Obama

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Apparently Clinton's fund-raising campaigns during election time were even more corrupt than Nixon's

Edited January 15, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Rob W 0]

never met him - but someone I work for has done several times - hate his politics but reckons he is so bloody charismatic you just can't believe it.......................

You know Walter Mitty?

 

 

no - some very well off Texans...........

 

Can we con them out of their money?

 

 

I said rich - not stupid :icon_lol:

[The Fish 10963]

never met him - but someone I work for has done several times - hate his politics but reckons he is so bloody charismatic you just can't believe it.......................

You know Walter Mitty?

 

 

no - some very well off Texans...........

 

Can we con them out of their money?

 

 

I said rich - not stupid

However, you said Texan, so Shirley you can see where the need for clarification came from?

[Guest alex]

Clinton - a real star

 

Didn't you tip him off to that assassination attempt in the Phillipines in 96?

[Rob W 0]

never met him - but someone I work for has done several times - hate his politics but reckons he is so bloody charismatic you just can't believe it.......................

You know Walter Mitty?

 

 

no - some very well off Texans...........

 

Can we con them out of their money?

 

 

I said rich - not stupid

However, you said Texan, so Shirley you can see where the need for clarification came from?

 

 

don't get taken in by the big hats and the boots and all the "Y'aalling"

 

some of them are very sharp indeed

Edited January 17, 2011 by Rob W

[Park Life 71]

The economy

 

Unemployment remains high, at 9.4%, but Obama kept a core promise of reforming Wall Street. Then he broke his promise to repeal Bush-era tax cuts for the very rich, in order to win over Republican support. ★★★★★★☆☆☆☆

 

Healthcare

 

The White House was forced to make compromises on healthcare reforms. Their future is uncertain, with Republicans pushing to repeal it and public opinion divided.

 

★★★★★★★☆☆☆

 

Fix 'broken politics' in Washington

Obama promised to hold monthly meetings with Republicans in Congress. He held only five of them in 2010, and partisan rhetoric grew more heated than ever. In a display of unity, Democrats and Republicans are planning to cross party lines and sit together during tonight's speech. But there is little sign of a new spirit of civility, even after the attack on Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson.

 

★★★★★☆☆☆☆☆

 

Repair America's image in the world

Obama had a last-minute win when the Senate ratified the New Start arms reduction treaty with Russia last December, and attitudes to the US have improved in Europe. But Afghanistan is looking unstable, along with neighbouring Pakistan. There is little to no progress on dealing with Iran's nuclear arsenal or the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

 

★★★★★★☆☆☆☆

 

Planet in peril

Obama's climate change bill failed amid accusations that the White House had not lobbied aggressively enough. He also faced criticism for his handling of the BP oil disaster. But he continued to move forward cautiously on new rules for industry and cars.

 

★★★★★★☆☆☆☆

 

'Don't ask, don't tell'

Obama promised in last year's state of the union address to do away with the law banning openly gay people from serving in the military. Congress voted to end the law at the end of December over the objections of a number of Republicans, but the repeal has yet to come into effect.

 

★★★★★★★★☆☆

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/2...ama-report-card

[Rob W 0]

what's this? A bloody Michelin Guide???

[Happy Face 29]

It seems like Happy Face is unerestimating the turning circle of America.

 

It's not as easy as blithely changing policy, it's going to take time, but it's hard to argue that Obama isn't at least trying to turn things around.

 

brig officials now confirm to The New York Times that Manning will be forced to be nude every night from now on for the indefinite future --not only when he sleeps, but also when he stands outside his cell for morning inspection along with the other brig detainees. They claim that it is being done "as a 'precautionary measure' to prevent him from injuring himself."

 

Has anyone before successfully committed suicide using a pair of briefs --especially when under constant video and in-person monitoring? There's no underwear that can be issued that is useless for killing oneself? And if this is truly such a threat, why isn't he on "suicide watch" (the NYT article confirms he's not)? And why is this restriction confined to the night; can't he also off himself using his briefs during the day?

