[pbradley]

Originally Posted by marleypumpkin

I believe the the heading on the Constitution is "We The People", not "We The Supreme Court". Anyone has the right to speak out against clearly un-constitutional laws.

Speaking out or ruling against or voting against... hmm... what distinctions. Holding a politician to the standards of a judge would make a impotent politician.

[pantophobia]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

People post about politics on forums because they're bored with themselves, the world, or something is an urgent matter with thier daily lives. Apathy ensues because it means fuck all, and it's always is nothing more than a bit of insignificant ranting. Say what you like.

yeah pretty much, on all accounts, but that is besides the point....

i live just north of DC, so it's inescapable, there is constant talk about it, let alone some connections, like Eric Holder who is the nominee for Attorney General, his wife who is an obstetrician delivered both of my boss' kids, so living here now or like !@#$%! did downtown, it's impossible to not talk about

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

In his pre-Election campaign, Obama said he'd be seeking advice from all spectrums of the political establishment. And while 130 members of the House and 23 members of the senate voted against the war in Iraq, Obama hasn't chosen one of them for his National Security cabinet. So is packing his cabinet solely with advisors that voted in favour of the war really an example of the 'change' he was touting?

 

its always more of the same.. y'all should have voted your yourselves.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pantophobia

yeah pretty much, on all accounts, but that is besides the point....

i live just north of DC, so it's inescapable, there is constant talk about it, let alone some connections, like Eric Holder who is the nominee for Attorney General, his wife who is an obstetrician delivered both of my boss' kids, so living here now or like !@#$%! did downtown, it's impossible to not talk about

so man, troll-appeasing aside, what do you think of eric holder? i mean richard cohen on the post today came down hard on him for that marc rich pardon alone-- mountains out of molehills? or wuss factor? your thoughts?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120102403.html

[pantophobia]

not really appeasing when it's kinda true, least for me, i am bored and otherwise

i think the marc rich thing is all on bill clinton, holder had no personal motivation on it, obama knew it would come up and if he didn't think he could get confirmed he wouldn't have asked, like wtih larry summers, no way he was gonna be confirmed with the outcry from women's groups, so he made the much smarter move of getting tim geithner for treasury

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pantophobia

not really appeasing when it's kinda true, least for me, i am bored and otherwise

i think the marc rich thing is all on bill clinton, holder had no personal motivation on it, obama knew it would come up and if he didn't think he could get confirmed he wouldn't have asked, like wtih larry summers, no way he was gonna be confirmed with the outcry from women's groups, so he made the much smarter move of getting tim geithner for treasury

no i mean when porky tries to be a twat i don't think he's asking for a reasoned response-- he's just trying to be a twat when he's bored with his life. i just find it funny because his argument don't hold water as an argument, it's just a kind of venting he does, and you gotta let him. but i digress.

re: summers, i heard some ridiculous shit about him from some women's groups on npr, that obama was not pro-women if he chose summers-- as if some random ass coment he made trumps his skill at saving us from ruin. in any case, summers is a fucking genius, even with this foot-in-mouth disease. reminds me of that story of lincoln being told that grant was a drunk, and he said find what grant drinks and send a barrel to each of my generals (he was the only one winning at the time). some people's priorities, ayayay... anyway, geithner looks like the soft-spoken, concilliatory, politically palatable choice for sure and he's well respected, i just hope he listens to summers.

about holder, sure he can be confirmed, but it strikes me that cohen makes this to be some kind of tragic flaw, oedipus sleeping with his mother kind of thing, and i really don't know if this is a good argument he's making (he can't stand up to power, he's the next alberto gonzales) or if it's just partisan bullshit. gotta think on it...

[pantophobia]

well i am more a deflating type, and self deprecation is the best weapon against tension, historically it works, then again, people hide money in Switzerland, so either way i am not earning enough money on the side

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pantophobia

well i am more a deflating type, and self deprecation is the best weapon against tension, historically it works, then again, people hide money in Switzerland, so either way i am not earning enough money on the side

better than switzerland, invest in gold!

