Support NeoGAF

[Averon]

Going full Teatard in the primaries and then trying to do a near complete 180 in the general is a losing strategy against Obama. I give Romney props for at least realizing that.

 

[RustyNails]

Romney's a fucking genius. He's going after moderates in states that he knows will give him a chance (like PA).

I've gotta hand it to him, he's ambitious and putting forth a strategy that defies batshit insane GOP logic.

Romney is not trying to become boxed in like other idiots. He's playing the long con.

 

[Diablos]

Going full Teatard in the primaries and then trying to do a near complete 180 in the general is a losing strategy against Obama. I give Romney props for at least realizing that.

Nah. For Mitt the question is if he will stay true to his positions when things really heat up. If he does everyone but Teabaggers will give him credit. If not, he'll look like an idiot.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Romney is just going the McCain route of 2000 and 2008. McCain always skipped Iowa and played hard in NH which he won. It was when South Carolina came around that things changed. In 2000, he refused to bow down to party demands and also got smeared by the Bush campaign. He learned his lesson and sold out in 2008 to stop Huckabee, the Iowa winner. Romney needs to make sure someone crazy like Bachmann wins Iowa or he will have to via with a serious candidate for South Carolina. And he might very well give in to demands when the campaign gets down there. Things can change quickly, and he wants it bad enough.

 

[PhoenixDark]

There's a difference between going moderate on global warming and going moderate on abortion. This will help Romney with regular, non crazy voters but those people tend to stay out of GOP primaries. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. He's going to lose Iowa obviously, which is rather irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. SC could be in play for him since there's no southern candidate, but these comments plus a hot Bachman campaign could deflate his chances there.

NH seems to be in the bag. I can't wait to see how this issue is debated though. Clearly the economy is #1, but for conservatives abortion is always a top, top priority. Romney's camp might be thinking those voters won't be voting for him anyway though, so it doesn't matter

 

[Killthee]

So now the White House is saying Obama did write the 1996 questionnaire, but when he wrote same sex marriage he actually meant civil unions.

President Obama’s Views on Gay Marriage ‘Evolving’
.....

Many gay leaders say because the president has a strong record on issues they care about — prodding Congress to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which barred openly gay men and lesbians from serving in the military, and withdrawing legal support for the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman — he is not under intense pressure to announce a change in his position before the 2012 election.

But with the political climate around gay rights changing drastically — a handful of recent polls show that Americans, by a slim majority, now support same-sex marriage — some strategists see little political cost to a shift in position. And a review of Mr. Obama’s record, dating to when he first ran for public office, suggests that he may have been for same-sex marriage before he was against it.

In 1996, as a candidate for the State Senate in Illinois, Mr. Obama responded to a questionnaire from a gay newspaper. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” Mr. Obama wrote, “and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

White House officials have said Mr. Obama was really referring to civil unions, which he does support. (On Friday, Mr. Obama’s communications director, Dan Pfieffer, caused a brief kerfuffle by telling a conference of bloggers that Mr. Obama had not filled out the forms himself; the White House later said he was mistaken.)

By the time Mr. Obama ran for the United States Senate in 2004, his position had become more nuanced.

Jackie Kaplan, a Chicago Democrat who was co-chairwoman of a committee of gays and lesbians supporting Mr. Obama, said he raised practical objections and made the case this way: “Why spend a lot of time on an issue that is not going to happen? The Defense of Marriage law is on the books, we’re not going to overturn that, let’s talk about how we can build more equality.”

Tracy Baim, a gay journalist in Chicago who interviewed Mr. Obama in 2004, remembers the candidate asking her to turn off her tape recorder so they could have a candid conversation on same-sex marriage. She said his objections were based on what he saw as realistic considerations: “I know what you want, I know what you can get.”

But when his Senate campaign moved into the general election against Alan Keyes, Mr. Obama told an interviewer for a black-owned radio station that religion was a factor.

..........

 

[timetokill]

So now the White House is saying Obama did write the 1996 questionnaire, but when he wrote same sex marriage he actually meant civil unions.

