Ignoring those that are unfairly levied from well-before his presidential campaign (the cuba embargo, legalization of marijauana,and public financing off the top of my head - I'd argue those silly to split hairs over despite any objections from yours truly) as well as those that are perfectly rational to have conflicting opinions about (abortion and gun rights) the one that sticks out if my mind is his new attitude on Iraq. I think it ridiculous that he got suckered into the mind-bogglingly r****ded notion that somehow visiting Iraq will make him more aware of the situation. Maybe he'll pull a McCain and walk down a street with 4000 armed men around him, choppers in the air, and a bullet proof vest - no doubt this will give him an accurate portrayal of "real" situation! Anyhow, I vividly remember the Texas campaign, and the 4,643 times or so I heard the "WE CAN... END THIS WAR" proclamation that began his most effective TV commercial. Now.... before anyone gets their panties in a wad about "realism" vs "idealism" the notion I am irritated with is not that he feels it important to be informed and rational in making a decision - I wholeheartedly support that! Rather, I am disoriented by statements that now make it seem as though he is not sure if he still feels that the major goal is to get out. Moreover, he seems far less resolute and more willing to pander. And that may be the best summary of the bad taste in my mouth - the pandering is a flip-flop that really shines out, IMO. One can hope. Color me pessimistic. I know, I know - you'll no doubt struggle to quell your shock... Baloney. Are you arguing that every decision that the supreme court makes is an infallible representation of the constitution? History would indicate that's far from the case... Why else would people give a **** what political taint the members of said court possess?
I am beginning to worry about voting for Obama. However, I have very little choice if I want to punish the Republican Party for being so unfaithful to true conservative ideals. Granted, McCain is too rooted in policies of the past, but I can't help but get irritated when people make fun of a man who has served his country honorably and well and is a really decent human being. Obama is the future, but his flip-flopping is becoming really scary. To quote Dick Morris: "Obama has carried flip-flopping to new heights. In the space of a month and a half, this candidate - who we don’t really yet know very well - reversed or sharply modified his positions on at least eight key issues: • After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money. • Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation. • Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. • Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn’t mean it. • From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions. • For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor. • Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first. • During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers - but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it. • After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position. Obama’s breathtaking flips and flops are materially different from McCain’s. While McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling and now supports it, the facts have obviously changed. Obama’s shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political calendar." http://www.TheHill.com on July 15, 2008.
Well - I reread his latest speech on Iraq and I take back some of the above commentary. I think his Iraq approach is (in theory) well constructed and perfectly amicable with my own views on the subject. I think consulting is stupid - it should be an order to get out, but let the military decide how and with what timetable as appropriate (16 months is reasonable, I suppose). I dislike the pandering, and I find the FISA bill terribly troubling given his previous assertions to undo much of Bush's god-awful "security" policies.
The above is utter BS. If anything, McCain flip-flops are just plain crazy - the man has no idea what he's said previously or why.
I think visiting Iraq is important - if not now, then as President - to meet with the commanders on the ground. If it helps quell the criticism, why not do it now? For what its worth, his actual stance on Iraq hasn't changed at all. His intent was and is to get out in 16-18 months, 1-2 brigades a month, but he's always left open that circumstances on the ground will dictate the details. But the point is that the Constitution has a set out method of how to determine what is Constitutional. Yes, it's affected by the political taint of the members of the court - but that's how the Constitution determines it's supposed to be interpreted. You can't say that part of the Constitution is irrelevant or wrong while trying to argue a law is unconstitutional. I'm not sure if I'm making sense here. You can argue it's a bad law, or that it should be unconstitutional based on your interpretation of the Constitution, but it can't be argued that it IS unconstitutional unless it does ultimately get reviewed and declared so by the Supreme Court - in which case the whole argument doesn't matter since the law is null and void anyway. So if it is truly unconstitutional, you should be OK with the privacy/telecom side of it because it will be overtturned (I do still understand being upset that Congress passed it in the first place).
Because it lent an air of legitimacy to McCain's r****ded claim that somehow he was more informed because he had been there. It's totally stupid, and Obama let himself get suckered into it. Acknowledged in previous reply. Well, I'm confused. Of course it can. You sure do put a lot of faith in an entity composed of fallible people like you and me.
