Cynacism Has Its Own Rewards

[Lobowolf]

I hope that he cares a lot more about doing what's best for the country than he does about getting re-elected.

Me too. Of course he wants to be reelected, but if he consistently does what's best he should have a good shot at it.

I think this is the most optimistic hope of all.

 

With respect to Winston's two possibilities, I think the truth is in the middle, and simpler -- that Obama believes that not all of the things people (even his supporters) would like to see are in the best interests of the country.

[jdonn]

I think a majority of Obama's supporters believed he would bring radical change from Washington business as ususal politics - not imperceptable change of method used to support the status quo.

I find several flaws in this statement. But I agree people will be disappointed if they expected Obama to take the 100% opposite viewpoint on 100% of the policies of George Bush. Wouldn't that be completely contradictory to the careful study and consideration of difficult decisions that so many of his supporters (clearly) like about him? I mean he wouldn't have to consider anything at all, he could just do the opposite of everything Bush did!

 

Personally I am glad our president is Barack Obama rather than Bizarro Bush. Although your thoughts do remind me of one of my favorite Seinfeld episodes.

[Lobowolf]

He shouldn't be second-guessed by people who thought he was the best choice for the job. Presumably the implication was that he's not only more qualified than McCain; he's more qualified than his supporters.

[luke warm]

Change could also represent arriving at a similar (or even identical) conclusion or policy to one of Bush by way of careful consideration and appropriate preparation, rather than by knee-jerk reaction.

 

I have admitted to my cynasism - and understand it colors my views. I tend to be pessimistic, also. I understand that, as well.

 

You and Lobo make some reasonable points - but at the same time I am of the opinion that many (the majority?) of Obama supporters expect a vast break from past policies and politics - not just Bush but the all the way back to Nixon, including Democrats and Republicans. I think a majority of Obama's supporters believed he would bring radical change from Washington business as ususal politics - not imperceptable change of method used to support the status quo.

 

I believe President Obama underestimates the support that is his to attempt sweeping changes (optimistic hope) - or maybe he understands if he tries sweeping changes he will end up in Dealey Plaza in an open top limosine (cynical thought).

winston, can you (and i ask because i'm truly interested) name some things he's done that you see as "business as usual" and what you'd have preferred him to do? if you can be specific, all the better... thanks

 

something josh said doesn't make a lot of sense to me

Change could also represent arriving at a similar (or even identical) conclusion or policy to one of Bush by way of careful consideration and appropriate preparation, rather than by knee-jerk reaction.

if the same conclusion, and policy decisions, are reached, what makes you think obamba's are well thought out and bush's were knee-jerk?

[jdonn]

something josh said doesn't make a lot of sense to me

Change could also represent arriving at a similar (or even identical) conclusion or policy to one of Bush by way of careful consideration and appropriate preparation, rather than by knee-jerk reaction.

if the same conclusion, and policy decisions, are reached, what makes you think obamba's are well thought out and bush's were knee-jerk?

Apparently it's something I didn't say that doesn't make a lot of sense to you.

 

Focus on the word "could".

[luke warm]

something josh said doesn't make a lot of sense to me

Change could also represent arriving at a similar (or even identical) conclusion or policy to one of Bush by way of careful consideration and appropriate preparation, rather than by knee-jerk reaction.

if the same conclusion, and policy decisions, are reached, what makes you think obamba's are well thought out and bush's were knee-jerk?

Apparently it's something I didn't say that doesn't make a lot of sense to you.

 

Focus on the word "could".

aha... ok, i get it now... either could be well thought out or either could be knee-jerk reactions

[jdonn]

something josh said doesn't make a lot of sense to me

Change could also represent arriving at a similar (or even identical) conclusion or policy to one of Bush by way of careful consideration and appropriate preparation, rather than by knee-jerk reaction.

if the same conclusion, and policy decisions, are reached, what makes you think obamba's are well thought out and bush's were knee-jerk?

Apparently it's something I didn't say that doesn't make a lot of sense to you.

 

Focus on the word "could".

aha... ok, i get it now... either could be well thought out or either could be knee-jerk reactions

That's twice in a row you have managed to effortlessly put words in my mouth in order to attempt to make a point.

 

If you believe something then it would be easier to have a discussion if you would simply say it outright. Alternatively, if you are not interested in having a discussion then I wonder what you are doing here.

[jdonn]

By the way Winston, if you want an example of a lack of change, or more of the same old politics, or whatever you feel like calling it, then look no further.

 

Predictable Republican behavior

 

An influential conservative political action committee is pledging to support primary challenges to any Republican senator who backs the economic stimulus package.

