing Bush policies on others. State secrets is a perfect example.
And should we not criticize Obama because we voted for him? I think seeing things through the prism of Democrat vs. Republican is outmoded. If you have a set of goals and expectations, are you supposed to be quiet when a Democrat fails to meet them and jump up and down and scream if the miscreant is a Republican?
I'm not some hot-house-flower idealist. I know politics ain't beanbag. But that's no reason to lower standards.
It's all a balance, isn't it?
Of course, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or of at least the better-than-Bush. And of course we will never get everything we want. But, my disappointment with Obama is that he seems to be barely trying on some issues, and is continuing Bush policies on others. State secrets is a perfect example.
And should we not criticize Obama because we voted for him? I think seeing things through the prism of Democrat vs. Republican is outmoded. If you have a set of goals and expectations, are you supposed to be quiet when a Democrat fails to meet them and jump up and down and scream if the miscreant is a Republican?
I'm not some hot-house-flower idealist. I know politics ain't beanbag. But that's no reason to lower standards.
They are the same
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8i8rRhfwuI0/ScEuyMJt5tI/AAAAAAAACw0/hrmdihcrvr...
Change I Really CAN Believe In
And here's my logic.
http://leftoffcolfax.blogspot.com/2009/06/not-in-job-description.html
Is this a MoJo requirement?
Kevin -- Is it part of your contract that you have to give far left readers a chance to vent in the comments every day or two? My favorites are those who genuinely seem to see no difference between the Obama and Bush administrations, and those who worry about change from parking meters ...
Could you at least demand the site load faster in return for this service?
Thanks!
-b.
Double Post.
Sorry.
May I indulge myself, Kevin?
I still remember you voting for Obama for a flimsy reason. The supposed leaders of the left voted for Obama because, "I can't stand Terry McAuliffe" (Markos), "Obama is the media darling" (Big Tent Democrat), and your reasoning wasn't much better.
I still remember the kind of campaign he ran, and you guys either encouraged it or closed your eyes to the tactics. Now, Atrios (the less said about the primary, the better)acts like nothing has happened.
Elections have CONSEQUENCES. We told you so. We tried and we tried.
Sorry, he is your guy now. ENJOY THE RIDE.