The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's also no longer treasonous to vote against funding the troops in the middle of two wars.

you forgot to add "that you voted to start and then continue"

[molson]

I know you're both intentionally exagerating for effect, but all you're really criticizing is people's OPINIONS that one should support the president in a time of war. I don't have that opinion myself, but that's just a free speech opinion like any other. It's a little ironic to label someone else's expression of free spreech (which includes the right to criticize others for speaking) as advocating charges for "treason".

[JPhillips]

No, I'm commenting on very specific charges of treasonous behavior leveled by some in the GOP for the same things they are doing now.

I'm fine with voting against a funding bill or speaking out on the Iranian crisis, but I'd at least like it to be recognized that some of the same people that are supporting these actions now were calling them treasonous as recently as during the election campaign.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

No, I'm commenting on very specific charges of treasonous behavior leveled by some in the GOP for the same things they are doing now.

Someone said that people that criticized Bush should be charged with treason? I didn't realize that. I mean, EVERY conceivable sentiment has been stated on some wacky blog, but legitimate people were calling for treason charges?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm fine with voting against a funding bill or speaking out on the Iranian crisis, but I'd at least like it to be recognized that some of the same people that are supporting these actions now were calling them treasonous as recently as during the election campaign.

Can you name someone that did that both of those things? (including calling for treason charges) This "these are the same people" argument is hugely popular around here right now and I think it's totally misleading. I could say, "These Obama supporters are the same people that think Bush planned 9/11, so their opinions can't be taken seriously". I could definitely find Obama supporters on the internet that think Bush planned 9/11, but that doesn't say anything at all about Obama supoprters that don't.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Can you name someone that did that both of those things? (including calling for treason charges) This "these are the same people" argument is hugely popular around here right now and I think it's totally misleading. I could say, "These Obama supporters are the same people that think Bush planned 9/11, so their opinions can't be taken seriously". I could definitely find Obama supporters on the internet that think Bush planned 9/11, but that doesn't say anything at all about Obama supoprters that don't.

I'd agree if I said all of the GOP, but I specifically said, "some of the same". I don't think the entirety of Republicans or conservatives or whatever group you want to define has the same opinion. However, just go back through the debates on war spending in 2007/2008 or McCain and Palin's criticisms of Obama for voting against funding the troops or the attacks on Kerry for the same issue or calls for bringing back the sedition act during the Iraq war or etc...

I'm not trying to tar all Republicans, especially considering that a number of prominent GOPers, including Lugar and Nicholas Burns, have been very responsible about Iran, but when I see McCain or Cantor bitching about Obama's Iran policy or see the entire GOP plan to vote against troop funding I'd really like the media to point out that these same actions were considered treasonous and unamerican by many of the same elected officials as recently as last year.

For me it's a beginning to get past a pro-American/anti-American debate and hopefully recognizing that their are often legitimate reasons for debate that get silenced by cries of treason. That applies to both parties, btw.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Can you name someone that did that both of those things? (including calling for treason charges) This "these are the same people" argument is hugely popular around here right now and I think it's totally misleading. I could say, "These Obama supporters are the same people that think Bush planned 9/11, so their opinions can't be taken seriously". I could definitely find Obama supporters on the internet that think Bush planned 9/11, but that doesn't say anything at all about Obama supoprters that don't.

A lot of the talking heads did. Guys like Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, etc. I don't know if they called for charges to be pushed against people specifically, but they did allude to the fact that those criticizing a President during war and while he was overseas is treasonous. They attacked politicians and entertainers (Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, etc) for this. You also had politicians like Bachmann and Inhofe doing the same.

You can't tell me that you missed that party calling for treason charges on the New York Times for reporting on illegal wiretapping?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

A lot of the talking heads did. Guys like Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, etc. I don't know if they called for charges to be pushed against people specifically, but they did allude to the fact that those criticizing a President during war and while he was overseas is treasonous. They attacked politicians and entertainers (Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, etc) for this. You also had politicians like Bachmann and Inhofe doing the same.

You can't tell me that you missed that party calling for treason charges on the New York Times for reporting on illegal wiretapping?

They're all goofballs if they used that word, and certainly hypocrites if they criticize Obama now. I never heard them say that, but I don't watch FoxNews. It just sounded like one of those exagerations that can get grouped in with fact (like that Dick Cheney stated there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda), but if people were really saying that, then ya.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

They're all goofballs if they used that word, and certainly hypocrites if they criticize Obama now. I never heard them say that, but I don't watch FoxNews.

