The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Libertarian National party

Libertarians say Republicans owe apology, not pledge, to America

WASHINGTON - In response to the recent Republican "Pledge to America," Libertarian Party executive director Wes Benedict released the following statement:


Instead of a "Pledge to America," the Republicans should have written an "Apology to America." It should have gone something like this:

"We're sorry, America. Sorry we grew the federal government budget from $1.7 trillion to over $3 trillion. Sorry we added $5 trillion to the federal debt. Sorry we doubled the size of the Department of Education. Sorry we started two incredibly costly foreign wars. Sorry we supported the absurd and costly TARP bailouts. Sorry we created a huge and costly new Medicare entitlement. Sorry we did nothing to end the costly and destructive War on Drugs. Sorry we did nothing to reform the federal government's near-prohibition on immigration. But hey, at least we helped you by shifting a lot of your tax burden onto your children and grandchildren."

There are so many lies, distortions, hypocrisies, and idiocy in this document that it's hard to know where to start.

It is deeply insulting to see the Republicans refer to "America's founding values" on their cover. The Republican Party has no understanding whatsoever of America's founding values. They have proven and re-proven that for decades.

The document talks a lot about "tax cuts." Unfortunately, the Republican "tax cut" proposals would really do nothing to cut taxes. All their proposals achieve is to defer taxes, pushing the burden onto our children and grandchildren. The only real way to cut taxes is to cut government spending, and the Republican document does almost nothing in that regard.

The Republicans say they want to "roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels." In other words, to re-create the situation near the end of the Bush administration, after Republicans had massively increased federal spending on almost everything.

Republicans must love it when Democrats expand government, because it gives them the opportunity to propose small "cuts," while still ending up with huge government.

One shocking aspect of the document is that it actually includes subtle Republican proposals to increase government spending.

The Republicans offer no plan whatsoever to reduce military spending, America's foreign wars and nation building, or our military defense of rich foriegn nations. On the contrary, the Republicans apparently want to increase military spending, promising to "provide the resources, authority, and support our deployed military requires, fully fund missile defense, and enforce sanctions against Iran."

The Republicans also appear to want to increase government spending on border control. They say "We will ensure that the Border Patrol has the tools and authorities to establish operational control at the border," a costly proposition.

Furthermore, as expected, the document complains about "massive Medicare cuts," implying that Republicans want to make sure Medicare is kept gigantic.

The bulk of federal spending is in three places: Social Security, Medicare, and the military. The Republicans propose absolutely nothing to reduce spending on these three things, or even to slow down their growth.

There must be a typo in the document where it says "Undeterred by dismal results, Washington Democrats continue to double-down on their job-killing policies." That probably should read "Washington Democrats continue to double-down on Republican job-killing policies."

The best way to restore American prosperity would be to implement the straightforward 28 planks of the Libertarian Party platform, or even just follow the Constitution. I mean the actual Constitution, not the Republican re-write that allows for every federal government program imaginable.

I suppose the one positive aspect of the document is that it finally dispels any illusion that Republicans want to shrink government in any meaningful way.

Apparently the Republicans are hoping they can "fool some of the people all of the time." The Libertarian Party is ready to point out Republican lies and hypocrisy to American voters, and we hope that Americans who actually want small and constitutional government, not just hypocrisy and worthless rhetoric, will vote Libertarian this November.

.

[molson]

I like to see the Libertarians go after the Republicans instead of just throwing their hands up in the air and saying, "ehh, they're close enough". I wish more liberals reacted the same way to the Democratic party.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

I like to see the Libertarians go after the Republicans instead of just throwing their hands up in the air and saying, "ehh, they're close enough". I wish more liberals reacted the same way to the Democratic party.

Um, the equivalent of Liberals to Democrats would be Conservatives to Republicans. A true Libertarian wouldn't say "they're close enough" about Republicans, because they would be equally far away from both parties, just on different issues. But I'm amused that you found some way to criticize liberals while responding to an article that was about Libertarians and Republicans.

And if you want to see Liberals complaining about Democrats, then read Daily Kos.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And if you want to see Liberals complaining about Democrats, then read Daily Kos.

I actually took a look at the Daily Kos, and ya, the Democrats are really taking a beating over there....

