Flip flops and governance: Obama not as advertised

[GibbsFactor]

Well yeah everything is the same if you generalize it like that.

All 3 have troops overseas? Sure. Are those troops doing the same thing in the context of the same foreign policy? Not really.

All 3 spend at "exhorbitant levels"? Sure. Are they spending on same things? Not really.

Dude, what kind of rebuttal was that?

[Henry]

Uh oh. The Libertarians have jumped in. God help us all.

[alexey]

It's not really a generalization in light of the end results of such policies. If you truly desire to vote around semantics and forever ignore the core issues within these policies, go ahead. But in the end, a vote for any one of them results in the same tired mess we began with.

I understand where you are coming from. It's just that I believe certain kinds of government spending are needed and are very beneficial. In my view those investments are necessary, and core issues that trouble you should not prevent one from making those investments.

[alexey]

Dude, what kind of rebuttal was that?

What part of it is not to your liking? He said these people implement same policies. I pointed out that these policies only appear similar when one generalizes them, for example by disregarding what the money is actually being sent on.

[Thiebear]

What part of it is not to your liking? He said these people implement same policies. I pointed out that these policies only appear similar when one generalizes them, for example by disregarding what the money is actually being sent on.

The policies appear similar because they are similar. They might not be "exact" is what you were looking for.

Say Afghanistan: Were not doing a Surge, were just sending in a lot more troops quickly to fix a problem..

Or Gitmo: Original: We want to close it but nobody with take them.

Now: We will close it eventually, but nobody will take them.

Or Tarp:: Before we were helping banks and financial institutions.

Now: Banks and financial institutions and Unions and States and Cars and Planes and Insurance companies and construction workers and Universal Healthcare

[PeterMP]

Pete, now we're going to go off on huge tangents. My basic premise is that if the country is in the crapper, the party who controls all facets of government for most of the past decade is going to be held accountable. You disagree, and are now asking me for specifics.

What I'm telling you is that historically (normally) it isn't to the extreme that it was in this election (or at least not until recently history).

You seemed to suggest that what happened in this election is "normal". What I'm telling you is it is rare to see a party held responsible for the policies/mistakes of a few at every level as what happened in this election.

This idea of party X must pay based on actual voting appears to be relatively new. Certainly, previously, people had an attitude of person X must pay, but at other levels there was a distinction that was made between individuals, and there wasn't this attitude of party X is evil or party X must be punished that you see here so much.

As I told alexey, the voting against Republicans in this election wasn't just for President or even the national level, but, except for the South, at every level. The message of all Republicans are bad seems to have taken hold pretty much through out the country and been applied pretty much at every level. Your post seemed to be indicating similar feelings. I don't think a good argument can be made that is how the country has worked for the last 200 years or that it is good for the country.

(note, alexey has suggested that this wasn't simply a vote against Republicans at every level, but a repudiation of different policies at different levels of government, meaning you'd have multiple and different issues affecting different locales at different levels of voting. For various reasons (this post is already long enough), I think that is unlikely, but realistically, it is difficult to disprove such a hypothesis as there is always some combination of variables that might give the desired effect)

[GibbsFactor]

Uh oh. The Libertarians have jumped in. God help us all.

Obama hasn't made my **** list just yet.

[Thiebear]

Obama hasn't made my **** list just yet.

I said the same thing.

[alexey]

The policies appear similar because they are similar. They might not be "exact" is what you were looking for.

Say Afghanistan: Were not doing a Surge, were just sending in a lot more troops quickly to fix a problem..

Or Gitmo: Original: We want to close it but nobody with take them.

Now: We will close it eventually, but nobody will take them.

Or Tarp:: Before we were helping banks and financial institutions.

Now: Banks and financial institutions and Unions and States and Cars and Planes and Insurance companies and construction workers and Universal Healthcare

I think there are meaningful differences between these policies. I can see following possibilities of how you may end up saying what you are saying:

1) You are not seing any differences.

2) You are seing differences between policies, but you do not consider them meaningful.

3) You are willfully disregarding meaningful differences between policies.

1 is unlikely, 3 is between you and your consciousness, and 2 will become more and more obvious as time goes on (one way or another).