There was a LOT of discussion about various things being treason. Most of the GOP talking heads threw that word around a bunch. I'm pretty sure I remember Obama being called treasonous because he said The Surge wouldn't work which supposedly was tantamount to giving aid to the enemy.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

It just sounded like one of those exagerations that can get grouped in with fact (like that Dick Cheney stated there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda)

2002

"His {Hussein's} regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002)

2003

"His {Hussein's} regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." - Vice President's Remarks at 30th Political Action Conference, White House (1/30/2003)

"And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons. . . We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003)

"If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003)

"(Since September 11) We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003)

"And the reason we had to do Iraq, if you hark back and think about that link between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was the place where we were most fearful that that was most likely to occur, because in Iraq we've had a government -- not only was it one of the worst dictatorships in modern times, but had oftentimes hosted terrorists in the past . . . but also an established relationship with the al Qaeda organization . . . ." - Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003)

"(I)f we had not paid any attention to the fact that al Qaeda was being hosted in Northeastern Iraq, part of poisons network producing ricin and cyanide that was intended to be used in attacks both in Europe, as well as in North Africa and ignored it, we would have been derelict in our duties and responsibilities." - Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003)

"He cultivated ties to terror, hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He also had an established relationship with al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs." - Remarks by Vice President Dick Cheney at the Heritage Foundation, White House (10/10/2003)

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. He cultivated ties to terror -- hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, and making payments to the families of suicide bombers. He also had an established relationship with Al Qaida -- providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003)

2004

"We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions." - Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004)

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11." - Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004)

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, White House (1/14/2004)

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to Veterans at the Arizona Wing Museum, White House (1/15/2004)

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Dick Cheney, Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it wasn't an exaggeration.

[molson]

Oops, I mean to say the myth that Cheney "lied" about there being a link between 9/11 and Iraq. That came up a few pages back, and it was response to accuasations of "lying" when Cheney specifically said that this was something that some foreign government had said. Obviously Al-Qaeda had a presence in Iraq and was sheltered there (no different than many middle-eastern countries) Misleading more than a "lie". It just annoys me when that word is thrown around with recklessness, because it's a very serious allegation for a government official and it's rarely backed up, especially in this context.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Lie is a difficult word. If you don't seek out the truth, but can say things with "plausible deniability," is that lie? Is it one in spirit?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Lie is a difficult word. If you don't seek out the truth, but can say things with "plausible deniability," is that lie? Is it one in spirit?

That's closer to a lie, I think.

But I know it's not a lie if you say something, and through errors of people that work for you and lies of outside people, it turns out not to be true.

People throw around all the time that the Bush administration lied to start a war. That's impeachable, criminal, and I've never seen any evidence of it, and nobody credible has ever seriously contended it, beyond spirited speculation.

That doesn't mean it's not true - we don't know everything that goes on behind the scenes. I just don't think we know enough for those kinds statements of "lies" to be thrown around like facts, and not be subject to that clarification that it's just speculation.

Nobody did that just now, though, I don't know what I'm rambling about.

[flere-imsaho]

While Cheney was very careful to not say Iraq was linked to 9/11, I still argue that in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion he and the administration did everything they could to link Iraq to Al-Qaeda in an attempt to get the public to link Iraq to 9/11. This article, from 2003, gives some of the context of the time.

This is an old, old political ploy. In order to get the public to believe A = C, tell them that A is like B and B is like C, so therefore A = C. Plus, they had the benefit of a public that was happy to believe that Hussein could be a co-conspirator in 9/11, a notion the public has (hopefully) been disabused of now.

Not to mention that the Iraq-Al Qaeda link itself was way, way overblown, especially by Cheney.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

People throw around all the time that the Bush administration lied to start a war. That's impeachable, criminal, and I've never seen any evidence of it, and nobody credible has ever seriously contended it, beyond spirited speculation.

Every single piece of evidence they cited to justify invading Iraq has since been found to be wrong, hugely misunderstood, or simply based only on speculation. As I've said before in the Iraq threads, the Bush Administration may have not lied to start the war (lied outright) but they either a) bent the evidence as far as it would go without breaking to build a case or b) were so vastly incompetent so as not to be able to discern good evidence from bad evidence.

