[Winstonm]

True to his word, President "Change depends on what is is" Obama has elected to renegotiate his contract with America and re-sign power forward Military Tribunals for the postseason, receiving more rave reviews from his hundred of supporters:

Quote

"In one swift move, Obama both backtracks on a major campaign promise to change the way the United States fights terrorism and undermines the nation's core respect for the rule of law," said Amnesty International executive director Larry Cox.

Quote

"There is no such thing as 'due process light,'" said American Civil Liberties Union executive director Anthony D. Romero.

Quote

"As a constitutional lawyer, Obama must know that he can put lipstick on this pig — but it will always be a pig," said Zachary Katznelson, legal director of Reprieve, a London-based legal action charity that represents 33 Guantanamo detainees.

Replacing axe-wielding Quasimodo with Jean LeJean, the French Olympic fencing champion, is not what I consider rewarding change - no matter how smooth and velvety is the glove used - when the net result is still loss of my head.

[Al_U_Card]

The reality of the situation was clarified when the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan was made.

Not since JFK has anyone dared to stand up to the Mil-Ind. At least they have learned their lesson.

[kenrexford]

Yeah, we should be really proud of this guy.

I especially liked the position on don't ask don't tell. If I am not missing something, we have a 5-4 split favorable-ish in the SCOTUS, Dem control of both houses, and even friggin' Iowa with its head out of its ass. And yet, still not enough backbone to keep that campaign promise?

[luke warm]

his main job is to ensure that dems in both houses of congress aren't forced to take positions that might make explanations 'back home' embarrassing... expect him to carefully weigh the gains and losses to the party before advocating a position... yes, he's a politician first and always

[Al_U_Card]

kenrexford, on May 16 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

Yeah, we should be really proud of this guy.

I especially liked the position on don't ask don't tell. If I am not missing something, we have a 5-4 split favorable-ish in the SCOTUS, Dem control of both houses, and even friggin' Iowa with its head out of its ass. And yet, still not enough backbone to keep that campaign promise?

The people have spoken....and once again, no one is paying any attention.

The corridors of power are not the province of the many so those that do use them see themselves as above and apart from those that provide them that possibility.

The people may eventually rise up.....depends on whats good on TV.

[Winstonm]

I especially like this - the ulitmate irony. Seems some in our Congress want to label foreign-based capitalism terrorism. (To counter the backlash, note that this idea targets the makers and providers of satellite equipment. I do not endorse the contents of the shows. I find it darkly humorous as the whole idea seems to me to drip the irony that if we do it is is fine but if they do it is terrorism.)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pag...d=1242212377926

Actually, it's not that bad of idea - we should also label Directv terrorist for providing America NFL football package and dumbing us all down.

How about them Jets?

[Winstonm]

I am wary of the influence of the Pentagon on Obama's decisions. The format for the way our government and military work put a civilian in charge of the military for good reason. When the military leads the President instead of the other way round you have non-elected officials creating policy.

[Aberlour10]

The pressure grows. We will hear more often "No, we can't change it"
Welcome to the machine, Mr President.

[Winstonm]

To be fair, kudos to Obama for this selection:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090516/ap_on_...a_utah_governor

This is a move that the last administration would never have even considered much less actual have done.

[kenrexford]

Winstonm, on May 16 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

To be fair, kudos to Obama for this selection:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090516/ap_on_...a_utah_governor

This is a move that the last administration would never have even considered much less actual have done.

Yes. Very important to pick the right person to do whatever the political whim of the day suggests, rather than the wrong person to do whatever the political whim of the day suggests. That way, you look smart doing whatever the political whim of the day suggests rather than simply political and subject to whims.

[Winstonm]

kenrexford, on May 16 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 16 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

To be fair, kudos to Obama for this selection:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090516/ap_on_...a_utah_governor

This is a move that the last administration would never have even considered much less actual have done.

Yes. Very important to pick the right person to do whatever the political whim of the day suggests, rather than the wrong person to do whatever the political whim of the day suggests. That way, you look smart doing whatever the political whim of the day suggests rather than simply political and subject to whims.

Pickith thine poison - whim or blind loyalty to ideology?

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on May 16 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 16 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

To be fair, kudos to Obama for this selection:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090516/ap_on_...a_utah_governor

This is a move that the last administration would never have even considered much less actual have done.