[Predicto]

I want just one person who voted for Obama to admit that they are frightened by his radical agenda on this board (ok, I actually have seen at least 2 posters admit to it so far).

Wait.

I thought the whole premise of this editorial (and this thread) was that Obama is the same as Bush, and therefore Bush was unfairly vilified by a bunch of hypocrites.

Now you are telling me about his frightening radical agenda?

Dang, I'm not sure what to hate him for now.

[Predicto]

And I'm still waiting for the evidence that Obama definitively promised to stop all military tribunals.

That point is kind of central to the "Obama is a flipflopper and everyone is ignoring it because they are hypocrites" thesis that has been presented to us by the esteemed Mr. Rove.

[deejaydana]

Wait.

I thought the whole premise of this editorial (and this thread) was that Obama is the same as Bush, and therefore Bush was unfairly vilified by a bunch of hypocrites.

Now you are telling me about his frightening radical agenda?

Dang, I'm not sure what to hate him for now.

The military piece isn't frightening in the least to me, I actually saw it coming (I just didn't think Obama would have to eat crow so soon but it's been enjoyable to watch).

It's the other parts that should frighten any sane person...and also liberals.

[PeterMP]

And I'm still waiting for the evidence that Obama definitively promised to stop all military tribunals.

That point is kind of central to the "Obama is a flipflopper and everyone is ignoring it because they are hypocrites" thesis that has been presented to us by the esteemed Mr. Rove.

Originally posted by alexey:

"The LA Times article linked from that post provides the following evidence of Obama's campaign promise:

Quote:

"It's time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice," Obama said in August."

I'm pretty sure the Uniform Code of Military Justice doesn't describe a process of military courts for anybody other than members of the military. Again, I'm pretty sure it does describe the treatment of prisoners, but does not describe a method by which to determine if and when they should be released.

I posted a link to a copy on the web before if you want to look yourself.

[NoCalMike]

Hey I'm one of the more liberal posters on this board and I'll admit I am not fond of Obama's perceived "move to the center" on a lot of these issues.

He didn't campaign or get elected being a centrist, and his rhetoric during his campaign was pretty refreshing to hear after sitting through the policies, failure, and outright embarrasment of the last eight years.

However, so far I'd say Obama's actual policies have been a rush to the center.

It is still early though and it could be that Obama is playing chess and not checkers.

We'll have to wait and see.

[Henry]

What I'm telling you is that historically (normally) it isn't to the extreme that it was in this election (or at least not until recently history).

You seemed to suggest that what happened in this election is "normal". What I'm telling you is it is rare to see a party held responsible for the policies/mistakes of a few at every level as what happened in this election.

This idea of party X must pay based on actual voting appears to be relatively new. Certainly, previously, people had an attitude of person X must pay, but at other levels there was a distinction that was made between individuals, and there wasn't this attitude of party X is evil or party X must be punished that you see here so much.

I think you're splitting hairs, but even so, I think I disagree.

Historically, we are seeing arguably the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Our economy isn't just cycling down, it's broken at the systemic level. So if you are going to compare this election with other elections, why not use 1932?

Not only did Hoover lose by 10 points or something, but the Republicans suffered crushing defeats in both houses, despite having already lost seats in both houses two years prior.

If you want to argue that this election had unusual results, fine. But again, I think the suggestion that those results are due to Democrat 'lying', as opposed to the fact that the country's economy was collapsing under the GOP watch is downright silly.

[GibbsFactor]

Hey I'm one of the more liberal posters on this board and I'll admit I am not fond of Obama's perceived "move to the center" on a lot of these issues.

He didn't campaign or get elected being a centrist, and his rhetoric during his campaign was pretty refreshing to hear after sitting through the policies, failure, and outright embarrasment of the last eight years.

However, so far I'd say Obama's actual policies have been a rush to the center.

It is still early though and it could be that Obama is playing chess and not checkers.

We'll have to wait and see.

I voted for him hoping for moderation. And so far, am getting what I expected.

[deejaydana]

However, so far I'd say Obama's actual policies have been a rush to the center.

Really? A rush to the center? Other then running headlong into reality on the military/Gitmo issue which policies do you feel are a move to the center?

[Henry]

I voted for him hoping for moderation. And so far, am getting what I expected.

