-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Obama got the Republicans cornered, especially Cheney.
He got them to reaffirm their support for torture like never before, got Cheney to come out and be at the head of it all willignly, and now the pictures will be released (there's no way they won't leak eventually), and who will be associated with them?
Check mate.
He got them to reaffirm their support for torture like never before, got Cheney to come out and be at the head of it all willignly, and now the pictures will be released (there's no way they won't leak eventually), and who will be associated with them?
Check mate.
worldrunover
Member
Clipjoint said:
That's good enough for me!
Guts Of Thor
Thorax of Odin
Ether_Snake said:
Exactly! It's hilarious seeing the GOP walk into all these traps.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
This
+ this:
:lol
GhaleonEB said:
+ this:
:lol
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
APF said:
1. Use a slightly off-color description of an opponent's policy.
2. Watch opponent flail wildly with outrage.
3. Point to the video/transcript you had ready and waiting that shows your opponent using the exact same words.
4. Gotcha!
5. LOL
If you DON't think Obama, or his political team, is capable of such political intrigue then you just haven't been paying attention.
Cases in point:
1. Lipstick on a Pig (years after McCain used the same words)
2. "Empathy" (years after Bush the Elder used the same words)
These are off the top of my head, but Obama's legacy is littered with political one-upsmanship and are at worst hilarious political theater, but could potentially be considered political genius.
But be my guest, keep underestimating him.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
PantherLotus said:
Now you've done it. :lol
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Learn2read
Member
This is kinda funny, the rightwing was starting a freakout about how the list of dealerships to be closed from Chrysler's bankruptcy contained a large number of Republican donors, including a congressman, so of course the only explanation is that this another step in Obama's fascist takeover (hadn't seen any comparisons to the Kristallnacht yet, but then again I haven't been watching Glenn Beck).
Of course, Nate Silver at 538 does takes a peek at something called reality and notices that all Car Dealers are overwhelmingly Republican, including those who are keeping their dealerships (contributing 9:1 over Democrats)
Of course, Nate Silver at 538 does takes a peek at something called reality and notices that all Car Dealers are overwhelmingly Republican, including those who are keeping their dealerships (contributing 9:1 over Democrats)
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Door2Dawn said:
Me attempting to find genius where there are lucky coincidences deserves comment. I'll take it.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
APF said:
I don't think it's a conspiracy to believe that there is a such thing as a political trap, nor that one may be quite good at laying them.
My point was to not underestimate those traps, not that the AG photos thing was indeed a trap for Cheney, even though it could certainly turn out to be one.
"Is Rush Limbaugh the leader of the Republican Party?"
PantherLotus: that's exactly my point though; there's a big difference between saying Dems as a group have effectively managed talking points in order to frame a debate in the media, and saying the President fabricated a scheme to leverage pictures of soldiers raping Iraqis in order to make Dick Cheney look insensitive. Note also that Cheney is out of office, and the Dems have an effective lock on government. There's no need for Obama to be so disgusting, and I think you underestimate the ethics of his Administration if you believe otherwise.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
APF said:
So you don't think Obama is capable of thinking like this?
Who the hell said that...?APF said:
The overall point is that Obama and his administration are really good at playing their cards. He's making people think that he's got a bad hand. That requires deception at some levels - not conspiracy level, but deception nonetheless.
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/obama_orders_classification_review.php
2) Speed processing of declassification requests
3) Shift burden to justifying why something must be withheld
4) Bar reclassification of previously public material
Sounds good to me.
And while I'm on the subject of transparancy: keep a close eye on the new public disclosure site, data.gov. From the site About page:
The data being funneled there is about to hit "holy fucking shit" levels.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26tue3.html?_r=1
Obama Orders Classification Review
The White House ordered a bow-to-stern review of the government's policies for controlling classified and so-called "sensitive, but unclassified" information yesterday, a step that's likely to end the Bush-era preference for keeping thusly designated data private.