-GOP congressman, media pick fight with television character
-GOP Pledge architect admits the big hole in the GOP Pledge
-WV-Sen: Republican Raes--"I made my money the old-fashioned way, I inherited it."
-Gingrich doubles down, accuses President of being anti-American
-Boehner's bluff on a GOP budget

(Those are the first 5 headlines - but at least I now know where the some of the resident liberals get many of their thoughts, while accusing MBBF of doing the same thing from his team's blogs. I don't know how anybody can read anything like that on either side - there's zero thought involved and the presented opinion is 100% predictable no matter the issue - "our team right and awesome - their team dumb and retarded. Soliders, to the message boards!!!!")

And yes, there's plenty of Republicans who claim to be about restrained and responsible government when the party clearly isn't, and the outspoken individual ideas about responsible government are just kind of dishonest. I didn't think that was a disputable point. I love to see any indication that there's more than two ways to think in this country.

[molson]

Well, that's something, I admit. I was told to look at Daily Koz, did, and saw an orgy of partisian blame (for a second I thought Bush and a Republican Congress must have somehow taken power again). I certainly admire the gay rights and health care advocates, in particular, who smell a rat in the Obama administration.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

I actually took a look at the Daily Kos, and ya, the Democrats are really taking a beating over there....

-GOP congressman, media pick fight with television character
-GOP Pledge architect admits the big hole in the GOP Pledge
-WV-Sen: Republican Raes--"I made my money the old-fashioned way, I inherited it."
-Gingrich doubles down, accuses President of being anti-American
-Boehner's bluff on a GOP budget.

(Those are the first 5 headlines - but at least I now know where the some of the resident liberals get many of their thoughts, while accusing MBBF of doing the same thing from his team's blogs)

I never suggested that the majority of Daily Kos posts attacked Democrats, but they will attack Democrats for rolling over, much in the same way Stewart mostly goes after Republicans, but often attacks Democrats for being stupid, too.

I don't care that MBBF posts from any blog, only that he pretends to be some kind of non-partisan moderate (much like you do) while he does that.

And yes, there's plenty of Republicans who claim to be about restrained and responsible government when the party clearly isn't. I didn't think that was a disputable point. I love to see any indication that there's more than two ways to think in this country.

What does that have to do with what I said. You somehow drew a parallel saying Libertarians : Republicans is the same as Liberals : Democrats. I'm sure Libertarians would not be happy to hear that you think they are nothing more than conservative Republicans. That was my point.

And yes it is nice to see more than two ways of looking at things. But it sure is funny to see you mention that when you're the one that found a way to criticize liberals in response to a post that had nothing to do with them at all.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Um, look in the comments in said stories or the diaries for more than five seconds.

heh, you mean look beyond the propaganda value for insightful thought? If I'm not mistaken, once you've done that, you've left the voting block the headlines are being framed for.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I like to see the Libertarians go after the Republicans instead of just throwing their hands up in the air and saying, "ehh, they're close enough". I wish more liberals reacted the same way to the Democratic party.

A better comparison would be Greens and they bitch about the Dems all the time.

And they cost Al Gore the presidency, but that probably doesn't matter.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I like to see the Libertarians go after the Republicans instead of just throwing their hands up in the air and saying, "ehh, they're close enough". I wish more liberals reacted the same way to the Democratic party.

Aren't Libertarians in the middle of the two? Socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

Republicans are fiscally liberal and socially conservative, which would seem to go against everything they believe. Democrats aren't much better, but I think Libertarians really have little in common with today's parties.

[JediKooter]

I think of Democrats as a bunch of tree hugging hippies that think happy thoughts will make everything better, but, we all know they are not really doing anything to help.

I think of Republicans as Ted Nugent, Jerry Falwell and and that one uncle you're embarrassed to have in your family, when you all go out in public. Then all 3 of them point out how wrong you are on just about any subject, just to be combative, in front of everyone.

I see the Libertarians as those parents that let their kids do anything and then blame everyone else because they were behaving badly and say, "Well, that's not something we would teach them to do", while not realizing they are living in a fantasy world of parenting.