LOL, best to just stop when they're behind. We get it, Obama's either a bigot or too politically spineless to stand up for what's right. He'll continue to shit on gays because, hey, what are they gonna do?

 

[gcubed]

has anyone seen the obama impersonator at the RLC? Everything was going fine until he started making fun of the GOP candidates

http://xfinity.comcast.net/video/obama-impersonator-misfires/2011967440/Comcast/2006579551/

 

[PhoenixDark]

So now the White House is saying Obama did write the 1996 questionnaire, but when he wrote same sex marriage he actually meant civil unions.

derp derp

It's simply another case of Obama telling an audience what they want to hear. A person trying to get elected in liberal Chicago in 1996 vs a candidate from US president in 2008.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

has anyone seen the obama impersonator at the RLC? Everything was going fine until he started making fun of the GOP candidates

http://xfinity.comcast.net/video/obama-impersonator-misfires/2011967440/Comcast/2006579551/

Poor T-Paw.

 

[gcubed]

Poor T-Paw.

yeah, his spinal transplant didnt happen in time so he couldnt handle the jokes

 

[Gaborn]

So now the White House is saying Obama did write the 1996 questionnaire, but when he wrote same sex marriage he actually meant civil unions.

What kind of piss poor con law professor was he?

 

[Kosmo]

Has Obama's rationale for staying in Libya been discussed yet since Congress started pressing him? He's not even using the War Powers Resolution as a reson for staying there, so what is the rationale? Let's refer to his two page letter to Congress:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/15/letter-president-war-powers-resolution

I have directed the participation of U.S. Armed Forces in all of these operations pursuant to my constitutional and statutory authority as Commander in Chief (including the authority to carry out Public Law 107 40 and other statutes) and as Chief Executive, as well as my statutory and constitutional authority, to conduct the foreign relations of the United States.- Officials of my Administration and I communicate regularly with the leadership and other Members of Congress with regard to these deployments, and we will continue to do so.

Hmm, so what is Public Law 107 40?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107.pdf

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that
the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary
threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United
States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to
take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States

That's right, he's drawing from something passed in response to 9/11, as if this has fuck-all to do with preventing terrorism against the US. Your President - George W. Obama.

 

[TacticalFox88]

What kind of piss poor con law professor was he?

He was a product of the times. Frankly I don't give a fuck WHAT he said in the past, it's the present and the future are the only things I concern myself with him.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Libya has a strong history of American hatred and terrorist attacks.

 

[Kosmo]

Libya has a strong history of American hatred and terrorist attacks.

Our current actions there have ZERO to do with Lockerbie or the night club bombings. If we let this go, you have essentially said any President can usurp Congress's Constitutional authority.

 

[Gaborn]

Has Obama's rationale for staying in Libya been discussed yet since Congress started pressing him? He's not even using the War Powers Resolution as a reson for staying there, so what is the rationale? Let's refer to his two page letter to Congress:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/15/letter-president-war-powers-resolution



Hmm, so what is Public Law 107 40?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107.pdf



That's right, he's drawing from something passed in response to 9/11, as if this has fuck-all to do with preventing terrorism against the US. Your President - George W. Obama.

Worse than that. With the way he's interpreted the 4th amendment (voting for the FISA bill as a senator, authorizing the actual assassination of an American citizen without any sort of trial or conviction) it seems like the country elected John Yoo.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Libya has a strong history of American hatred and terrorist attacks.

Are you serious?

 

[scorcho]

Libya has a strong history of American hatred and terrorist attacks.

Obama's own council, including Holder, Krass, Johnson and Koh, rejected his legal argument for sidestepping the WPR.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Lindsey Graham seems to think that Libya has the power to make oil prices double from where they are now... where do these guys get this stuff?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Has Obama's rationale for staying in Libya been discussed yet since Congress started pressing him? He's not even using the War Powers Resolution as a reson for staying there, so what is the rationale? Let's refer to his two page letter to Congress:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/15/letter-president-war-powers-resolution



Hmm, so what is Public Law 107 40?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107.pdf



That's right, he's drawing from something passed in response to 9/11, as if this has fuck-all to do with preventing terrorism against the US. Your President - George W. Obama.