In my opinion, it's not criminal by the letter, but it's certainly criminal in spirit.

[Logan]

Despite this being from the Christian Science Monitor I found it to be the best detailed of the articles out at this point.

Obama’s five-prong plan to oversee financial industry | csmonitor.com

Obama’s five-prong plan to oversee financial industry

The Federal Reserve would take on new responsibilities for monitoring risks, and a new agency would be created to enforce consumer safety in financial products.

President Obama is proposing a stem-to-stern overhaul of financial regulation in America, aimed at preventing a recurrence of the kind of credit-market collapse that engulfed the global economy last year.

The Obama administration says the time to enact this rule make-over is this year, even though officials are still busy with the more urgent tasks of damage control in the financial system. Top economic officials cite two reasons for the timing: to bolster the economy by restoring confidence in the financial system, and to pass needed reforms before political momentum withers away amid postcrisis relief.

Critics say the program, even if successfully implemented, isn’t enough to prevent future financial crises. Other analysts say the plan tackles most of the key gaps or weaknesses that opened the door to last year’s financial crisis. Whether it goes far enough or not, the program would bring major changes to the way financial products are regulated.

The plan seeks to alter the regulatory environment on five fronts. It would:

• Strengthen oversight and fill gaps in regulation. One institution, the Federal Reserve, would become responsible for monitoring risks across various industries, with a new oversight panel looking over its shoulder. Banks would be required to hold more capital to ensure their soundness. The standards would be highest for the biggest and most complex firms. The pay incentives at banks – which have been blamed for encouraging risk — would be subject to new oversight. One new agency, a successor to the Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), would replace the OCC and the Office of Thrift Supervision – so that banks and thrift institutions are regulated in the same manner.

• Oversee complex products known as derivatives, which fueled a binge of risky mortgage lending. Derivatives would be subject to new regulation and disclosure. Firms that create these products, including packages of mortgages and other loans, would have to retain a stake in them.

• Empower regulators with new “resolution authority” to take over large and interconnected firms when they get into trouble. This would give the government a framework for restructuring such firms, rather than facing what an administration official calls the “fool’s choice” between a full-scale taxpayer bailout (as was provided for insurer AIG) and the system-threatening collapse of a major firm (as happened at Lehman Brothers).

• Create a new agency to regulate and enforce consumer safety in financial products, much as the Food and Drug Administration does in another realm of consumer products. The Securities and Exchange Commission would still oversee investment products, but Mr. Obama intends that the new agency would become a strong enforcer for mortgage lending, credit cards, and other banking products that have had weak or patchwork rules.

• Work with other nations for tighter and more synchronized global standards for firms that operate across borders. This would make it harder for risky financial products to flourish from a base in weakly regulated nations.

[JPhillips]

From Huffington POst live blog on Iran:

GOP Rep. Pete Hoekstra, ranking Republican on the intelligence committee, tweets: "Iranian twitter activity similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House."

HA!

[Big Fo]

I'd like to see Hoekstra hit with a police baton a few times.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

That's closer to a lie, I think.

But I know it's not a lie if you say something, and through errors of people that work for you and lies of outside people, it turns out not to be true.

People throw around all the time that the Bush administration lied to start a war. That's impeachable, criminal, and I've never seen any evidence of it, and nobody credible has ever seriously contended it, beyond spirited speculation.

That doesn't mean it's not true - we don't know everything that goes on behind the scenes. I just don't think we know enough for those kinds statements of "lies" to be thrown around like facts, and not be subject to that clarification that it's just speculation.

Nobody did that just now, though, I don't know what I'm rambling about.

If it's not a lie, then it's incompetence and callousness toward fellow American soldiers. I know he gets ribbed on for being dumb, but I don't think he's dumb enough to really believe that bullshit intelligence that was being thrown around and laughed at by most people. Therefore I believe he simply lied. I just can't put him in the utterly stupid camp.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

They're all goofballs if they used that word, and certainly hypocrites if they criticize Obama now. I never heard them say that, but I don't watch FoxNews. It just sounded like one of those exagerations that can get grouped in with fact (like that Dick Cheney stated there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda), but if people were really saying that, then ya.

I wouldn't say Rush is a goofball. We've had multiple members of Congress and the head of the RNC grovel and apologize to him for daring to have a different opinion. There are few, if any Republican figures who have more power than him in the party.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Logan

Despite this being from the Christian Science Monitor I found it to be the best detailed of the articles out at this point.