 

 

you can even travel with it without declaring it

[demonrail666]

I agree with the principle that being politically 'competent' and 'respected' is going to be crucial to getting the job done. Although by so openly favouring a certain political view (the appointment of Jones, keeping Gates in charge of the Pentagon) seems far more like a tactical move, than it does a meritocratic one. All politics is tactical of course, but when that tactic seems one designed to allay fears from his critics within the Republican and centre-right ranks by sending out a message of 'business as usual', it does rather call into doubt the strength of Obama's commitment to so many of his pre-election promises.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I agree with the principle that being politically 'competent' and 'respected' is going to be crucial to getting the job done. Although by so openly favouring a certain political view (the appointment of Jones, keeping Gates in charge of the Pentagon) seems far more like a tactical move, than it does a meritocratic one. All politics is tactical of course, but when that tactic seems one designed to allay fears from his critics within the Republican and centre-right ranks by sending out a message of 'business as usual', it does rather call into doubt the strength of Obama's commitment to so many of his pre-election promises.

I don't think the message is "business as usual", not at all. The message (the way I read it anyway) is that things will get done early and effectively. Jones, in spite of his Chevron board, was an early critic of the Iraq war. Perhaps for different reasons than say a peacenik would be, but still, he's against it.

After Obama won the primaries in the summer and started campaigning for the general election, I got an email from a friend in Belgium-- he studied here and he follows American politics. He said he was disappointed that Obama had pulled back from his more radical positions earlier in the campaign.

I answered by saying that this is a huge country that tends to be very conservative; you cannot win from the fringe-- it was logical he'd tack to the center. One thing is to mobilize MoveOn members, another is to gain the trust of independent voters.

The way I see it, and maybe I'm wrong, but the way I see it is that Obama is going to be able to accomplish much more ruling from the center and creating a bipartisan coalition-- it's his style and it's always been his style to listen to all sides of the issue. He's never been an ideologue but a pragmatist.

I want health care. I want the war to end. I want green energy. I want a revived middle class with good paying jobs. I want America to become again an example for the rest of the world instead of a protofascist nation of torturers. If he accomplishes all this by making deals and compromises, I'm all for it. I love Voltaire's phrase that the better is the enemy of the good (often quoted as "the perfect is the enemy of the good"), and it applies here.

This country needs some***major repair***. It needs a collective push towards a better place, and nothing ever gets done here because of polarized partisanship and bickering and ridiculous "culture wars".

Obama is not going to squander his chances of accomplishing some really important things by taking a "down with the man" approach a la Suchfriends, or even like Jimmy Carter who surrounded himself only with people that were loyal to him. Sure Carter was a good man, but he's not remembered as the most effective President--even if he actually achieved good things and is very underrated.

So yeah, the ideologues are going to be disappointed with Obama. No question. He's not going to go into the left pole to polarize the right. He's for finding common ground with an aim to get results. This he has been proclaiming since his famous 2004 speech, and with this he's been consistent. I want to wait and see what he does before I'm disappointed-- but so far, I like his strategy and his unusual approach-- Not demanding the head of Lieberman on a plate? He surely is a bigger person than a lot of us.

So, the goals are "liberal", but the methods are non-radical, is what I see.

--

ps- don't forget that he's put melody barnes, a confirmed "progressive", in charge of domestic policy. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/24/...-announcement/
it's not the arrival of socialism, but i'm looking forward to seeing more social protections for the poor, hungry, at-risk, etc., as well as a beefing up of the rachitic middle classes.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I agree with the principle that being politically 'competent' and 'respected' is going to be crucial to getting the job done. Although by so openly favouring a certain political view (the appointment of Jones, keeping Gates in charge of the Pentagon) seems far more like a tactical move, than it does a meritocratic one. All politics is tactical of course, but when that tactic seems one designed to allay fears from his critics within the Republican and centre-right ranks by sending out a message of 'business as usual', it does rather call into doubt the strength of Obama's commitment to so many of his pre-election promises.