 

...

 

"Republican senators are on notice," [scott Wheeler, the executive director of The National Republican Trust PAC] said. "If they support the stimulus package, we will make sure every voter in their state knows how they tried to further bankrupt voters in an already bad economy."

You mean there are actually a few Rebublican senators attempting to engage in bipartison behavior?? A little coersion should set them straight!

 

But in case you think that won't do the trick then don't you worry, all you patriots out there. Reinforcements are on the way!

 

The PAC's pledge came the same day another conservative group launched a series of robo-calls in Pennsylvania and Maine, urging constituents to call their Republican senators and demand they stop supporting Obama's stimulus package.

 

Delaware-based Let Freedom Ring on Tuesday began making 100,000 robo-calls in Pennsylvania and 50,000 in Maine, according to Colin Hanna, the group's president.

 

"Would you be willing to contact your senator, Arlen Specter, today and tell him to vote no on the Obama tax and spend plan?" the Pennsylvania call asks, before providing a phone number for Specter's Washington office.

That should set him straight. Job well done.

[Winstonm]

winston, can you (and i ask because i'm truly interested) name some things he's done that you see as "business as usual" and what you'd have preferred him to do? if you can be specific, all the better... thanks

 

I mentioned some of these names earlier. So far it is in cabinet picks. But as I see it keeping Gates as Sec of Def. is business as usual; Timothy Gaithner is simply a young Henry Paulson; Hilllary Clinton is as much a hawk as Condaleeza Rice.

 

And Holder's very first move as AG was to keep the same argument as the Bush administration used to claim government secrecy justified.

[Winstonm]

By the way Winston, if you want an example of a lack of change, or more of the same old politics, or whatever you feel like calling it, then look no further.

 

Predictable Republican behavior

 

An influential conservative political action committee is pledging to support primary challenges to any Republican senator who backs the economic stimulus package.

 

...

 

"Republican senators are on notice," [scott Wheeler, the executive director of The National Republican Trust PAC] said. "If they support the stimulus package, we will make sure every voter in their state knows how they tried to further bankrupt voters in an already bad economy."

You mean there are actually a few Rebublican senators attempting to engage in bipartison behavior?? A little coersion should set them straight!

 

But in case you think that won't do the trick then don't you worry, all you patriots out there. Reinforcements are on the way!

 

The PAC's pledge came the same day another conservative group launched a series of robo-calls in Pennsylvania and Maine, urging constituents to call their Republican senators and demand they stop supporting Obama's stimulus package.

 

Delaware-based Let Freedom Ring on Tuesday began making 100,000 robo-calls in Pennsylvania and 50,000 in Maine, according to Colin Hanna, the group's president.

 

"Would you be willing to contact your senator, Arlen Specter, today and tell him to vote no on the Obama tax and spend plan?" the Pennsylvania call asks, before providing a phone number for Specter's Washington office.

That should set him straight. Job well done.

Josh,

 

I don't place moronic clones in the category of being able to disappoint or to grasp status quo. They are lucky if they can find the pull tab and their turnoff at the same time and without a spill.

[Winstonm]

Jimmy,

 

This specifically is a huge disappointment and a direct 180 degree change from what Obama had on his website during the presidential race.

 

What was abusive and dangerous about the Bush administration's version of the States Secret privilege -- just as the Obama/Biden campaign pointed out -- was that it was used not (as originally intended) to argue that specific pieces of evidence or documents were secret and therefore shouldn't be allowed in a court case, but instead, to compel dismissal of entire lawsuits in advance based on the claim that any judicial adjudication of even the most illegal secret government programs would harm national security.  That is the theory that caused the bulk of the controversy when used by the Bush DOJ -- because it shields entire government programs from any judicial scrutiny -- and it is that exact version of the privilege that the Obama DOJ yesterday expressly advocated (and, by implication, sought to preserve for all Presidents, including Obama). 

 

And before anyone scans this a makes an absurd strawman claim about how state secrets are necessary - no one is claiming they are not. It is the Bush version of state secrets - having entire lawsuits tossed out without being heard, even when it the the government wrongdoing that is in question - that alters the very foundation of the checks and balances of our constitutional form of government.

 

It is this Bush version that the Obama DoJ is supporting.

[Winstonm]

Both Holder and Kagan have now taken such a vow with Senators in order to secure their confirmations. The message appears to be a uniquely English approach to government. We will continue policies and laws that can do great harm to civil liberties, but we will use them in a beneficent way. Your “change” is not that we will get rid of the policies. Your change is that you get us. This “trust us we’re the government” approach to civil liberties was precisely what Madison and other framers rejected.