 

Let's review Manning's detention over the last nine straight months: 23-hour/ day solitary confinement; barred even from exercising in his cell; one hour total outside his cell per day where he's allowed to walk around in circles in a room alone while shackled, and is returned to his cell the minute he stops walking; forced to respond to guards' inquiries literally every 5 minutes, all day, everyday; and awakened at night each time he is curled up in the corner of his bed or otherwise outside the guards' full view. Is there anyone who doubts that these measures --and especially this prolonged forced nudity --are punitive and designed to further erode his mental health, physical health and will? As The Guardian reported last year, forced nudity is almost certainly a breach of the Geneva Conventions; the Conventions do not technically apply to Manning, as he is not a prisoner of war, but they certainly establish the minimal protections to which all detainees --let alone citizens convicted of nothing --are entitled.

 

The treatment of Manning is now so repulsive that it even lies beyond what at least some of the most devoted Obama admirers are willing to defend. For instance, UCLA Professor Mark Kleiman --who last year hailed Barack Obama as, and I quote, "the greatest moral leader of our lifetime" --wrote last night: The United States Army is so concerned about Bradley Manning’s health that it is subjecting him to a regime designed to drive him insane. . . . This is a total disgrace. It shouldn't be happening in this country. You can't be unaware of this, Mr. President. Silence gives consent.

 

The entire Manning controversy has received substantial media attention. It's being carried out by the military of which Barack Obama is the Commander-in-Chief. Yes, the Greatest Moral Leader of Our Lifetime and Nobel Peace Prize winner is well aware of what's being done and obviously has been for quite some time. It is his administration which is obsessed with destroying and deterring any remnants of whistle-blowing and breaches of the secrecy regime behind which the National Security and Surveillance States function. This is all perfectly consistent with his actions in office, as painful as that might be for some to accept (The American Prospect, which has fairly consistently criticized Obama's civil liberties abuses, yesterday called the treatment of Manning "torture" and denounced it as a "disgrace").

 

As former Army officer James Joyner (and emphatic critic of WikiLeaks and Manning) writes: Obama promised to close Gitmo because he was embarrassed that we were doing this kind of thing to accused terrorists. But he's allowing it to happen to an American soldier under his command? And I'll say this again: just fathom the contrived, shrieking uproar from opportunistic Democratic politicians and their loyalists if it had been George Bush and Dick Cheney --on U.S. soil --subjecting a whistle-blowing member of the U.S. military to these repressive conditions without being convicted of anything, charging him with a capital offense that statutorily carries the death penalty, and then forcing him to remain nude every night and stand naked for inspection outside his cell. Feigning concern over detainee abuse for partisan gain is only slightly less repellent than the treatment to which Manning is being subjected.

 

http://mobile.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn...1/03/05/manning

Edited March 6, 2011 by Happy Face

[Rob W 0]

V interesting to see all those Republican big mouths suddenly backing off a run for president

 

Suddenly realised that running with Mrs Palin & friends will ensure political oblivion

 

will have to be a middle of the road republican Governor IMHO - but why run now when you can wait until 2016??

[Park Life 71]

V interesting to see all those Republican big mouths suddenly backing off a run for president

 

Suddenly realised that running with Mrs Palin & friends will ensure political oblivion

 

will have to be a middle of the road republican Governor IMHO - but why run now when you can wait until 2016??

 

More or less.

[ewerk 31195]

So he's restarting Guantanamo trials...

[Happy Face 29]

When there's a doubt about the outcome, no trial.

[AgentAxeman 189]

When there's a doubt about the outcome, no trial.

 

Best way. A 100% conviction rate will stand VERY well with the voters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ChezGiven 0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/0...-military-trial

 

Some interesting points for HF to consider.

 

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, will be tried by a military commission in Guantánamo. It is the latest retreat by the Obama administration from its much-vaunted plans to overhaul the legal processing of terror suspects.

 

Mohammed and four other terror suspects will be put on trial through a military system that President Obama had vowed to abolish when he began in office in January 2009. The White House had declared its intent in 2009 to push them through the civilian justice system with a landmark trial at the federal court in Manhattan, a stone's throw away from Ground Zero.