Obama’s five-prong plan to oversee financial industry | csmonitor.com

Ok, we've reached my first "I'm now pissed at the new President moment". Granted, I realize that my wishes are for a draconian banking system where if you want to loan or claim to have money, you have to actually have, you know, money. Then, again I also wanted Uncle Sam to buy up the hemorrhaging banks, take out the anti-trust stick, and spin off the parts for a profit after holding them for a few years.

That said, I realize these measures were never going to happen. But I thought it was reasonable to expect some pretty strong regulations to keep us from getting close to this mess again (and, I realize, we'd get into another different mess but at least it wouldn't be this one). Instead, we get this sick joke- rather than concrete rules and regulations that can't be broken, we instead remove one regulatory body, add one, and strengthen one. You know, those regulatory bodies that were ignored and/or ienpt enough to let this happen in the first place because you're pitting underpaid government workers against their former coworkers who were hired away for 3-10X their wage to show companies how to beat the system.

Oh, and I'm really impressed that we are now requiring companies to take on a whopping 5% of the credit risk when they bundle exotic crap. When you're selling crap at an infinity-based markup, what's 5% in not even cash but credit?

SI

[JPhillips]

TX Rep John Culberson also sees the similarities between the GOP and the Iranians:

Good to see Iranian people move mountains w social media, shining sunlight on their repressive govt - Texans support their bid for freedom


Oppressed minorities includeHouseRepubs: We are using social media to expose repression such as last night's D clampdown shutting off amends

This mockery of Hoekstra is excellent:

http://search.twitter.com/search?q=petehoekstra

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Ok, we've reached my first "I'm now pissed at the new President moment". Granted, I realize that my wishes are for a draconian banking system where if you want to loan or claim to have money, you have to actually have, you know, money. Then, again I also wanted Uncle Sam to buy up the hemorrhaging banks, take out the anti-trust stick, and spin off the parts for a profit after holding them for a few years.

That said, I realize these measures were never going to happen. But I thought it was reasonable to expect some pretty strong regulations to keep us from getting close to this mess again (and, I realize, we'd get into another different mess but at least it wouldn't be this one). Instead, we get this sick joke- rather than concrete rules and regulations that can't be broken, we instead remove one regulatory body, add one, and strengthen one. You know, those regulatory bodies that were ignored and/or ienpt enough to let this happen in the first place because you're pitting underpaid government workers against their former coworkers who were hired away for 3-10X their wage to show companies how to beat the system.

Oh, and I'm really impressed that we are now requiring companies to take on a whopping 5% of the credit risk when they bundle exotic crap. When you're selling crap at an infinity-based markup, what's 5% in not even cash but credit?

SI

Once they gave them the money with no strings attached there was no hope of strong regulations. Even these weak reforms will be significantly watered down by Congress.

[sterlingice]

Hell, they're weak out of the box. How do you water down... water?

SI

[RainMaker]

Obama is too pussy to pass through any of the tough stuff. He'll do the same with health care by watering it down. Bush had really stupid ideas, but at least he had the guts to push them through and not give a shit what people think.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Obama is too pussy to pass through any of the tough stuff. He'll do the same with health care by watering it down. Bush had really stupid ideas, but at least he had the guts to push them through and not give a shit what people think.

At the end of the day, I'd rather have style much more than the other. A moron ramming through horrible ideas is still much worse than wishy-washy nothing. However, I'd argue that we are in a time of larger issues with less of a margin of error where doing nothing is also harmful.

SI

[path12]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Obama is too pussy to pass through any of the tough stuff. He'll do the same with health care by watering it down. Bush had really stupid ideas, but at least he had the guts to push them through and not give a shit what people think.

Pussy enough? I doubt it but it's really beside the point. There are many powerful (read moneyed) interests that have skin in this game, and who also can have a major effect on the way that any given issue is portrayed. That's a tough status quo for anyone to budge.

While personally I would prefer major sweeping changes on a number of fronts, I'll be impressed with some changes that will ensure incremental yet steady movement.

I'm probably a pussy though.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From Huffington POst live blog on Iran:

GOP Rep. Pete Hoekstra, ranking Republican on the intelligence committee, tweets: "Iranian twitter activity similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House."

HA!