Silly me. I allowed my opposition to the war in Libya to make me to believe that Kosmo had said something reasonable. If you look at the link, the references to Public Law 107 40 are under the header discussing operations with respect to Al-Qa'ida and the Taliban. The stuff under the Libya header only makes reference to the UNSC resolutions.

I suppose I shouldn't be shocked that Kosmo is being intellectually dishonest.

Also: "fuck-all" means "nothing," not "anything"

 

[Neo C.]

has anyone seen the obama impersonator at the RLC? Everything was going fine until he started making fun of the GOP candidates

http://xfinity.comcast.net/video/obama-impersonator-misfires/2011967440/Comcast/2006579551/

Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9-Oi2i62Qw

 

[ezekial45]

has anyone seen the obama impersonator at the RLC? Everything was going fine until he started making fun of the GOP candidates

http://xfinity.comcast.net/video/obama-impersonator-misfires/2011967440/Comcast/2006579551/

I always found this impersonator and the fact that he's brought specifically to republican events to be very assholish.

 

[Dude Abides]

Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9-Oi2i62Qw

The crowd really liked the race jokes.

 

[gcubed]

Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9-Oi2i62Qw

thanks! i only saw the clipped one that came up on my comcast page

 

[gcubed]

Silly me. I allowed my opposition to the war in Libya to make me to believe that Kosmo had said something reasonable. If you look at the link, the references to Public Law 107 40 are under the header discussing operations with respect to Al-Qa'ida and the Taliban. The stuff under the Libya header only makes reference to the UNSC resolutions.

I suppose I shouldn't be shocked that Kosmo is being intellectually dishonest.

Also: "fuck-all" means "nothing," not "anything"

wow, yeah, i didnt even read the link. Not sure if Kosmo is being intellectually dishonest, or just lacks reading comprehension. (or just reposted something without actually reading it)


edit... ugh double post, sorry

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Kosmo, GaimeGuy and I talked about this on page two. There is already precedence for this type of military action. I agree with you in that he ultimately should have gotten Congressional approval. But someone also mention that Congress would have attached riders to said approval for things not concerning Libya, like repealing Obamacare. Also, Libya does not get the attention Iraq and Afghanistan garner due to the lack of troops on the ground involved. In fact, there have been no military causalities to date. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Military_losses_on_the_coalition_side For all the similarities to Bush there are also contrasts. In fact, it will be a whole lot easier to exit Libya than the other fore mention areas.

The thing is, the US military involvement is in accordance with a UN Security Council Resolution, which a congressional approved US diplomat supported and had the power to veto. Furthermore, the UN Security Council Resolution of which I speak authorized the military action of the member nations in accordance with the UN Charter, which is a treaty ratified by Congress, which makes it, according to the constitution, the supreme law of the land in the United States, on par in legal priority with the Constitution itself, and superseding any laws that may come into conflict with it.

In other words, I'm not so sure the war powers act applies if military action is authorized under a UN Security Council Resolution, since the UN Charter would supersede the war powers act.

I'm also concern about the flippant response to the act. Slippery slope indeed. I could understand if he, like Truman, went the UN approval equals congressional approval route. Still wish he got approval.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'd like to think Obama will "come out" for gay marriage during his 2012 presidential campaign, painting a starker contrast between him and his Republican opponent

Spoiler

Romney

.

Nuanced positions are harder sells, especially with social issues. Sure, there's a small portion of people who would say no to marriage, yes to civil unions, but the religious right isn't gonna give a shit either way.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9-Oi2i62Qw

He was only there to make fun of Obama not the GOP candidates.

lol @ RLC

I'd like to think Obama will "come out" for gay marriage during his 2012 presidential campaign, painting a starker contrast between him and his Republican opponent Romney.

Nuanced positions are harder sells, especially with social issues. Sure, there's a small portion of people who would say no to marriage, yes to civil unions, but the religious right isn't gonna give a shit either way.

Not sure if that's the best move politically.