Understood - let me try again. Basically, the argument that FISA is unconstitutional rests on an interpretation of the Constitution (whether a personal opinion, a historical one, a legal one - whatever). But the Constitution specifically addresses how to interpret it - it gives the Supreme Court the ultimate authority on that. So if upholding the Constitution is the absolute priority here (and the main criticism of FISA), then shouldn't upholding the Constitution also say that we allow the Supreme Court to make the determination whether the bill is unconstitutional or not? Otherwise, we're picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution are relevant. And if we accept that, we have two options: 1. It's declared unconstitutional, at which point those parts of the law are null and void and not an issue. 2. It's declared constitutional, in which case the document itself has told us that FISA is constitutional by it's own standards. Like I said - the argument that it's a bad law, or that Congress shouldn't be passing things that might be unconstitutional, or whatever makes perfect sense to me. But the idea that the main concern is that it's unconstitutional and will trample our rights doesn't really hold - because the Constitution has a built in protection to disallow anything unconstitutional to become law.
Are you suggesting nothing unconstitutional will/has ever become law? Given the subjective nature of constitutional interpretation, I'd wager the above question somewhat daft - but you get the point, I hope.
Excellent posts, Batman. I wish something this clear would appear in some OP ED pages. I needed refreshing on this, too. When you combine this math with lobbyists is why you have the US paralyzed to do much of anything to solve major societal problems such as energy independence and the environment. Maybe some of the fans of divided powerless government or conservative government that focuses only on tax cuts and war will eventually realize the futility of both approaches which amount to a government that doesn't even really attempt to take on the big problems. PS I recently wen to the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin. It is a monument to the days when government at least tried to solve major problems. I strongly recommend it to anyone who has not been there lately.
I'd suggest that, by definition, that's the case. It can't be law - because if it's unconstitutional, the Constitution prohibits it from being law. (at least for the long-term - it could become law in the interim before it gets challenged or declared unconstitutional) That doesn't stop stupid laws, or bad laws, or things that trample rights or any number of other things. But everything from slavery to poll taxes were perfectly constitutional. I think the focus on the FISA argument should be whether it's a good or bad law on its merits and how it affects real people - not whether it's constitutional or not, because there's a process already in place to take care of that issue.
It's a good argument. I'll submit to your definitions regarding this matter. Anyhow, as you said, the point is not the constitutionality - it's the fact that a rather large majority of congress voted for it, despite the ludicrous affront to the constitution it represented. Obama included.
So you telling me .. .all those budgets than cam through were 50 50 and chaney broke the tie THAT is how they kept funding this war THAT is how they kept from doing anything in Education infrastructure etc always ending with a Chaney Tie break Rocket River
Not Republican Congress men . . they seem to Filibuster at the drop of a dime sometimes If you can't beat them . . . duplicate them If someone is trying to stab you . . . just because you can't push it away don't mean you just let it stab you Rocket River
RR: You haven't answered my question at all. Your response is the same. You've just repeated the same naive nothing you said yesterday: "JUST DO SOMETHING!!!" "SOMETHING!!!" is not something. In fact it's not anything. Say what they should do -- here on earth, in the real world where being right doesn't give you superpowers allowing you to ignore the facts of any given situation -- or stop complaining.
Couldn't they craft and pass good, intelligent legislation, even under veto threat, that the American public would support? Then, if they do, indeed, get vetoed, couldn't they then bring the argument to the American people: "this is why we need Obama as president. We, as a country, need these bills, yet a Republican in the white house, will continue to veto them".