 

Change is what you have left after you've spent all your money.

[jdonn]

Um, who are you talking to now lol. Or are you preparing a collage of cynical-to-the-point-of-despression editorials and you just need a place to store them in the mean time?

[Winstonm]

Um, who are you talking to now lol. Or are you preparing a collage of cynical-to-the-point-of-despression editorials and you just need a place to store them in the mean time?

You mean you don't see them???? :P

[Lobowolf]

[/b] This “trust us we’re the government” approach to civil liberties was precisely what Madison and other framers rejected.

We probably have more such civil liberties oversight now than then. We have exactly the first sort of protection they didn't "reject," but specifically provided for - relatively short, temporary terms subjecting them to political unemployment if their constituents disapproved. We also have further oversight in the post-Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court power-grab: strong judicial review of laws for constitutionality.

[Winstonm]

[/b] This “trust us we’re the government” approach to civil liberties was precisely what Madison and other framers rejected.

We probably have more such civil liberties oversight now than then. We have exactly the first sort of protection they didn't "reject," but specifically provided for - relatively short, temporary terms subjecting them to political unemployment if their constituents disapproved. We also have further oversight in the post-Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court power-grab: strong judicial review of laws for constitutionality.

Before the SC can rule cases must get to them. At this point in time, precedent for the president being able to treat enemy combatants differenty than other criminals has been established only by the 4th circuit court of appeals - and the challenge may well not get to the SC in our lifetimes.

 

Edit: Maybe need to explain that this precedent was the Padilla case and IMO one of the more important cases in our history - as precedent right this moment allows the president to chose either military commissions of federal court as the avenue of law for the same crime, and that moves us from a nation of laws to a nation of monarchial power - it allows personal choice to circumvent statute.

[Winstonm]

My real cynacism is held out for my personal belief that there is no longer a two-party system of politics in the U.S. - it doesn't really matter who gets elected and who doesn't at the highest seats at the national level as the lobbyists and special interest groups pick and chose who they will allow to run (via financial support). I think it impossible for a true grassroots candidate to ever gain a higher national seat than the odd seat now and again in the House of Representatives.

 

Perhaps I am simply journaling documentation to support my view and using this avenue as electronic filing.

 

Or maybe I can account for my reasons from within my worldview, and if you want to do the same you have to use my worldview. :P

[Lobowolf]

[/b] This “trust us we’re the government” approach to civil liberties was precisely what Madison and other framers rejected.

We probably have more such civil liberties oversight now than then. We have exactly the first sort of protection they didn't "reject," but specifically provided for - relatively short, temporary terms subjecting them to political unemployment if their constituents disapproved. We also have further oversight in the post-Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court power-grab: strong judicial review of laws for constitutionality.

Before the SC can rule cases must get to them. At this point in time, precedent for the president being able to treat enemy combatants differenty than other criminals has been established only by the 4th circuit court of appeals - and the challenge may well not get to the SC in our lifetimes.

I was primarily referring to the pseudo-historical appeal to "what Madison and other framers rejected." You certainly weren't going to get help from the Supreme Court in the late 18th century. Your protection was the power of the vote. Now, it's the power of the vote + whatever limitations the Supreme Court puts on various laws. But that addendum came a few decades after the founding of the country, courtesy of John Marshall.

[Lobowolf]

The Padilla case is extremely complicated. Unlawful enemy combatant status has a history (and Supreme Court review) going back to World War 2, at least.

[Winstonm]

The Padilla case is extremely complicated.  Unlawful enemy combatant status has a history (and Supreme Court review) going back to World War 2, at least.

It isn't accurate IMO to compare the military tribunals created by the Cheney/Maybe Bush regime to historical uses of enemy combatants.

 

To my knowledge, the Cheney/Bush version has had various parts ruled on only twice by the SC, and both times Cheney/Bush lost. They made sure they could not lose the Padilla case by removing Padilla from military control and trying him in federal court, making mute his appeal to the SC, leaving only the 4th circuit court of appeals ruling as precedent.

[luke warm]

Jimmy,

 

This specifically is a huge disappointment and a direct 180 degree change from what Obama had on his website during the presidential race.

 

What was abusive and dangerous about the Bush administration's version of the States Secret privilege -- just as the Obama/Biden campaign pointed out -- was that it was used not (as originally intended) to argue that specific pieces of evidence or documents were secret and therefore shouldn't be allowed in a court case, but instead, to compel dismissal of entire lawsuits in advance based on the claim that any judicial adjudication of even the most illegal secret government programs would harm national security.  That is the theory that caused the bulk of the controversy when used by the Bush DOJ -- because it shields entire government programs from any judicial scrutiny -- and it is that exact version of the privilege that the Obama DOJ yesterday expressly advocated (and, by implication, sought to preserve for all Presidents, including Obama). 