Yes. Very important to pick the right person to do whatever the political whim of the day suggests, rather than the wrong person to do whatever the political whim of the day suggests. That way, you look smart doing whatever the political whim of the day suggests rather than simply political and subject to whims.

I think having an ambassador to China is necessary rather than a political whim. You may disagree.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on May 16 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

kenrexford, on May 16 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 16 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

To be fair, kudos to Obama for this selection:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090516/ap_on_...a_utah_governor

This is a move that the last administration would never have even considered much less actual have done.

Yes. Very important to pick the right person to do whatever the political whim of the day suggests, rather than the wrong person to do whatever the political whim of the day suggests. That way, you look smart doing whatever the political whim of the day suggests rather than simply political and subject to whims.

I think having an ambassador to China is necessary rather than a political whim. You may disagree.

Well, technically, it might be better to have no ambassador than to have a bad ambassador, but that was not my point at all.

My point was that a lot of the Obama "great news" so far has been about great picks of people to head such-and-such, and a lot of the "scandals" have dealt with bad choices for such-and-such.

I'd like to see what people do, whoever they are.

When there is a discussion concerning dumb moves, or at least dumb moves from some perspectives, it seems rather noteworthy to rebut this by pointing out that, yeah but, so-and-so being chosen for such-and-such position is a good thing. So far, the so-and-so's picked have still resulted in the aforementioned flops.

[kenrexford]

Winstonm, on May 16 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

Pickith thine poison - whim or blind loyalty to ideology?

What -- the reasoned middle ground is not even possible, or not even recognized any more?

I may be naive, but I kind of thought things could go something like this:

1. The candidate for President articulates his ideology to the voters. The best means of illustrating ideology might be, for instance, to give examples of decision-making predictions for current events, as a preview of what decisions might likely be made. From the combinations of stated philosophy and predicted practical implementation of the same, we make a choice.

2. The President, once elected, then uses that ideological standard as a tool for problem solving as new situations develop.

Now, using this method, it seems like one test of this structure is fairly easy to resolve. An officer in the U.S. military is known to be gay. Heck -- let's overstate the problem and say he is "flaming" gay, where some folks in even Iowa might be a tad upset. Heck, maybe even other gay people might find him over the top. Toughie. So, what does our President do? What to do, what to do. Hmmm. Seems easy -- override the firing. Why? Well, since he is the Boss, he does the firing, through others of course. So, he simply explains to the bumbling idiot who forgot what Mr. Obama said a few months ago that we don't fire people for sexual preference and, TADA! No whims. Just reasoned ideology employed.

Now, one might somehow suggest that this actual implementation of ideology was one that Mr. Obama did not expect when discussing this type of hypothetical situation. Maybe he thought that the "toughie" would be, say, a gay person who single-handedly forced al qaeda to surrender. Or, maybe a gay person who ran a solo mission into Iran and carried out all of the Iranian uranium on his shoulders, saving the day. Or, maybe a gay person who could fly and rescued the space shuttle after a horrible accident in space.

That's one possibility. Or, maybe Mr. Obama was the most naive idiot ever to run for office. Or, Mr. Obama is the typical B.S. politician who just says whatever sounds good at the time.

I suspect the last of the three options, but I'm willing to hear arguments as to the Petty Officer Peter Pan alternative.

[blackshoe]

A petty officer is not an officer. Well, technically he is a non-commissioned officer, but the word "officer", used alone, refers to commissioned officers.

Not that it makes any difference to your point.

[Winstonm]

Ken,

Perhaps I was wrong by I thought you were implying that Obama's good deeds had all simply been political whims. My comment was to that interpretation, meaning if your comment is true then the only choices we've had with this president and the last is the choice of whim or ideological loyalty.

Myself, I chose reason over all the above.

[kenrexford]

Well, actually I was saying that all of his doinkers have been whims.

Of course, if someone acts bad as a whim, is he calculatign when he does well, or is he also acting on a whim but just lucky?

If we don't know the result of the particular move yet, should we be afraid -- very afraid?

This is where I end up.

When he drops the ball, I bang my head against the wall.

When he gets something right, I wipe my brow and utter, "Whew!"

When I don't know whether his plan is or is not working, I kind of turn my head to the side and wince my eyes.