Pete Hoekstra has become an internet meme. Some of these are great

link

[RainMaker]

Shit some of those are funny.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by path12

Pussy enough? I doubt it but it's really beside the point. There are many powerful (read moneyed) interests that have skin in this game, and who also can have a major effect on the way that any given issue is portrayed. That's a tough status quo for anyone to budge.

While personally I would prefer major sweeping changes on a number of fronts, I'll be impressed with some changes that will ensure incremental yet steady movement.

I'm probably a pussy though.

Things were royally fucked up and people voted him in power to fix it. Not to pussy foot around and appease everyone. The new financial regulations are half-assed just like the health care reform. He has heavy majorities in Congress thanks to people who voted for people to fix the mess. It's as good a time as any to pass major health care reform, but instead he's too worried about losing a couple approval points or upsetting a lobbying group.

Giving speeches is cute and all but maybe it's time to actually accomplish something now.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by "MBBF" from the Iran thread

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan -
1. There is great support and interest in Iran for the U.S. Don't buy into the ignorance spread by political figures on both sides of the argument. You would be very surprised how much you and other Americans have in common with each other. Their needs and wants are very similar.

and Fareed's intro in the article:

Everything you know about Iran is wrong, or at least more complicated than you think.

[path12]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Things were royally fucked up and people voted him in power to fix it. Not to pussy foot around and appease everyone. The new financial regulations are half-assed just like the health care reform. He has heavy majorities in Congress thanks to people who voted for people to fix the mess. It's as good a time as any to pass major health care reform, but instead he's too worried about losing a couple approval points or upsetting a lobbying group.

I think you're getting mixed up on what Obama can accomplish on his own and whether or not Congress has any nads. And Harry Reid appears to have little or none.

IMO what needs to happen is for the Congressional leadership to say to the Republicans "Fine. You want to filibuster? Go for it." Make them stand up and rail about the crazy they've become for days on end. I don't think it'll get them lower than the 25% approval they currently have (and really, is there much precedence for a party going so far off the rails in the recent past?) because there will always be the true believers, but I'd be willing to bet that forcing them to filibuster will help advance the Dem agenda rather than hurt it in the long run.

Of course, you've also got that little problem of the members in charge of health reform being bought and paid for by the insurance companies/big Pharma, but that's a whole other issue. And the Blue Dogs, etc, etc.

So I'd take issue with your premise that it's all pussyfooting around/appeasement. Unfortunately, changing a broken system isn't something that will happen all at once, as much as we might wish it could.

It's not like Obama is fuckin' Gandalf, after all.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, I was hoping to see at least one filibuster this time around.

[Fighter of Foo]

Some of you actually think Obama is going to significantly change any of our systems and/or even improve your lives? For your own sanity I hope not.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by path12

IMO what needs to happen is for the Congressional leadership to say to the Republicans "Fine. You want to filibuster? Go for it."

Most conservatives would love to see that as well. At some point, when you have a strong majority in both houses, you need to start taking a stand and passing some legislation that you believe is best for the country rather than what polls well.

[path12]

The interesting thing with that is that issues like DADT and health care do poll well for the Dems.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by path12

The interesting thing with that is that issues like DADT and health care do poll well for the Dems.

Depends on the phrasing of the question. On their own (Do you like President Obama's policy proposal on XXXX?), you are correct in most instances. The current question being used by most polling groups (Do you think it's more important to reduce the deficit or XXXX?), the majority of the public supports a reduction in deficit spending. There are some great ideas in Obama's plans, but most of them force us into further deficit spending. That mitigates those ideas. If we can't afford them, should we really be doing them. President Obama talked of tightening purse-strings repeatedly. The majority of the people apparantly want to see the same from their government leaders.

[path12]

Yeah, but when I see results that the number one important issue is jobs and the economy and the second is deficit reduction, it just generally reminds me that people don't know what the fuck they're doing.

Not disagreeing with your overall point though about question phrasing.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Some of you actually think Obama is going to significantly change any of our systems and/or even improve your lives? For your own sanity I hope not.

Obama really hasn't done much policy changes from Bush that he has railed against or gives vague speeches on what needs to change without giving much detail. Could be why his support for his policies are slipping.

Interesting news on the health care front:
Dems try to regain health care momentum - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by path12

I think you're getting mixed up on what Obama can accomplish on his own and whether or not Congress has any nads. And Harry Reid appears to have little or none.