 

And before anyone scans this a makes an absurd strawman claim about how state secrets are necessary - no one is claiming they are not. It is the Bush version of state secrets - having entire lawsuits tossed out without being heard, even when it the the government wrongdoing that is in question - that alters the very foundation of the checks and balances of our constitutional form of government.

 

It is this Bush version that the Obama DoJ is supporting.

i don't disagree with you, winston... for those who want change, a good start would be repealing the patriot act... i'll take the over on it being strengthened

[Winstonm]

Hey, Josh,

 

Here's some more change for ya.

 

It has been 15 months since the release of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran which determined that the Iranian government had halted all efforts to create a nuclear weapon, and the outgoing chairman of the National Intelligence Council reaffirmed those findings only two months ago. The Obama Administration didn’t seem to read those reports, however.

 

President Obama accused Iran of “development of a nuclear weapon” during a press conference. Incoming CIA director Leon Panetta declared during his testimony that “I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability.”

 

While the Iranian government continues to express its desire to improve relations, Obama and associates just keep hurling accusations at Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

 

Yes, indeed, we changed administrations - unfortunately, we did nothing to change the agenda of the power behind the throne.

 

Now I don't know who is the bigger hypocrite, Obama or Bush. At least Bush was an ignorant asshole and acted like an ignorant asshole. Unfortunately, Obama acts like a lawyer who knows who understands who signs his paycheck and it sure as hell ain't We the People.

[jdonn]

Gee, all for me? Thanks. You must think I'm incapable of finding my own paranoid bloggers!

 

I'll make a few points:

 

- Please at least do us a favor and don't reference misleading quotes.

President Obama accused Iran of “development of a nuclear weapon” during a press conference.

Winston's found-quote du jour

In his news conference this week, President Obama went so far as to describe Iran's "development of a nuclear weapon" before correcting himself to refer to its "pursuit" of weapons capability.

Los Angeles Times

 

I trust you will agree that "pursuit of weapons capability" is, how do you say, not quite "development of a nuclear weapon"?

 

- It's kind of pointless to degenerate into a war of googling, it will lead us nowhere.

Iran has long maintained that it aims to generate electricity, not build bombs, with nuclear power. But Western intelligence officials and nuclear experts increasingly view those claims as implausible.

 

U.S. officials said that although no new evidence had surfaced to undercut the findings of the 2007 estimate, there was growing consensus that it provided a misleading picture and that the country was poised to reach crucial bomb-making milestones this year.

Often overlooked in the NIE, officials said, was that Iran had not stopped its work on other crucial fronts, including missile design and uranium enrichment. Many experts contend that these are more difficult than building a bomb.

See?

 

- I don't know why you bring up who is the bigger hypocrite, it doesn't have much to do with anything that I can see. Anyway the answer is clearly Obama because Bush is not a hypocrite at all imo. He is much too dumb to be able to pull off that quality. So I'll gladly admit we agree about that, although perhaps not about the degree.

[Lobowolf]

Hey, Josh,

 

Here's some more change for ya.

 

It has been 15 months since the release of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran which determined that the Iranian government had halted all efforts to create a nuclear weapon, and the outgoing chairman of the National Intelligence Council reaffirmed those findings only two months ago. The Obama Administration didn’t seem to read those reports, however.

 

President Obama accused Iran of “development of a nuclear weapon” during a press conference. Incoming CIA director Leon Panetta declared during his testimony that “I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability.”

 

While the Iranian government continues to express its desire to improve relations, Obama and associates just keep hurling accusations at Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

 

Yes, indeed, we changed administrations - unfortunately, we did nothing to change the agenda of the power behind the throne.

 

Now I don't know who is the bigger hypocrite, Obama or Bush. At least Bush was an ignorant asshole and acted like an ignorant asshole. Unfortunately, Obama acts like a lawyer who knows who understands who signs his paycheck and it sure as hell ain't We the People.

Just so I can understand your position better, is it that you would rather have:

 

1) a President who doesn't think that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons

2) a President who doesn't care whether Iran gets nuclear weapons

3) something else

[jdonn]

1) a President who doesn't think that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons

2) a President who doesn't care whether Iran gets nuclear weapons

3) something else

I think in Winston's case it's

4) A president who bases all his decisions on findings of the Bush intelligence team