 

But the proposal invoked a groundswell of opposition, most powerfully from New York residents and the mayor of the city, Michael Bloomberg.

 

The US attorney general, Eric Holder, was expected to announce the administration's U-turn at a press conference in Guantánamo.

 

The about-face is hugely symbolic as Mohammed was al-Qaida's main architect of 9/11, according to the commission of inquiry into the terrorist outrages convened in New York. How he is treated arguably sets the tone for America's legal handling of terror suspects.

 

Obama had wanted to bring that legal process back into the norms of civilian justice. But he was thwarted by a wall of opposition from Republicans in Congress, backed by some Democrats.

 

Republicans inserted a provision into the latest defence budget effectively banning the use of Pentagon funds to transfer Guantánamo detainees to the mainland, thus blocking any civilian trials. Obama initially promised to repeal the restriction, but last month he backtracked by allowing the resumption of military commission trials at the US base in Cuba.

 

Bloomberg also did a volte face. Initially, he approved the idea of a civilian trial for Mohammed in downtown Manhattan, but then turned against it, arguing that it would cost the city more than $400m (£248m) in security alone.

 

Other opponents claimed that it would again make New York the target of terrorists' wrath.

 

Never Forget, a group of family members of victims of the attacks, as well as emergency workers and former military personnel, welcomed the announcement. "We are relieved that President Obama has abandoned his plan to try the 9/11 conspirators in a civilian court on US soil. Prosecuting war criminals, whose only connection to this country is the location of their victims, in military commissions is the right thing to do."

[ChezGiven 0]

Re-election campiagn started yesterday.

 

The Republican challengers

Mike Huckabee (55)

 

Fox commentator, former governor of Arkansas and Baptist minister. Not yet said if he will stand. Good communicator, has sense of humour, plays electric guitar at rallies and appeals to the Christian evangelical wing of the Republican party, whose support helped him win the Iowa caucus in 2008.

 

 

Mitt Romney (64)

 

Former governor of Massachusetts and businessman. Not yet said if he will stand but is already campaigning. Has millions of his own money that he can throw into an election race, and his business background may be seen an asset by some, but he is a poor speaker, lacks charisma and introduced a form of healthcare in Massachusetts, a negative for many Republicans, as is his Mormon faith.

 

 

Tim Pawlenty (50)

 

Former governor of Minnesota. The only Republican to have formally declared he is standing. He is, like Romney, charisma-free but he can claim previous election victory as a Republican in traditionally Democratic Minnesota, where he succeeded in tackling a huge budget deficit.

 

 

Sarah Palin (47)

 

Former governor of Alaska and Fox commentator. Not yet said whether she is standing. Would win enthusiastic backing of much of the Tea Party movement and could win the Republican nomination, but polls suggest she is a polarising figure, making winning the White House difficult.

 

 

Newt Gingrich (67)

 

The former House Speaker. Has half announced he is in the running, but no formal confirmation. Conservative, who helped organise the Republican mid-term election campaign in 1994, but is an unpredictable figure and seen as loose-lipped.

[Happy Face 29]

The White House had declared its intent in 2009 to push them through the civilian justice system with a landmark trial at the federal court in Manhattan, a stone's throw away from Ground Zero.

 

But the proposal invoked a groundswell of opposition, most powerfully from New York residents and the mayor of the city, Michael Bloomberg.

 

Some New York Residents and the Mayor hold no power whatsoever over the President doing what he thinks should be done....unless he puts this kind of political approval above his campain promises.

 

Obama had wanted to bring that legal process back into the norms of civilian justice. But he was thwarted by a wall of opposition from Republicans in Congress, backed by some Democrats.

 

Republicans inserted a provision into the latest defence budget effectively banning the use of Pentagon funds to transfer Guantánamo detainees to the mainland, thus blocking any civilian trials.