IMO what needs to happen is for the Congressional leadership to say to the Republicans "Fine. You want to filibuster? Go for it." Make them stand up and rail about the crazy they've become for days on end. I don't think it'll get them lower than the 25% approval they currently have (and really, is there much precedence for a party going so far off the rails in the recent past?) because there will always be the true believers, but I'd be willing to bet that forcing them to filibuster will help advance the Dem agenda rather than hurt it in the long run.

Of course, you've also got that little problem of the members in charge of health reform being bought and paid for by the insurance companies/big Pharma, but that's a whole other issue. And the Blue Dogs, etc, etc.

So I'd take issue with your premise that it's all pussyfooting around/appeasement. Unfortunately, changing a broken system isn't something that will happen all at once, as much as we might wish it could.

It's not like Obama is fuckin' Gandalf, after all.

Bush had no problem passing making major policy changes when he had a Republican majority behind him. He said he wanted a tax cut and made it happen. He said he wanted to go to war with Iraq and made it happen. A lot of his policies were bad for the country, but when he wanted something done, he made it happen.

I don't expect him to fix everything at once, but I do expect him to do something. The financial regulations he proposed were weak and catered to a lot of people who's policies got us in the mess. The health care proposals are weak and don't fix the problem at all.

He built his platform on change and fixing the system. He deserves blame when he comes in and doesn't come close to making changes.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Outside of the economy which seems to be on cruise control to somewhere, what are your hopes and predictions?
My hopes are

1. Some massive overhaul for healthcare to fix the problem. Not sure if socialized 100% coverage is the right solution but something beyond $5K tax credits needs to be done.
2. Serious Energy program. Encourage alternate fuels etc. Not sure what the solution is but with gas back down to < $2, I am concerned this will no longer be the focus.
3. Stabilize Iraq. Militarily for sure, not sure about politically. Refocus on Afghanistan and get that SOB (preferably dead).
4. Improve world opinion of the US. I think Hillary and Bill can accomplish this!

Time to review my hopes and current state, and do a grade.

Economy. (B+). Geitner gets more credit, he seemed to be doing better now vs early on. I don't think anyone is crying with Paulson gone. Stock Market up. Banking somewhat stabilized with TARP. Auto in bankruptcy, but we all know it was going to happen sooner or later, might as well be now. Real Estate, not sure. I think residential is stabilizing but hear that commercial is the other shoe fixing to drop. Lots of regulations proposed. Government in big business (for now).

Healthcare. (B) Okay, I guess some 'massive' haul is being proposed. From what I have read, the Public Option is still in doubt and single payer is out. I am somewhat disappointed as it doesn't quite seem to be as massive as I would have liked.

Energy program. (N/A) Nothing much so far, but to be fair, he has bigger fish to fry right now.

Stabilize Iraq. (B+) He does not get all the credit, GWB gets much. Slowly withdrawing, not as fast as he promised, but it seems prudent to me. It does seem as if the political situation has stabilized somewhat also ... as evidenced by the lack of sectarian violence. Certainly a refocus in Afghanistan with the new SF commander. With Pakistan seemingly in the fight, I predict increased coordination between Pakistan and US ... and you know what that will mean for the tribal regions and OBL!

Improve world opinion of US. (A-) Certainly done in Europe, also in Lebanon as evidenced by his speech and their June parlimentary election, some in the Muslim ME as I read some reference to them thinking he is 'more' pro-Arab, but not in Israel, not sure in Iraq or other gulf-states. Interestingly, it looks as if Obama and not Hillary has been the key.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Improve world opinion of US. (A-) Certainly done in Europe, also in Lebanon as evidenced by his speech and their June parlimentary election, some in the Muslim ME as I read some reference to them thinking he is 'more' pro-Arab, but not in Israel, not sure in Iraq or other gulf-states. Interestingly, it looks as if Obama and not Hillary has been the key.

So it's win-win. American takes care of it's Iraq problem and doesn't take a hit in world opinion. Who says the two-party system doesn't work?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Time to review my hopes and current state, and do a grade.

Economy. (B+). Geitner gets more credit, he seemed to be doing better now vs early on. I don't think anyone is crying with Paulson gone. Stock Market up. Banking somewhat stabilized with TARP. Auto in bankruptcy, but we all know it was going to happen sooner or later, might as well be now. Real Estate, not sure. I think residential is stabilizing but hear that commercial is the other shoe fixing to drop. Lots of regulations proposed. Government in big business (for now).