Attorney General Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano, the Department of Homeland Security secretary, will lead the review, along with a new task force to be staffed by officials from several government departments and independent agencies. President Obama wants to create a National Declassification Center that would speed adjudication of disputes over classified information, and, in a nod to intelligence reform, wants a government-wide assessment of how classified information is controlled, marked, disseminated and protected. Dozens of classified designations protect hundreds of different channels and systems for processing and disseminating classified data, and the result is a patchwork of rules, regulations and often confusing processes. Policy makers at all levels have complained that the current system of classification overprotects output and discourages information sharing.
A presidential memo orders the task force to jusitfy information categories that ought to be withheld, rather than asking them to justify why releasing them to the public would be harmful.
The memo also seeks an "[a]ppropriate prohibition of reclassification of material that has been declassified and released to the public under proper authority," as authorities reclassified tens of thousands of previously declassified documents during the Bush administration.
1) Consolidate classification rules and standardsThe White House ordered a bow-to-stern review of the government's policies for controlling classified and so-called "sensitive, but unclassified" information yesterday, a step that's likely to end the Bush-era preference for keeping thusly designated data private.
Attorney General Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano, the Department of Homeland Security secretary, will lead the review, along with a new task force to be staffed by officials from several government departments and independent agencies. President Obama wants to create a National Declassification Center that would speed adjudication of disputes over classified information, and, in a nod to intelligence reform, wants a government-wide assessment of how classified information is controlled, marked, disseminated and protected. Dozens of classified designations protect hundreds of different channels and systems for processing and disseminating classified data, and the result is a patchwork of rules, regulations and often confusing processes. Policy makers at all levels have complained that the current system of classification overprotects output and discourages information sharing.
A presidential memo orders the task force to jusitfy information categories that ought to be withheld, rather than asking them to justify why releasing them to the public would be harmful.
The memo also seeks an "[a]ppropriate prohibition of reclassification of material that has been declassified and released to the public under proper authority," as authorities reclassified tens of thousands of previously declassified documents during the Bush administration.
2) Speed processing of declassification requests
3) Shift burden to justifying why something must be withheld
4) Bar reclassification of previously public material
Sounds good to me.
And while I'm on the subject of transparancy: keep a close eye on the new public disclosure site, data.gov. From the site About page:
The purpose of Data.gov is to increase public access to high value, machine readable datasets generated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.
As a priority Open Government Initiative for President Obama's administration, Data.gov increases the ability of the public to easily find, download, and use datasets that are generated and held by the Federal Government. Data.gov provides descriptions of the Federal datasets (metadata), information about how to access the datasets, and tools that leverage government datasets. The data catalogs will continue to grow as datasets are added. Federal, Executive Branch data are included in the first version of Data.gov.
As a priority Open Government Initiative for President Obama's administration, Data.gov increases the ability of the public to easily find, download, and use datasets that are generated and held by the Federal Government. Data.gov provides descriptions of the Federal datasets (metadata), information about how to access the datasets, and tools that leverage government datasets. The data catalogs will continue to grow as datasets are added. Federal, Executive Branch data are included in the first version of Data.gov.
The data being funneled there is about to hit "holy fucking shit" levels.
With little fanfare, the Obama administration has begun its first agency feeds onto Data.gov, a new Web site. Mr. Kundra promises to release vast amounts of raw data there, so taxpayers can see whats going on more instantly and clearly, and, ideally, come back with suggestions on how to fix government problems.
The new site began modestly with about 50 feeds that allow the public to see what the government knows about mineral resources, migratory birds, earthquakes and other things. The next 240,000 feeds are on tap for next month. The White House budget director, Peter Orszag, says the goal is to have a one-stop shop for free access to data generated across all federal agencies.
The new site began modestly with about 50 feeds that allow the public to see what the government knows about mineral resources, migratory birds, earthquakes and other things. The next 240,000 feeds are on tap for next month. The White House budget director, Peter Orszag, says the goal is to have a one-stop shop for free access to data generated across all federal agencies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26tue3.html?_r=1
Mercury Fred
Banned
Check out Obama's response to LGBT protesters yesterday:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...ong-the-stars/?scp=2&sq=beverly hilton&st=cse
Shades of Bush with this delivery. Absolutely shameful.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...ong-the-stars/?scp=2&sq=beverly hilton&st=cse
Shades of Bush with this delivery. Absolutely shameful.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
APF said:
1. There's a difference between framing a debate well, which they are indeed doing, and laying in these strategically-placed proximity mines throughout the daily commentary. I don't think Obama fabricated any scheme about those pictures. But did he engage the topic long enough for there to be an undeniable public groundswell for a Torture Commission? And is he still? Are there no benefits to making it look like he doesn't have a choice on the matter so he can't be painted as endangering our troops? So he doesn't look like he's attempting to just attack the Bush admin without reason? Of course there are reasons. One would be foolish to think that such political manuevering isn't required for this horrible issue.