 

Congress has enacted measures that make it more difficult (impossible) to transfer Gitmo detainees to the US with the support of both parties. But that ALL followed Obama's stated position that indefinite detention without charge was what he wanted. It's a lie to say he was thwarted, because he never proposed a plan to close Gitmo in any meaningful way to be thwarted.

 

Moving Gitmo, lock stock, to Illionois is a pointless exercise in political gamesmanship. If he had managed it, whoppee Gitmo is closed, it wouldn't change the fact people are being imprisoned indefinitley without charge. A rose by any other name etc.

 

The preservation of these core principles was advocated by Obama in May, 2009, 5 months after his inauguration when he made a speech on "preventative detention"

 

http://open.salon.com/blog/behind_blue_eye...n_without_trial

 

Then in December 2009 the only plan proposed to close Gitmo, the aforementioned move to Illionois that's nothing more than a rebrand:

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...009/12/15/gitmo

 

I'm sure your response to this will be that he's keeping out of unwinable political fights. Why get dragged down into an argument you can't win. But this is EXACTLLY what he should be doing. Take these decisions to Congress and make senators vote for/against them so he can call them out as the people that went on record in opposition to the constitutionally protected rights of citizens. The option he has chosen instead is to institutionalise the illegal Bush detention program as bipartisan orthodoxy.

 

Never Forget, a group of family members of victims of the attacks, as well as emergency workers and former military personnel, welcomed the announcement. "We are relieved that President Obama has abandoned his plan to try the 9/11 conspirators in a civilian court on US soil. Prosecuting war criminals, whose only connection to this country is the location of their victims, in military commissions is the right thing to do."

 

 

Of course the people most affected by a crime are most passionate about it and want people punished for it. That's why you end up with people attacking police vans on their way into court on the assumption of guilt. There's a system of law to protect all citizens from those kind of passionate responses to heinous criomes. Innocent until proven guilty. It's a rule that protects anyone the US chooses to detain, not just US citizens.

 

I can also give you a group of family members and responders who want a full trial with all the evidence laid out. Suggesting to readers that they're all at a consensus is woeful journalism.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/nyregion/14york.html

Edited April 5, 2011 by Happy Face

[Rob W 0]

Radio 4 reckoned Chris Christie, Gov. of New Jersey is about the only man who stands a chance

 

I liked the comment

 

"the most dangerous place in the USA is to stand between the Governor and the buffet table"

[ChezGiven 0]

Some great points and i was only flagging it up for consideration as to be honest, you've nearly won me over on this one.

 

My instinct however on this is that assuming an omnipotent president is about as daft as assuming an omnipotent god. If he doesnt get re-elected in 2012, then it will be soon enough for the Republican's to repeal the healthcare reforms, his greatest (if limited) achievement. Treading the fine line of public opinion is paramount now that his approval rating is only 47%. Some republicans are calling him out as favourite because of the weakness of their own candidates but Obama is weak politically and cant afford to lose support in NY as that wil decimate his constituency size in the House of Representatives.

 

You anticipated my response correctly but when you say "Take these decisions to Congress and make senators vote for/against them so he can call them out as the people that went on record in opposition to the constitutionally protected rights of citizens" you are assuming that this message will resonate politcially, which we know it doesnt for the vast majority of the US. Its the right thing to do morally, not politically.

 

It's a lie to say he was thwarted, because he never proposed a plan to close Gitmo in any meaningful way to be thwarted.

 

I was under the impression that one of the first things he did was propose this and the opposition from the democrats forced him to write a watered down version which even didnt make it? Not sure it was the first draft that was taken to congress.

[Happy Face 29]

I'm not aware of any announcement made of his intentions other than those I linked to. Be interested to see if there were.

[ChezGiven 0]

Well Congress voted against him, he faced a rebellion from his own party and his original proposal was blocked. That original proposal is not clear from sources i have looked at. Just like with other reforms he has tried to implement, the eventual legislation is watered down to get it through the Houses.

[Park Life 71]

Used to be a social worker.

[Happy Face 29]

Glenn Greenwald has repeated a lot of my points for me today at the end of an excellent article on why it's stupid to vote for Obama again....