'Two oil men' to blame for high gas prices, Pelosi says WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Thursday blamed the "two oil men in the White House," President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and their Republican allies in Congress for gas prices exceeding $4 a gallon. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she does not plan to permit a vote to lift a ban on offshore oil drilling. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she does not plan to permit a vote to lift a ban on offshore oil drilling. Click to view previous image 1 of 2 Click to view next image Pelosi, a California Democrat, said multiple initiatives intended to lower high energy costs have passed the Democratically controlled House only to "run into a brick wall" in the Senate because they did not receive the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican filibusters. "The price of oil is... is attributed to two oil men in the White House and their protectors in the United States Senate," Pelosi said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Pelosi said she would continue to oppose two policy changes that President Bush and congressional Republicans have been advocating: lifting the ban on offshore drilling and opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration. Video Watch Pelosi argue against more drilling » Pelosi said she had no plans to allow votes to lift a ban on offshore drilling despite widespread support for the move. A recent CNN poll conducted by the Opinion Research Corp. found that 72 percent of those polled supported more offshore drilling. About a quarter -- 27 percent -- backed Pelosi's position. The poll, conducted June 26-29, has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points. Don't Miss * Bush: Congress blocking offshore oil * U.S. cities scrambling to meet rising mass transit demands * Pelosi calls Bush a failure * In Depth: Fueling America Pelosi said there are plenty of opportunities that oil companies should explore before environmentally sensitive areas such as ANWR are open to drilling, pointing to the 33 million acres that have already been approved for offshore drilling and the 68 million acres of federal land in the lower 48 states that is open to exploration. "The impression that the White House has given you is that if you could drill in these protected areas, the price of gasoline will come down," Pelosi said. "Even the president in his press conference the other day acknowledged that that was not the case." Video Watch Pelosi call Bush a 'total failure' » Pelosi's renewed opposition to more drilling comes as two bipartisan groups -- one in the House, the other in the Senate -- are trying to rekindle stalled energy legislation by forging a compromise to expand domestic oil and gas drilling. The compromise would include new domestic drilling to satisfy Republicans and promote conservation and alternative energy sources to satisfy Democrats, lawmakers said. Despite Pelosi and the Democratic leadership opposing efforts to repeal a 1981 law barring most offshore drilling, the Senate group said its plan probably would allow offshore drilling in new areas of the outer continental shelf. Video Watch Pelosi say she is 'disappointed' in Congress » Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, is bucking his party's leadership by supporting new drilling. He said he and the other senators advocating the deal are "people who are all seriously concerned about the issue who want to find solutions that are most likely to involve compromise." Another group member, Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, said, "Somebody around here's got to do it. We think the Senate can vote in the majority for energy proposals that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the pressure on gas prices." The Senate group met behind closed doors Wednesday at the Capitol, seeking to forge legislation that could be introduced after the August recess. Talks were to continue later in the week, according to one senator who attended the meeting. In the House, the bipartisan "energy working group" -- formed by Reps. John Peterson, R-Pennsylvania, and Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii -- includes 23 members, roughly split between the two parties. Peterson said energy legislation should be the priority for Congress and said he hopes the group can yield a comprehensive plan next week. advertisement "Leaders are going to have a hard time refusing to address this issue. This is the issue of the year. This is the issue of the decade," Peterson said. Another member of the group, Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, said that "everything is on the table" except drilling in Alaska's ANWR, which he described as a "lightening rod." She needs to shut up. She can blame herself as well.
The Democratic Congress was voted in to be an agent of change, and has failed on virtually every front. The Congress mainly "talks" to each other.
Speaking of Pelosi, she and Al Gore with a surprise appearance at a a progressive bloggers conference in Austin Texas today. ************ Appealing to Bloggers’ Influence, Gore Asks for Help in Promoting Energy Challenge Article Tools Sponsored By By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE Published: July 20, 2008 AUSTIN, Tex. — Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, was asked a question here at a bloggers conference about energy. She glanced at her BlackBerry, noting that she had an e-mail message from a friend on that very subject. Skip to next paragraph Enlarge This Image Harry Cabluck/Associated Press Al Gore and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, at the Netroots Nation conference. With that, the voice of former Vice President Al Gore boomed over the public address system, leaving a sea of quizzical looks and then gasps, cheers and a standing ovation as he strode onto the stage. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/us/politics/20netroot.html?hp
According to Batman . .. no Basically . . all the Demos could do was let the bully win Lay down and bend the rest of America over the Demos were toadies. . they may not have initiated it but they are complicit in it Toadie - a bully's ally not because he wants to bully people but because he thinks it will keep the bully from kicking his *ss or in the case of the Demos. . to keep the bully from calling him a puss . .which he does anyway Rocket River