2. I don't believe using political traps, or maneuvering an issue to political benefit is "disgusting," especially if I believe the person in question is good for our country. I think that in this case, the ends justify the means. If the current admin has to clown random Republican senators into calling out Rush Limbaugh and commit political suicide, so be it. If they have to go through their opponents' past speeches to use the exact same potentially offensive phrase, so be it. If they have to get the spokesperson for torture to commit to it before releasing full information, especially if that person is on the attack less than a month after Obama's term began, so be it as long as it helps conclude the debate once and for all.
3. I don't believe this is an ethical issue in the slightest (political theater). I also don't believe Obama is any different than any other politician regarding the need to be reelected to pursue his political vision. And I don't believe our brightest spots in American history, ie Lincoln/Washington, were apolitical. They were very much politicians that knew exactly when to turn the tide in their favor. That's not ugly. That's beautiful. If they Republicans can't take it, they need to try a new game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie#Leo_StraussPantherLotus said:
The GOP? Every opponent he's ever faced his entire political career?APF said:
They think they have somebody they can exploit and shift the public's perception to the point that he will be branded as an evil islamo-fascist socialist that prays to Allah every morning?
Why do you think Cheney came out and made his speech the same day as Obama? Cheney has a political agenda and he thought he had a winning formula against Obama. Just like all of his opponents thought throughout the entire presidential campaign. Guess what? Obama didn't let the public buy into it.
His opponents didn't see an intellectual that sees a multitude of paths to get him to his goals; they saw a young and inexperienced black male with a name rooted in Arabic. Did you honestly think that his opposition thought he didn't have a "bad hand"?
Apparently planet reality, unlike you.
Skiptastic
Member
Mercury Fred said:
Tell me about it. Everyone knows that garlic mashed potatoes are best.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
APF said:
I think the "bad hand" comment was intended as a reference to the continuing perception that Obama is still cleaning up Bush's mess. This is infinitely powerful when the outgoing president has a 13% approval rating. Doesn't work so well when the outgoing president is immensely popular.
Pfft. Obama is only pretending not to want to do whatever my fantasies project upon him, in order to gain the confidence of whomever my ideological opponents are, after which he will deftly turn the tables on the bastards!! Obama will show them. Obama will show them all.avatar299 said:
Mercury Fred
Banned
:lolavatar299 said:
Wow you really are a joke character.
Obama campaigned that he was a "fierce advocate" for gay equality and promised to overturn DADT and DOMA. And now as people are thrown out of the military every day for being gay and as marriage equality heats up, the only comment Obama can make is a Bush-style quip. Fierce advocate, yeah right.
The reality is that Obama is alienating gay voters with this behavior and lack of action.
I'm sorry but you're an idiot. They think they can exploit the image of Barack Obama? The guy who just beat them in an election. The guy more popular than them. The guy who runs the government.reilo said:
Cheney didn't give a speech after Barack because they thought they had a "winning formula" They did that for fucking damage control. The public was never on the reps side for this, so Barack speech just drove the nail deeper into the coffin.
What your argument ultimately is "All republicans are racist" which is fine in Berkeley but doesn't really cut it in the rest of the world. Obama has a good hand, he is the goddamn President.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
APF said:
THE MEDIA!
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I got a huge laugh out of the current Politico headline and picture:
Who could lose in Sotomayor vote?
read:
Who could lose in Sotomayor vote?
read:
old white men will lose!
I feel for you, I do, but you have to understand that the political climate right now isn't under the right conditions for Obama's administration to make sweeping changes.Mercury Fred said:
Clinton tried when he first got into office and it gave us this DADT bullshit in the first place. It's hard to ask for patience on this issue, but politics is all about seizing the right opportunity.