/sarcasm

[JPhillips]

I don't think there's been any mention of this here. From Glenn Greenwald

At this point, I didn’t believe it was possible, but the Obama administration has just reached an all-new low in its abysmal civil liberties record. In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki’s father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That’s not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what’s most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is “state secrets”: in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are “state secrets,” and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.

Truly a frightening overreach of government powers. This is why it's important to fight these kinds of expanding war powers regardless of the letter behind the name of the president. Accepting the growth of war powers only leads to greater expansion. And now we're at a point where the declaration that the president can execute Americans at will and any mention of that decision is classified a state secret can't even make the nightly news.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

You realize it's possible to think both Obama's not doing a great job, but still want to point out the GOP are even worse fucktards, right?

Sure, but you'd think the focus on blaming the other team would die down a bit when the other team isn't even in power any more (and by the opinion of many, growing more and more irrelevant.) When you don't have Bush to kick around, the whining just looks like deflection. Why should anyone vote for any Democrats if the evil Republicans will just keep them from saving the world anyway?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think there's been any mention of this here. From Glenn Greenwald



Truly a frightening overreach of government powers. This is why it's important to fight these kinds of expanding war powers regardless of the letter behind the name of the president. Accepting the growth of war powers only leads to greater expansion. And now we're at a point where the declaration that the president can execute Americans at will and any mention of that decision is classified a state secret can't even make the nightly news.

+1000. This is where we need the liberals to defend civil liberties. All of my conservative friends laugh at me when I ask why they aren't outraged at shit like this. Then the usually give me some version of "We are at war" or "This is for Al Quida, they would never be this out in the open if they were going to use this on Americans..." I know it is an internet no-no to invoke the Nazi's but you have to agree that they were unparalleled at using human psychology to achieve their means....

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” Joseph Goebbels

[larrymcg421]

Obama's record on civil liberties is incredible disappointing. There's no doubt about it.

[Greyroofoo]

Also, isn't killing a person kind of anti-Christian? That thing Obama claims to be?

This is proof that Obama is a Muslim because everyone knows that muslims love killing people.

[Edward64]

I don't understand why Rahm is doing this. Chief of staff is much more prestigious, powerful, allows more future positioning etc. than mayor?
BREAKING: Emanuel all but certain to run for Chicago mayor, sources say – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Three Democratic sources close to Rahm Emanuel tell CNN that the White House chief of staff informed senior colleagues he is all but certain to run for mayor of Chicago, and will leave the White House to take the final exploratory steps.

Close associates are already building a campaign team according to sources.

An announcement by Emanuel is expected to be scheduled for Friday, sources said.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't understand why Rahm is doing this. Chief of staff is much more prestigious, powerful, allows more future positioning etc. than mayor?

More likely that he's leaving because he's had enough of the WH (and likely that much of the WH has had enough of him). Rumors to that affect have been circulating for months.

Rahm Emanuel expected to quit White House - Telegraph

His Rahm-page Through Washington Comes to an End - By Jim Geraghty - The Campaign Spot - National Review Online

[JPhillips]

If your goal is elected office Chief of Staff isn't the place to be. How many Chiefs of Staff can you name? It's a powerful position, but a behind the scenes position.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How many Chiefs of Staff can you name?

More of them are memorable/recognizable than you might think at first.
List of White House Chiefs of Staff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think there's been any mention of this here. From Glenn Greenwald



Truly a frightening overreach of government powers. This is why it's important to fight these kinds of expanding war powers regardless of the letter behind the name of the president. Accepting the growth of war powers only leads to greater expansion. And now we're at a point where the declaration that the president can execute Americans at will and any mention of that decision is classified a state secret can't even make the nightly news.

Because we're too distracted by all the non-news that has been puffed up into news by the blogosphere. The "Ground Zero Mosque" and all that BS.

Regardless...I'm disgusted by these developments and I'm not about to try to defend this administration's record on civil liberties at all.

Talk about demoralizing the Democratic base.

[larrymcg421]

Sununu and McLarty are two of the worst in history. I've never been a Rahm fan and I'm glad to see him go.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Because we're too distracted by all the non-news that has been puffed up into news by the blogosphere. The "Ground Zero Mosque" and all that BS.