 

[Dram]

Wisconsin recalls

http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/GAB_finalizes_list_of_candidates_for_GOP_recalls_124116224.html

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- State election officials have finalized the list of candidates who are challenging six Republican state senators in recall elections this summer.

The Government Accountability Board said Friday it had received the necessary paperwork from 12 challengers. None of the nomination papers was challenged, so the GAB has now locked in the election dates.

All six races will start with a Democratic primary on July 12. According to the final paperwork, each primary will include one Democratic candidate and a "fake" Democrat, part of a Republican strategy that forces Democrats to spend more resources per race.

 

[Chichikov]

Worse than that. With the way he's interpreted the 4th amendment (voting for the FISA bill as a senator, authorizing the actual assassination of an American citizen without any sort of trial or conviction) it seems like the country elected John Yoo.

This is by far the most disappointing aspect of the Obama administration to me.
Those fuckers should have all gone to jail, instead, they're now the founding fathers of our new homeland security apparatus.
It's bullshit, and no one will dare to touch any of that crap, because the way our political system work, you stop warrantless wiretapping, and the next terror attack is on you and you alone.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Libya has a strong history of American hatred and terrorist attacks.

smh

Libya hasn't threatened the US in years, they're rather irrelevant. Obama would have had no problem getting congressional approval for this stupidity, I have no idea why he decided to pull a Bush.

 

[TacticalFox88]

smh

Libya hasn't threatened the US in years, they're rather irrelevant. Obama would have had no problem getting congressional approval for this stupidity, I have no idea why he decided to pull a Bush.

I highly doubt that. Congress hasn't been on his side for a good six months or so.

 

[speculawyer]

Silly me. I allowed my opposition to the war in Libya to make me to believe that Kosmo had said something reasonable. If you look at the link, the references to Public Law 107 40 are under the header discussing operations with respect to Al-Qa'ida and the Taliban. The stuff under the Libya header only makes reference to the UNSC resolutions.

I suppose I shouldn't be shocked that Kosmo is being intellectually dishonest.

Perhaps he cut & pasted it from some hard-right site that just manufactures anything anti-Obama that it can whether true or not. There is a massive industry for serving the people that just are looking for anything to complain about. They'll believe anything. This allegation, Obama from Kenya, rapper Common being a terrible thug at the Whitehouse, Obama indoctrinating your kids with communist propaganda at school (by telling them to stay in school), etc.

I'd like to think that people would stop believing these sources at some point but they just don't. It is faith-based.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Has Obama's rationale for staying in Libya been discussed yet since Congress started pressing him? He's not even using the War Powers Resolution as a reson for staying there, so what is the rationale? Let's refer to his two page letter to Congress:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/15/letter-president-war-powers-resolution



Hmm, so what is Public Law 107 40?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107.pdf



That's right, he's drawing from something passed in response to 9/11, as if this has fuck-all to do with preventing terrorism against the US. Your President - George W. Obama.

Jesus fuck.

MILITARY OPERATIONS IN LIBYA

As I reported on March 21, and at my direction, consistent with a request from the Arab League, and as authorized by the

United Nations Security Council under the provisions of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973, U.S. military forces commenced operations on March 19, 2011, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya and to protect the people of Libya from the Qadhafi regime. The initial phase of U.S. military involvement in Libya was conducted under the command of the U.S. Africa Command. By April 4, however, the United States had transferred responsibility for the military operations in Libya to NATO and the U.S. involvement has assumed a supporting role in the coalition's efforts. Since April 4, U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non kinetic support to the NATO led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO led coalition's efforts. Although we are no longer in the lead, U.S. support for the NATO based coalition remains crucial to assuring the success of international efforts to protect civilians and civilian populated areas from the actions of the Qadhafi regime, and to address the threat to international peace and security posed by the crisis in Libya. With the exception of operations to rescue the crew of a U.S. aircraft on March 21, 2011, the United States has deployed no ground forces to Libya.