Healthcare. (B) Okay, I guess some 'massive' haul is being proposed. From what I have read, the Public Option is still in doubt and single payer is out. I am somewhat disappointed as it doesn't quite seem to be as massive as I would have liked.

Energy program. (N/A) Nothing much so far, but to be fair, he has bigger fish to fry right now.

Stabilize Iraq. (B+) He does not get all the credit, GWB gets much. Slowly withdrawing, not as fast as he promised, but it seems prudent to me. It does seem as if the political situation has stabilized somewhat also ... as evidenced by the lack of sectarian violence. Certainly a refocus in Afghanistan with the new SF commander. With Pakistan seemingly in the fight, I predict increased coordination between Pakistan and US ... and you know what that will mean for the tribal regions and OBL!

Improve world opinion of US. (A-) Certainly done in Europe, also in Lebanon as evidenced by his speech and their June parlimentary election, some in the Muslim ME as I read some reference to them thinking he is 'more' pro-Arab, but not in Israel, not sure in Iraq or other gulf-states. Interestingly, it looks as if Obama and not Hillary has been the key.

I still not sold on healthcare. I see no real change at all. Vague "Your going to be cover" through new revenue souces (taxes of some sort).

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

A lot of the talking heads did. Guys like Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, etc. I don't know if they called for charges to be pushed against people specifically, but they did allude to the fact that those criticizing a President during war and while he was overseas is treasonous. They attacked politicians and entertainers (Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, etc) for this. You also had politicians like Bachmann and Inhofe doing the same.

You can't tell me that you missed that party calling for treason charges on the New York Times for reporting on illegal wiretapping?

Excercising free speech rights within this country is one thing...giving aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war is something different completely. Only case that comes to my mind as treasonous is Jane Fonda's little trip to North Viet Nam at the height of the war, extolling the virtues of a North Vietnamese government that was killing American soldiers and holding American POWs. I wouldn't have let that b*tch back into the country.

In general, I think any individual or organization whose actions endanger the lives of American is treasonous.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Excercising free speech rights within this country is one thing...giving aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war is something different completely. Only case that comes to my mind as treasonous is Jane Fonda's little trip to North Viet Nam at the height of the war, extolling the virtues of a North Vietnamese government that was killing American soldiers and holding American POWs. I wouldn't have let that b*tch back into the country.

In general, I think any individual or organization whose actions endanger the lives of American is treasonous.

Jane Fonda should have been executed. Period.

[RainMaker]

I agree on Fonda. I just think people have really loosened the definition of treason. Writing an article in the NY Times isn't treason, nor is having a protest about something. Selling secrets to the enemy is treason.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I still not sold on healthcare. I see no real change at all. Vague "Your going to be cover" through new revenue souces (taxes of some sort).

Yeah, the covering the cost of the new program sounded really strange to me. Not sure I understand how this can be done ... I didn't read (or they did not provide) any details.

There will be change if the public option passes for the 40M+ who are underinsured. For the rest who get the benefits through employers ... maybe not, unless to stay competitive with the public option, the other insurers/providers lower their costs.

Better than the GOP plan for $x credit.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I agree on Fonda. I just think people have really loosened the definition of treason. Writing an article in the NY Times isn't treason, nor is having a protest about something. Selling secrets to the enemy is treason.

My general opinion is...

1. You can say and print whatever you want criticizing our government and its policies.

2. When you begin to support other countries over the United States you start to get into the gray area.

3. When you take a protesting stance within our country's borders you are fine.

4. Once you take that protest outside of the borders you are more than likely committing treason.

Out of all the people recently, I think Sean Penn, based on what I know about some of the things he's done, has taken it the farthest and has probably, in my mind, committed treason.

[RainMaker]

I don't see why protesting outside the country matters. Does that mean if I visit Europe and write a mean e-mail to a friend back home about how much I hate the government, I'm committing treason?

I think it's providing aid to an enemy and helping to try and overthrow our country. The shit Robert Hannsen did is treason. Giving some dumb speeches in other countries about how you don't like the policies of our President isn't.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by rowech

You're instigating other citizens to go against the United States.

That seems like an awfully loose definition. Does any time anyone calls for a protest constitute treason? Why should it matter if you're local or international when you make said speech? Hell, by that definition, it seems like most of the stuff spewed by your average hate-filled commentator is treason. Are we going to line up Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc up against the wall?

SI