Regardless...I'm disgusted by these developments and I'm not about to try to defend this administration's record on civil liberties at all.

Talk about demoralizing the Democratic base.

Well according to Obama People need to buck up and go vote.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

What are the odds the Republicans nominate someone that me, a RINO, would be interested in supporting? Or is this just going to be a hold-your-nose-and-vote thing like 2004?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

What are the odds the Republicans nominate someone that me, a RINO, would be interested in supporting? Or is this just going to be a hold-your-nose-and-vote thing like 2004?

I think your only shot is Romney, but I'm still not convinced the religious conservative wing of the GOP would allow that.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think your only shot is Romney, but I'm still not convinced the religious conservative wing of the GOP would allow that.

Romney. Blah.

[ISiddiqui]

I think I'd rather vote Romney than any of the pseudo-Tea Party candidates. There is a chance that if Romney wins, he'll just govern completely differently than he campaigned and act like a moderate.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think I'd rather vote Romney than any of the pseudo-Tea Party candidates. There is a chance that if Romney wins, he'll just govern completely differently than he campaigned and act like a moderate.

That's true - and I suspect he would. He's all about getting elected/staying elected. So he'll do whatever he thinks he has to in order to make that happen.

Which kinda is a bit...i dunno...wishy-washy? without any real convictions?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Haha, DT point me to a politician with real convictions (I'll give you Paul).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Which kinda is a bit...i dunno...wishy-washy? without any real convictions?

That is one of the reasons that primary voters aren't all that keen on him. And the #1 charge against him.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Haha, DT point me to a politician with real convictions (I'll give you Paul).

Oh I know. Romney just isn't very good at disguising it.

[JPhillips]

Romney campaigns like he's still the CEO of a large conglomerate. He always seems to be telling groups, "What do you need from me to make this deal?"

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Romney campaigns like he's still the CEO of a large conglomerate. He always seems to be telling groups, "What do you need from me to make this deal?"

Yeah

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Romney campaigns like he's still the CEO of a large conglomerate. He always seems to be telling groups, "What do you need from me to make this deal?"

I wouldn't disagree with that take, it's one of the reasons I don't quite trust him even when he says the right things.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think I'd rather vote Romney than any of the pseudo-Tea Party candidates.

If those are my two choices, I'll just stay home.

Scratch that - I'll stay home if Romney is the choice, I'll vote Obama if the "Tea Party" gets someone in the election...

No wait, Scratch THAT - New Jersey is safely for Obama, my vote doesn't matter.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sabotai

If those are my two choices, I'll just stay home.

Scratch that - I'll stay home if Romney is the choice, I'll vote Obama if the "Tea Party" gets someone in the election...

No wait, Scratch THAT - New Jersey is safely for Obama, my vote doesn't matter.

Vote anyways please?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I wouldn't disagree with that take, it's one of the reasons I don't quite trust him even when he says the right things.

Shocking. We agree on this.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Romney campaigns like he's still the CEO of a large conglomerate. He always seems to be telling groups, "What do you need from me to make this deal?"

Agreed.

[ISiddiqui]

That's probably the best way to express Romney's shift on positions. He's in his CEO mindset.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Vote anyways please?

Amazing how liberals have gone from 'I'm voting to ensure change!' to 'Please vote!' in less than two years.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Amazing how liberals have gone from 'I'm voting to ensure change!' to 'Please vote!' in less than two years.

Actually I just feel that people should excercise their civic duties, but that doesn't fit your narrative.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Colbert nailed it last night.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Romney campaigns like he's still the CEO of a large conglomerate. He always seems to be telling groups, "What do you need from me to make this deal?"

In my view Romney is a Republican version of Al Gore. I don't mean they have the same ideology, but they basically are the same type of politician. I got to experience the misfortune of Al Gore in Tennessee and the misfortune of Romney in Massachusetts. Both are snake oil's salesmen.

They may or may not have good intentions or good ideas, or even ideas that you agree with. You just won't ever know because no matter what they say, they likely don't mean it.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I voted Bush over Gore and would do so again every day of the week. (I did vote for Kerry and not Bush in the next election) If that is any indication on how low on the totem pole Gore was for anyone that got to experience him representing you in office. Likewise if Romney was a candidate to choose from, it effectively would seal my vote for whomever is running against him.