Do you know what tanked the Clinton administration?

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Do you know what tanked the Clinton administration?

yeah, term limits, though they seem to have overcome that problem as usual.

So lets see..

The Bush I administration was just a continuation of what was left of the Reagan administration which was then replaced by the Clinton administration but came back as the Bush II administration, and now apparently a good portion of the Clinton administration is coming back with Obama....


more
of
the
same

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

The way I see it, and maybe I'm wrong, but the way I see it is that Obama is going to be able to accomplish much more ruling from the center and creating a bipartisan coalition-- it's his style and it's always been his style to listen to all sides of the issue. He's never been an ideologue but a pragmatist.

It's clear that, even given his cabinet, Obama will not be a new Bush. However, speaking from the outside looking in, I know that a large element of European interest in Obama stemmed from what we saw as his commitment to at least engage with fresh ideas. I personally was under no illusion that Obama himself was any kind of leftist radical (within the framework of British politics he'd fit soundly into the Conservative benches). However I was at least hoping he'd find a place for more progressive thinkers. Whether he decided to implement their ideas is another thing entirely, but to not include them in his supposedly bipartisan cabinet seems like a real missed opportunity, especially given the evident enthusiasm of so many that voted for him (and not just those of your hard left) to try and move to step away from such already tried and by-now distrusted ideas.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

It's clear that, even given his cabinet, Obama will not be a new Bush. However, speaking from the outside looking in, I know that a large element of European interest in Obama stemmed from what we saw as his commitment to at least engage with fresh ideas. I personally was under no illusion that Obama himself was any kind of leftist radical (within the framework of British politics he'd fit soundly into the Conservative benches). However I was at least hoping he'd find a place for more progressive thinkers. Whether he decided to implement their ideas is another thing entirely, but to not include them in his supposedly bipartisan cabinet seems like a real missed opportunity, especially given the evident enthusiasm of so many that voted for him (and not just those of your hard left) to try and move to step away from such already tried and by-now distrusted ideas.

those people are there, just not at the most visible level. start looking at the subcabinet positions, people who are being groomed to take over one day. for now, sure, it's a team of superstars, but their underlings is where it's at.

take for example samantha power, who is one of the most outspoken intellectuals against genocide (and called hillary "a monster" while working as an advisor to the obama campaign). she was fired for her comments, and after hillary was called to the state department, power was rehired to oversee the state department transition-- ha ha ha ha. trust me, she's going to do things for darfour, congo, etc-- but give her a little room to maneuver or we'll end up with another clinton-style somalia.

check out her bio-- i've seen her speak and i have to confess a mad crush on this super-smart redhead. ok she's not a total beauty in the face but i could listen to her talk all fucking night.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

her agenda-- that's the real agenda after the major bollocks is dealt with, you see?

[demonrail666]

That's interesting. I have to confess that I wasn't aware that Power's had been rehired. She'd appeared on a number of BBC news programmes during her initial spell with Obama and, like you, I was mightily impressed with her. Certainly if he's able to keep people like her on board and hopefully elevate her over a period of time, that would definitely suggest to me that things were moving in the right direction. But that doesn't change the fact that, for me, while he's clearly up to the job intellectually, I still have to wonder about he has the stomach for a fight with the political Establishment. And I'm not talking about a fight based merely on gesture, or for the sake of it, but one in response to circumstances where, as is currently the case with the economic crisis, it really is necessary.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I still have to wonder about he has the stomach for a fight with the political Establishment. And I'm not talking about a fight based merely on gesture, or for the sake of it, but one in response to circumstances where, as is currently the case with the economic crisis, it really is necessary.

that ship has already sailed, the establishment is altered. this article reflects very closely my own opinions, only better-- see what you think:

http://www.alternet.org/election08/109436/clues_obama_won't_govern_center-right/?page=entire

let me highlight a coupl e of crucial paragraphs:

"Obama ran a campaign that clearly and unequivocally described priorities that will turn American in a fundamentally progressive direction. His cabinet picks indicate that he will surround himself with people who have experience and can competently manage the government. They also indicate his absolute commitment to unifying the country to make change. But they do not in any way diminish the fact that America is demanding -- and Obama intends to enact -- a sweeping progressive program the likes of which we have not seen since the New Deal."

and

"Finally, writers and pundits who focus on Obama's cabinet picks to show he will govern from the "center right" need to have a look at history. Like Obama, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln all installed people in their cabinets who they believed to be effective managers who could deliver. They all had their share of outsiders and progressives, but many were old Washington hands. Yet all of these Presidents faced historic challenges that demanded and enabled them to make fundamental change. And all of them were guided by progressive values that were sharply different from those of Bush, Cheney, and Delay. Obama shares and articulates those values more than any political leader since Robert Kennedy died forty years ago."

and a fragment:

"Barack Obama will not govern from the "center right", but he will govern from the "center". That's not because he is "moving to the center". It's because the center of American politics has changed. It has moved where the American people are."

the full argument, of course, reads better, as it explains the shift in what is this new "center".

---

now, can anyone be 100% sure of anything? of course not. but by all reasonable expectations, this is not a return to the past.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

yeah, term limits, though they seem to have overcome that problem as usual.

So lets see..

The Bush I administration was just a continuation of what was left of the Reagan administration which was then replaced by the Clinton administration but came back as the Bush II administration, and now apparently a good portion of the Clinton administration is coming back with Obama....


more
of
the
same

I'm sorry, I was looking for a more thorough answer than the cynical rhetoric of the outsider. I wasn't asking you.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

"Barack Obama will not govern from the "center right", but he will govern from the "center". That's not because he is "moving to the center". It's because the center of American politics has changed. It has moved where the American people are."

the full argument, of course, reads better, as it explains the shift in what is this new "center".

I predict that Obama will begin in the center as he is now and will steadily move to the left as the administration moves on. This is what I was referring to in learning the mistake of the Clinton presidency which came out the gate advocating strong liberal policies which were either shut down (his health care plan) or backfired (gay rights in the military, NAFTA). Was it no wonder the republicans went for his jugular his second term over Monica Lewinsky?

[tesla69]

re: james Jones

Originally Posted by mangajunky

On the board of Chevron - yeah - he's going to do things in our best interests.

What about Obama’s National Security Adviser, General Jim Jones? He looks like a fine upstanding marine.
WW: He is a man of great stature, physically and figuratively, in Washington. He is a Washington ‘heavy’ but if you look at his record, nothing much ever happened. Things went south in Afghanistan pretty rapidly when he was supreme commander of all Nato forces in Afghanistan. When he was Commandant of the Marine Corps, a lot of the marines’ overpriced underperforming hardware programs, such as the V-22 [vertical takeoff troop transport plane] and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle were endorsed and continued happily along. He seems to have been mostly a placeholder when he had these very senior and important positions.
http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew12032008.html

[mangajunky]

Originally Posted by pbradley

I predict that Obama will begin in the center as he is now and will steadily move to the left as the administration moves on. This is what I was referring to in learning the mistake of the Clinton presidency which came out the gate advocating strong liberal policies which were either shut down (his health care plan) or backfired (gay rights in the military, NAFTA). Was it no wonder the republicans went for his jugular his second term over Monica Lewinsky?

That sounds like a good plan. I hope you're right.
I don't think that he'll be bullied into any particular stance by his cabinet. He is a strong-minded individual with a focus that is amazingly refreshing after 8 years of doubt, uncertainty, and stupidity.

His cabinet appointees seem to be from both ends of the spectrum. And Rahm Emmanuel will definitely give some lefty perspective to everyone in the cabinet.

My eyes got a little blurry when I saw those couple of appointments, but I feel pretty confident that things will go in the right direction. Time gives me perspective.