That is the whole Libya section

MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST AL-QA'IDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES AND IN SUPPORT OF RELATED U.S. COUNTERTERRORISM OBJECTIVES

Since October 7, 2001, the United States has conducted combat operations in Afghanistan against al Qa'ida terrorists and their Taliban supporters. In support of these and other overseas operations, the United States has deployed combat equipped forces to a number of locations in the U.S. Central, Pacific, European, Southern, and Africa Command areas of operation. Previously such operations and deployments have been reported, consistent with Public Law 107 40 and the War Powers Resolution, and operations and deployments remain ongoing. These operations, which the United States has carried out with the assistance of numerous international partners, have been successful in seriously degrading al Qa'ida's capabilities and brought an end to the Taliban's leadership of Afghanistan.

United States Armed Forces are also actively pursuing and engaging remaining al Qa'ida and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. The total number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan is approximately 99,000, of which more than 83,000 are assigned to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The U.N. Security Council most recently reaffirmed its authorization of ISAF for a 12 month period from October 13, 2010, in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1943 (October 13, 2010). The mission of ISAF, under NATO command and in partnership with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, is to conduct population centric counterinsurgency operations, enable expanded and effective capabilities of the Afghan National Security Forces, support improved governance and development in order to protect the Afghan people, and promote sustainable security. Including the United States, 48 partner nations, including all 28 NATO Allies, contribute troops to ISAF. These combat operations are gradually pushing insurgents to the edges of secured population areas in a number of important regions, largely resulting from the increase in U.S. forces over the past 2 years. United States and other

coalition forces will continue to execute the strategy of clear hold build, and transition, until full responsibility for security rests with the Afghan National Security Forces.

The United States continues to detain approximately 1,000 al Qa'ida, Taliban, and associated force fighters who are believed to pose a continuing threat to the United States and its interests.

The combat equipped forces, deployed since January 2002 to Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, continue to conduct secure detention operations for the approximately 170 detainees at Guantanamo Bay under Public Law 107 40 and consistent with principles of the law of war.

In furtherance of U.S. efforts against members of al Qa'ida, the Taliban, and associated forces, the United States continues to work with partners around the globe, with a particular focus on the U.S. Central Command's area of responsibility. In this context, the United States has deployed U.S. combat equipped forces to assist in enhancing the counterterrorism capabilities of our friends and allies, including special operations and other forces for sensitive operations in various locations around the world. The United States is committed to thwarting the efforts of al Qa'ida and its associated forces to carry out future acts of international terrorism, and we have continued to work with our counterterrorism partners to disrupt and degrade the capabilities of al Qa'ida and its associated forces. As necessary, in response to the terrorist threat, I will direct additional measures against al Qa'ida, the Taliban, and associated forces to protect U.S. citizens and interests. It is not possible to know at this time the precise scope or the duration of the deployments of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to counter this terrorist threat to the United States. A classified annex to this report provides further information.

This is the Al-Qaida/Taliban section.

The paragraph at the end is just a quick summary.

I know that you have issues understanding tax brackets and stuff. That crap can be complicated, but this is basic reading comprehension.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I highly doubt that. Congress hasn't been on his side for a good six months or so.

I'd imagine they would have attempted to attach ridiculous riders at first, but eventually he would have gotten approval.

 

[gcubed]

Wisconsin recalls

http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/GAB_finalizes_list_of_candidates_for_GOP_recalls_124116224.html

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- State election officials have finalized the list of candidates who are challenging six Republican state senators in recall elections this summer.

The Government Accountability Board said Friday it had received the necessary paperwork from 12 challengers. None of the nomination papers was challenged, so the GAB has now locked in the election dates.

All six races will start with a Democratic primary on July 12. According to the final paperwork, each primary will include one Democratic candidate and a "fake" Democrat, part of a Republican strategy that forces Democrats to spend more resources per race.

can only democrats vote in the primary? not sure its a big deal, what kind of effort do they have to expend if they know which ones the fakes are

 

[Particle Physicist]

can only democrats vote in the primary? not sure its a big deal, what kind of effort do they have to expend if they know which ones the fakes are

It's not just extra money, it also delays the recall elections. I hope this blows up in the Republican faces. Completely and utterly disgusting.