 

Rachel Maddow last night issued a very harsh and eloquent denunciation of Obama's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before a military commission at Guantanamo rather than a real court. At the end of her monologue, Maddow focused on the contrast between how the Republicans treat their base and how Democrats treat theirs, specifically emphasizing that the White House announced this decision on the same day it kicked off Obama's re-election bid. About that point, Rachel said this:

 

 

A Democratic President kicks his base in the teeth on something as fundamental as civil liberties -- he puts the nail in the coffin of a civil liberties promise he made on his first full day in office -- and he does it on the first day of his re-election effort. And Beltway reaction to that is. . . huh, good move. That's the difference between Republican politics and Democratic politics. The Republicans may not love their base, but they fear them and play to them. The Democratic Party institutional structures of D.C., and the Beltway press in particular, not only hate the Democratic base -- they think it's good politics for Democratic politicians to kick that base publicly whenever possible.

 

Only the base itself will ever change that.

 

How will that happen? How can the base itself possibly change this dynamic, whereby politicians of the Democratic Party are not only willing, but eager, to "kick them whenever possible," on the ground (among others) that doing so is good politics? I'd submit that this is not only one of the most important domestic political questions (if not the most important), but also the one that people are most eager to avoid engaging. And the reason is that there are no comforting answers.

 

One thing is for certain: right now, the Democratic Party is absolutely correct in its assessment that kicking its base is good politics. Why is that? Because they know that they have inculcated their base with sufficient levels of fear and hatred of the GOP, so that no matter how often the Party kicks its base, no matter how often Party leaders break their promises and betray their ostensible values, the base will loyally and dutifully support the Party and its leaders (at least in presidential elections; there is a good case that the Democrats got crushed in 2010 in large part because their base was so unenthusiastic).

 

In light of that fact, ask yourself this: if you were a Democratic Party official, wouldn't you also ignore -- and, when desirable, step on -- the people who you know will support you no matter what you do to them? That's what a rational, calculating, self-interested, unprincipled Democratic politician should do: accommodate those factions which need accommodating (because their support is in question), while ignoring or scorning the ones whose support is not in question, either because they will never vote for them (the hard-core right) or will dutifully canvass, raise money, and vote for them no matter what (the Democratic base). Anyone who pledges unconditional, absolute fealty to a politician -- especially 18 months before an election -- is guaranteeing their own irrelevance.

 

It was often said that Bush/Cheney used fear as their principal political weapon -- and they did -- but that's true of the Democratic Party as well. When it comes to their base, Democratic leaders know they will command undying, unbreakable support no matter how many times they kick their base, because of the fear that has been instilled in the base -- not fear of Terrorists or Immigrants (that's the GOP's tactic), but fear of Sarah Palin, the Kochs and the Tea Party. Rachel herself made this point quite well before the 2010 election:

 

I talked at the top of the show tonight with Gail Collins about how one way to motivate your natural base for an election is to make your base afraid of what the other side has to offer. And that is true. That works. That works on both sides. It works for conservatives about liberals and it works for liberals about conservatives.

 

But one less soul-sucking way to motivate your base and to win an election and to keep winning elections and to, frankly, have history look kindly upon you, is to get your base to cheer for you -- not just to cheer against someone else, but to see you standing up, not just to bad guys with worse ideas than you, but to see you standing up for what is right because you know it is right, because we know you know it's right, even though you also know standing up for it is hard.

 

It may be that this fear of Republicans is rational (or, given how many GOP-replicating policies and practices the Democrats embrace, maybe it isn't). But whatever else is true, one thing is for certain: dedicated partisans who pledge their unbreakable, eternally loyal support for any Party or politician are going to be steadfastly ignored (or worse) by that Party or politician, and rightfully so. If you spend two years vehemently objecting that certain acts so profoundly offend your principles but then pledge unequivocal support no matter what almost two years in advance to the politicians who engage in them, why would you expect your objections to be heeded? Any rational person would ignore them, and stomp on your beliefs whenever doing so benefited them.

