He never pretended to be an ideologue during the campaign, and his entire history in both Illinois and the US Senate showed otherwise as well. In fact, he campaigned on virtually the opposite - "don't let perfect be the enemy of the good" was basically his campaign motto. That's basically the definition of not being ideological. People may not approve of it or like it, but there's nothing surprising about his admin being one of compromise and triangulation.
Defending the veto as "political" both a) Ignores the rationale for the veto to begin with and not-so-subtly lays the blame on congress, even though Obama has always supported the encoded legalities contained in the bill. And b) Really swings-and-misses inasmuch as the far better political option is for Obama to actually stand up for the civil liberties enshrined in the constitution and veto this abortion of a bill as a trampling of our rights. But of course, Major won't comment "ANYWHERE" on the merits of the bill - that might require taking an actual stand on something larger and more important than the trade of political capital. To be honest, I don't think you've ever justified the administrations' activities in any other way.
This is laughably absurd. Yet, this is probably true. Combine the two via addition and a campaign calculator would probably spit out =CHARISMA
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-tO2irR2Wj8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If this story is in anyway true. That Obama would put American civil liberties below his own personal quest for power... then I can't stand by him anymore. I have no faith in American politics anymore.
This is the one area (civil liberties regarding this type of activity) is the one area where Obama has consistently been a let down. You have to look a the pattern of Obama and realize he's way off on this. I know it wasn't his bill, but the lack of effort to stop it speaks volumes. The ironic thing is that he might be the most likely to appoint SC judges that would oppose this type of thing.
It is truly sickening. Because we all know Obama isn't stupid. He's consciously doing this. He knows the fallout that will occur when this bill is even remotely considered. Unbelievable.
Try Bush and the Republicans. Ron Paul is more right on issues than everyone in the GOP combined. I'm tired of nonsensical arguments and slandering by the GOP and their brain washed cronies. Yes. You.
Greenwald lays it out clearly - the bill authorizes the president to indefinitely detain, without trial, US citizens suspected of the utterly vague activity of "substantially supporting al-Qaueda, the Taliban, or associated forces". Goodbye Habeus Corpus. Obama took you away.
Oh God. You extreme leftists are only slightly better than the Tea Partiers who rant about how Obama will turn this country into a socialist hell. And congrats for selective quoting, rhad, though it's what I expect from Greenwald. ALSO part of that section: We are for better or for worse in a shooting war with Al Qaeda. Does the war end the minute an Al Qaeda member steps onto US soil?
I'll be voting for Obama again. Not because he hasn't disappointed me, he has, and the passage of this bill without his veto is one example, but what alternative is there? As FB said (more or less), the irony is that Obama is the only candidate that would likely appoint Supreme Court justices who would be against this travesty. Yet he won't veto it? Why not? Major says it is because the veto would have been overridden. And I say, so what? If the President sincerely believes this bill is an assault on our constitution and civil liberties, then why wouldn't he veto it and take this fight to the people via the bully pulpit? What is stopping him? Nothing, except a lack of will to do so, or that he privately doesn't have that much of a problem with it. Either way, to my eyes, he has failed me, and he has failed the American people in one of the paramount duties of a President. To protect our civil liberties and our constitution.
Exactly. There won't be that much. Aside from a few editorials, blog posts, and threads in a basketball sub-forum, the majority of Americans will remain unaware or won't care. It is hard even for me to generate too much outrage over this when the previous president tore down the foundation of US and International law built by the Nuremberg trials and the current president refused to hold anyone accountable for those horrific actions and then explicitly accepted most of them. This is a direct result of those decisions. In our country, the definition of freedom is devolving to mean primarily buy what you want and watch what you want. We're the most free because we have the best clothes, the greatest number of food options, and the best viewing choices on our home theater systems. It's hard for people to get too upset about stuff when they work hard for the opportunity to come home and watch satellite TV while eating a Pizza Hut Meal Deal after stopping by TJ Max and picking up some killer t-shirts. Yay! Freedom of choice as brought to you by Carls Jr.! Meanwhile, the basic definition of freedom as dreamed up, written down, and fought for by the Founders and subsequent generations is not just being whittled away, but carved up in huge chunks. Welcome to the future we all helped make.
Pretty naive. You really think that a guy who has been an utter failure on civil liberties would appoint justices that support civil liberties to the Supreme Court? I never fell for the hype when he was a candidate. I knew he was lying, and I knew he wouldn't live up to his promises in regard to the wars and civil liberties. I voted for Ron Paul in the GOP primary, and I stayed home on election day, because, frankly, a choice between Obama and McCain wasn't really a choice at all.
I don't get the impression that Deck is naive at all. I think that's a rational view based on the idea that he pace would be accelerated under more ideologically driven Repub nominees on the Court and more Repub ideologues running around the Executive Branch.