 

[RustyNails]

Republicans attacking Obama on a bilateral military engagement? I think I'm missing the punchline.

 

[speculawyer]

Wisconsin recalls

http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/GAB_finalizes_list_of_candidates_for_GOP_recalls_124116224.html

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- State election officials have finalized the list of candidates who are challenging six Republican state senators in recall elections this summer.

The Government Accountability Board said Friday it had received the necessary paperwork from 12 challengers. None of the nomination papers was challenged, so the GAB has now locked in the election dates.

All six races will start with a Democratic primary on July 12. According to the final paperwork, each primary will include one Democratic candidate and a "fake" Democrat, part of a Republican strategy that forces Democrats to spend more resources per race.

Forcing Democrats to pay more is standard political games.

However, I believe this also forces the state to pay a lot more money in order to hold what is essentially pointless bogus election. When your whole big talking point is "Oh the state is so broke, we have no money, we have to cut cut cut . . ." and then you do something pointless which forces the state to spend money? Well, you are a big fat hypocrite or a big fat liar.

 

[eznark]

can only democrats vote in the primary? not sure its a big deal, what kind of effort do they have to expend if they know which ones the fakes are

Since you don't register with a party un Wisconsin anyone can vote. The "fake" candidate thing is not uncommon in the last decade (from both parties). Terrible strategy and reeks of desperation.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Also, these faux isolationists republicans should have objected to this resolution: Senate gave unanimous consent to no-fly-zone. I do not believe that this qualifies as authority under the War Powers Act, but everyone knows this is about semantics. I mean what are the Republicans real complaints about the operation? Is it because a Democrat is leading it? Their party is the one that came up with the idea that America is suppose to export freedom and democracy by force. The only ones who can legitimately complain are Ron Paul, who voted against the Iraq War, and those that truly favor isolation.

 

[RustyNails]

Also, these faux isolationists republicans should have objected to this resolution: Senate gave unanimous consent to no-fly-zone. I do not believe that this qualifies as authority under the War Powers Act, but everyone knows this is about semantics. I mean what are the Republicans real complaints about the operation? Is it because a Democrat is leading it? Their party is the one that came up with the idea that America is suppose to export freedom and democracy by force. The only ones who can legitimately complain are Ron Paul, who voted against the Iraq War, and those that truly favor isolation.

To some extent, yes. Military engagement has apparently come to be seen as the forte of Republican president: Libya 1, Granada, Desert Storm, W's wars, etc. There are definitely some elements in the neo-hawk circles that are at unease with a Democrat President throwing water on the myth Democrats in general are pussies when it comes to military action. This unease is calcifying itself in the Congress as Obama being the big usurper of war powers act, when no such scrutiny was applied to his Republican predecessor. I agree that Obama should have taken the congressional approval earlier, right around when the engagement started. But some people trying to make it a partisan issue probably made him rethink some of the things.

 

[ElectricThunder]

However, I believe this also forces the state to pay a lot more money in order to hold what is essentially pointless bogus election. When your whole big talking point is "Oh the state is so broke, we have no money, we have to cut cut cut . . ." and then you do something pointless which forces the state to spend money? Well, you are a big fat hypocrite or a big fat liar.

"(Recall) Elections too expensive and inefficient? Time to bring in private industry to solve this!"----pretty much their fanfic scrolled on the walls of the statehouse at this point. : (

 

[Gaborn]

This is by far the most disappointing aspect of the Obama administration to me.
Those fuckers should have all gone to jail, instead, they're now the founding fathers of our new homeland security apparatus.
It's bullshit, and no one will dare to touch any of that crap, because the way our political system work, you stop warrantless wiretapping, and the next terror attack is on you and you alone.

Not to mention no knock raids (WARNING, disturbing imagery)

 

[Jackson50]

Kosmo, GaimeGuy and I talked about this on page two. There is already precedence for this type of military action. I agree with you in that he ultimately should have gotten Congressional approval. But someone also mention that Congress would have attached riders to said approval for things not concerning Libya, like repealing Obamacare. Also, Libya does not get the attention Iraq and Afghanistan garner due to the lack of troops on the ground involved. In fact, there have been no military causalities to date. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Military_losses_on_the_coalition_side For all the similarities to Bush there are also contrasts. In fact, it will be a whole lot easier to exit Libya than the other fore mention areas.