I understand the old jokes about how to tell if a politician is lying... he's moving his mouth. These two just take it to the next level and would try to sell your mother's car to you if they could.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Actually I just feel that people should exercise their civic duties, but that doesn't fit your narrative.

C'mon now. Let's be sincere here. Conservatives don't have to do much of anything other than point to Obama to get the vote out this year. Plenty of motivation there and it's going to be a heavy conservative turnout.

There's only one side begging for turnout this year.

[larrymcg421]

Actually, I think that's a great comparison. Romney went way left trying to unseat Kennedy (saying he was better on gay rights than Kennedy!). Then he moved hard right in trying to get the nomination. Meanwhile, people forget that Al Gore was actually the insurgent conservative candidate in 1988. He was the guy that was there to stop yet another northeastern liberal from getting nominated and was supposed to be one of the first beneficiaries of the super Tuesday format. The plan backfired because with Jackson's presence in the race, the southern states were split. Gore certainly moved left from then, to the point where he endorsed Dean in 2004.

And to those that think I'm a mindless Obama supporter, I think Dean would've been ten times the President that Obama has been and Rahm's irrational hatred of the Dean is one of the many reasons I'm glad he will soon be gone from the White House.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And to those that think I'm a mindless Obama supporter, I think Dean would've been ten times the President that Obama has been and Rahm's irrational hatred of the Dean is one of the many reasons I'm glad he will soon be gone from the White House.

I'd totally agree with this.

[ISiddiqui]

Pfft, you don't have to go as far as Dean. Hillary would have been better President. She's got more balls than Obama.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

C'mon now. Let's be sincere here. Conservatives don't have to do much of anything other than point to Obama to get the vote out this year. Plenty of motivation there and it's going to be a heavy conservative turnout.

There's only one side begging for turnout this year.

Like I said - don't let my actual reason get in the way of your convenient narrative.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Actually, I think that's a great comparison. Romney went way left trying to unseat Kennedy (saying he was better on gay rights than Kennedy!). Then he moved hard right in trying to get the nomination. Meanwhile, people forget that Al Gore was actually the insurgent conservative candidate in 1988. He was the guy that was there to stop yet another northeastern liberal from getting nominated and was supposed to be one of the first beneficiaries of the super Tuesday format. The plan backfired because with Jackson's presence in the race, the southern states were split. Gore certainly moved left from then, to the point where he endorsed Dean in 2004.

And to those that think I'm a mindless Obama supporter, I think Dean would've been ten times the President that Obama has been and Rahm's irrational hatred of the Dean is one of the many reasons I'm glad he will soon be gone from the White House.

To keep up with the trend, as someone who lived under Governor Dean, I give him a hearty MEH. I find it strange that some people are so passionate about his potential as a president. He was a very disappointing governor.

[larrymcg421]

Dean was one of the few Democrats that realized they needed to find a way to win back working class moderates, especially in the South and other red areas. This was at the same time Kerry was claiming he could win the Presidency without the South. Dean wasn't exactly subtle about it for sure, but at least he was smart enough to realize that you don't ignore large regions of the country forever, and then expect them to ever vote for you. That's why, as DNC chair, he started giving lots of money to state chairs in red states, which pissed off people like Rahm and Carville, but ultimately proved successful in 06 and 08.

Plus, I think he's more of his own man than someone like Obama, who I feel is listening to some historically bad advice and apparently not having the backbone to dismiss it and go it his way. I think Dean is more likely to be that type of person. He seems not to care as much what people think about him and would be more willing to risk losing a re-election bid than placating people. And I admire a guy who had to wear a bulletproof vest because he signed a same sex union bill into law.

Since Dean was replaced as DNC Chair, the Rahm picked successor Tim Kaine sat there and watched as a Dem totally tanked the Mass. Senate race. Not an encouraging sign of things to come.

[molson]

So is it even possible to be genuine public servant, have unique perspectives on the country and government, not be indebted to the machines that helped you along the way, have the skill and fortitude to actually promote and enact your vision, and still get elected to major public office? That must be a very short list.