 

I'm not saying I know the answer. Joan Walsh yesterday urged progressives not to organize for Obama until next year while nonetheless vowing to support his re-election, which (though well-intentioned) strikes me as merely reinforcing this dynamic. But what I do know is that Rachel's optimistic proclamation that "only the base itself will ever change" this dynamic cannot be fulfilled without giving the Party and its leaders a true reason to pay attention or care about disenchantment (and, some day, to fear alienating their base). For those who are hopeful that this will happen, what do they envision will cause it? What would ever make Democratic Party leaders change how they view this dynamic?

 

* * * * *

 

In Slate, the normally rhetorically restrained Dahlia Lithwick has a superb article condemning Obama's decision on the KSM trial as "appalling, cowardly, stupid and tragically wrong." Indeed, as I've documented before -- virtually every country that suffers horrible Terrorist attacks -- Britain, Spain, India, Indonesia -- tries the accused perpetrators in its regular court system, on their own soil, usually in the city that was attacked. The U.S. -- Land of the Free and Home of the Brave -- stands alone in being too afraid to do so.

 

Related to that: the notion that political opinion in America would not allow Obama to do anything differently on these issues is empirically disproven; he ran on a platform of opposing all the measures he now supports and won decisively. By itself, that proves that -- when these debates are engaged rather than conceded -- these positions are politically sustainable. Obama adopts Bush Terrorism policies because he wants to and has no reason not to -- not because doing so is a political necessity.

 

Finally -- and as is usually true for this excuse -- the notion that "Congress made him do it" is totally false: aside from the fact that the Obama administration long ago announced that it would retain the military commission system, the White House -- long before Congress acted to ban transfers of detainees to the U.S. -- removed decision-making power from the DOJ in the KSM case and made clear it would likely reverse Holder's decision. As The Atlantic's Andrew Cohen notes:

 

 

Long before the formal "restrictions" came into place on Capitol Hill, the Justice Department could have forced the issue in Congress by bringing Mohammed to trial in the U.S. Even recently, it could have asked the courts to broker the fight between the executive and legislative branches over the fate of the men. It could have put the heat on truculent local politicians. But the feds chose to avoid all of those fights until it was too late. One day, perhaps, we'll really know why.

 

The Congressional ban is the excuse, not the cause.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...rats/index.html

 

[Billy Castell 0]

Obama's reforms, aims and PR have all got stuck in the mud, and his initially quite 'progressive' ideas have all faded as his 'non-partisan' approach has left him falling between two stools. The big fear for the rest of the world is if Obama loses to some brain-dead ultra right wing fuckwit like Palin. Then it'll be George W. Bush and his failures all over again, which will lead to China's domination.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

China are going to dominate anyhoo. I'd be surprised if Palin won the nomination, she's a nightmare for the GOP. She would fail spectacularly if she was nominated.

[Happy Face 29]

Obama's reforms, aims and PR have all got stuck in the mud, and his initially quite 'progressive' ideas have all faded as his 'non-partisan' approach has left him falling between two stools. The big fear for the rest of the world is if Obama loses to some brain-dead ultra right wing fuckwit like Palin. Then it'll be George W. Bush and his failures all over again, which will lead to China's domination.

 

I wouldn't fear that at all to tell the truth.

 

What has Obama done for the left?

 

Still in Iraq

Still in Afghanistan

Now in Libya

Guantanamo still running

Not one person that ordered torture brought to justice

Renewed the Bush tax cuts

Not one banker charged for the financial crisis

The US's biggest company GE, paying not a penny in taxes

Cuts to schools, social security, housing, childcare, and every other welfare program

 

But we can't complain about any of that, or the health insurance he's buying for everyone that's losing their jobs might be lost.

 

I would MUCH prefer 20% of the Obama vote to go to Ralph Nader and let Sarah Palin in. At least there'd be a more effective opposition to the right wing policies getting enacted. Rather than the quasi-religious praise heaped on Obama for mimicking Bush across the board.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Happy Face