There is precedent insofar that previous presidents have committed troops without prior Congressional authorization. Nevertheless, either they subsequently sought authorization before expiration of the 60-day period or operations ceased before expiration. The sole exception is U.S. participation in Operation Allied Force. Although the Senate authorized the operation, the resolution narrowly failed in the House; I think it was a tie vote. And in that instance Congress authorized appropriations. Thus, authorization was implicit; of course, that does not satisfy the requirements of the WPR. Therefore, that instance is probably most analogous to today's situation. In that instance, a lawsuit was filed against President Clinton asserting he violated the WPR. Subsequently, the suit was dismissed due to lack of legal standing.

Honestly, Obama is culpable for the controversy. I am unconvinced the GOP would have gummed the bill. Support for the endeavor has been broad and largely bipartisan. He should have made authorization a priority. It would have legitimated the operation domestically and prevented this mess. Moreover, his recent rationale has been specious and a bit insulting. The dude has bungled this.

apropos of the national security discussion, i believe this is one of the best pieces written on the 'national security state' to be found,

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/03/bradley-manning-barack-obama-and.html


the rest is at the link. give it a read.

Liberal drivel. No. As much as I wanted to believe otherwise, President Obama affirms the institutionalisist view. My heart hoped he would catalyze change, but my intellect persistently sobered me. The institutional construction of the executive impels expansive authority-note, not that this absolves him.

Moreover, a particular sentence seized me: "Quite the contrary: he, like future Presidents, will sincerely believe that he needs every ounce of discretion he can get to protect the nation's security." I think this is most evident in the rabid prosecution of whistleblowers.

 

[gcubed]

Since you don't register with a party un Wisconsin anyone can vote. The "fake" candidate thing is not uncommon in the last decade (from both parties). Terrible strategy and reeks of desperation.

well then that would create some effort on the Dems part I guess. It does push it back, but meh. Its going to do nothing but backfire. Have there been any polling recently? Whats the consensus when all this is over, Dems end up +1?

Forcing Democrats to pay more is standard political games.

However, I believe this also forces the state to pay a lot more money in order to hold what is essentially pointless bogus election. When your whole big talking point is "Oh the state is so broke, we have no money, we have to cut cut cut . . ." and then you do something pointless which forces the state to spend money? Well, you are a big fat hypocrite or a big fat liar.

True, didnt think about that

 

[JCX]

I know that it is unlikely in this political climate, but why don't Republicans attempt to court socially conservative Hispanic and Black voters? There seem to be significant portions in each group, especially on gay and abortion issues. My mom said that she doesn't like Obama's stances on abortion and gay marriage (she said he is too pro-gay marriage lol). Republicans would have to let up on some social programs, but I'd think the electoral payoff would be worth it.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I know that it is unlikely in this political climate, but why don't Republicans attempt to court socially conservative Hispanic and Black voters? There seem to be significant portions in each group, especially on gay and abortion issues. My mom said that she doesn't like Obama's stances on abortion and gay marriage (she said he is too pro-gay marriage lol). Republicans would have to let up on some social programs, but I'd think the electoral payoff would be worth it.

Because the primary voting electorate doesn't match with what Republicans would have to do to court those voters.

 

[empty vessel]

I know that it is unlikely in this political climate, but why don't Republicans attempt to court socially conservative Hispanic and Black voters? There seem to be significant portions in each group, especially on gay and abortion issues. My mom said that she doesn't like Obama's stances on abortion and gay marriage (she said he is too pro-gay marriage lol). Republicans would have to let up on some social programs, but I'd think the electoral payoff would be worth it.

The money that supports the Republican party isn't interested in social issues. Politics is not a sport in which the party tries to "win" by getting elected. Policy is the victory, and "letting up on social programs" would defeat the whole purpose.