Same here.

[@DCGoldPants]

Same here.

I didn't vote for him....or McCain (3rd Party).

But, he is pretty much what most people were expecting. Thus the outrage from the folks who are outraged that he had French Toast for breakfast once.....and not from most others.

[Baculus]

I want just one person who voted for Obama to admit that they are frightened by his radical agenda on this board (ok, I actually have seen at least 2 posters admit to it so far).

"Radical" agenda?

Hyperbole much?

"OMG, Obama the Commie-Muslim, terrorist-sympathizing, fist-bumping, ACORN-suckling traitorous RADICAL is going to destroy us!"

Not trying to call you out, personally, amigo, but after a year of this, it does get old after a while.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Originally posted by alexey:

"The LA Times article linked from that post provides the following evidence of Obama's campaign promise:

Quote:

"It's time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice," Obama said in August."

I'm pretty sure the Uniform Code of Military Justice doesn't describe a process of military courts for anybody other than members of the military. Again, I'm pretty sure it does describe the treatment of prisoners, but does not describe a method by which to determine if and when they should be released.

I posted a link to a copy on the web before if you want to look yourself.

The quote has to be put into context because the idea of using the military courts is juxtaposed against using no courts. That is, what Obama is doing now by having military tribunals is exactly what he meant when he referred to using the Military Justice system for these people.

[PeterMP]

I think you're splitting hairs, but even so, I think I disagree.

Historically, we are seeing arguably the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Our economy isn't just cycling down, it's broken at the systemic level. So if you are going to compare this election with other elections, why not use 1932?

Not only did Hoover lose by 10 points or something, but the Republicans suffered crushing defeats in both houses, despite having already lost seats in both houses two years prior.

If you want to argue that this election had unusual results, fine. But again, I think the suggestion that those results are due to Democrat 'lying', as opposed to the fact that the country's economy was collapsing under the GOP watch is downright silly.

First, I'm not sure that's true. This still isn't a depression.

But because Hoover was President during the Great Depression and there were differences in how to go forward between the two parties.

Obama essentially has continued Bush's policies with respect to the economic crisis and McCain at least said he'd do the same.

The differences between the Dems and the Repubs at the time were substantial on how to go forward. The differences between them now on going forward during the election cycle were minimal.

[PeterMP]

The quote has to be put into context because the idea of using the military courts is juxtaposed against using no courts. That is, what Obama is doing now by having military tribunals is exactly what he meant when he referred to using the Military Justice system for these people.

The gymnastics that Obama supporters are going through in this thread are starting to make me laugh.

So you've seen the quote in some sort of context that would make you think that is the actual context.

Considering in August the Supreme Court has already said that having no trials (indefinietly holding people w/o heabus corpus) was unconstitutional, that the Bush administration had embraced military tribunuals as a solution to the problem, and McCain was also supporting them also so essentially NOBODY was talking about trying to create a no trial system to deal with these prisonser AND the military code of conduct that he referred to doesn't mention any sort of trials other than court martials, I find it highly unlikely that was context of the statement because it is a context that would have had no basis in the reality of what was happening at the time.

Much more likely, he was referring to the Military Code of Conduct with respect to treatment of prisoners (i.e. no torture).

But maybe he was referring to court martials, that still isn't no trials and I haven't seen anything to suggest these new tribunals will be run under the same rules as a court martial.

I think you have no idea of the context of the quote and made something completely up because it suits your world view.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by alexey:

"The LA Times article linked from that post provides the following evidence of Obama's campaign promise: Quote: "It's time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice," Obama said in August."

I'm pretty sure the Uniform Code of Military Justice doesn't describe a process of military courts for anybody other than members of the military. Again, I'm pretty sure it does describe the treatment of prisoners, but does not describe a method by which to determine if and when they should be released.

I posted a link to a copy on the web before if you want to look yourself.

I read that. You can interpret that as an Absolute Pledge to close ALL military tribunals if you want, but the words are not there.

According to the OP, Obama is moving most of the trials to federal court, and in the few that are remaining in military tribunals, he is changing the rules to comport better with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Which also comports with what he said in your quotation.

[Predicto]

I voted for him hoping for moderation. And so far, am getting what I expected.

Same here.