Look what the LDS did with Prop 8: they used it as a wedge issue to rally their base and fundraise to all mighty hell to bring gay rights down. The GOP will do the same if Obama attempts to tackle this issue head on.
As shitty as it is, most people right now care more about whether they will have enough money left over to pay their bills and feed their children than worry about gay marriage.
I say let this issue hit the courts and let the military brass have to explain themselves as to why DADT is a good policy and gays in the military is "bad" for morale or whatever else BS. Once that is over, and the military brass is made to look foolish by their own words, there will be ever increasing political support for overturning DADT. It can't happen overnight.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Lt. Choi, the Arab languages translator, who was just discharged under DADT was one of the protesters leading the action which called for an end to DADT and DOMA.avatar299 said:
reilo said:
I hear you.
Waiting for the right moment is one thing. But the administration's absolute radio silence on the gay issues that Obama campaigned on to be interrupted only by a snarky, Bush-style quip is just fucked up. The gay community is getting pissed with Obama about this-- check the rallies around the country, check the gay blogs, heck go talk to some gay people who voted for him.
Learn2read
Member
There's a difference between looking for the optimal course of action and enabling some grand scheme to ensnare your enemies.
If Obama doesn't want to release the photos because they are so damning he probably would rather they eventually leak instead of being officially released and their contents cast aside by the media while they focus on the release as a political stunt. That's just thinking one step ahead really.
Cheney stepped up his defence of torture perhaps thinking they are safe, Obama naturally responds. Cheney and his enablers now own the issue, there wasn't really bait set for them other then Obama's opposition to their policies, which goes back to before the election.
They get leaked as intended. People are outraged, support for anti-torture policies grows.
Further discrediting Cheney et. al is just icing. These were already discredited figures except for the media who liked to hype up an Obama vs. Cheney "Rumble in the Jungle" showdown.
If Obama doesn't want to release the photos because they are so damning he probably would rather they eventually leak instead of being officially released and their contents cast aside by the media while they focus on the release as a political stunt. That's just thinking one step ahead really.
Cheney stepped up his defence of torture perhaps thinking they are safe, Obama naturally responds. Cheney and his enablers now own the issue, there wasn't really bait set for them other then Obama's opposition to their policies, which goes back to before the election.
They get leaked as intended. People are outraged, support for anti-torture policies grows.
Further discrediting Cheney et. al is just icing. These were already discredited figures except for the media who liked to hype up an Obama vs. Cheney "Rumble in the Jungle" showdown.
I was going to ignore this, but I just read a good column on what I assume is her "douche bag ruling" - the fire fighters case.eznark said:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/05/the-ricci-case.html
Read the whole thing. But the bottom line:
The basic point of all this is: both the District Court and the Second Circuit seem to me to have been applying the law in accordance with clear precedents. This is what judges are supposed to do. And anyone who thinks that this decision (made by this court) is problematic should not go on to criticize Judge Sotomayor for judicial activism, since no one who genuinely thought there was a problem with substituting one's own views about what the law ought to be for what it actually says would object to this decision.
He's reiterated multiple times that he intends to keep that promise, and they've made a few low-key first steps toward doing so. He's 8% into his first term. I'd like to see both more public comment and more action, but the level of anger is wildly out of proportion given how much time has passed and what's on the current agenda. It will happen.Mercury Fred said:
Stoney Mason
Banned
avatar299 said:
While I'm normally very anti avatar there is some truth in this quote.
This discussion about DADT is the same one we have every few months. After a certain point in time you have the perfect right to castigate Obama if he or congress don't overturn DADT. What that time is will vary from individual to individual.
What you can't do is fake ramp up pressure for a fake deadline and then get upset when he doesn't respond to your fake deadline.
His opposition has been trying for the last couple of years to nail Obama on anything and everything. From Jeremiah Wright to ACORN to flag pins to "A Pledge of Allegiance" to socialism to his name to his religious views and so on and so forth.avatar299 said:
And guess what? None of those things stuck. His opposition tried valiantly to turn those things into a negative for Obama's image.
All of this goes back to the point that... Obama took all of those things hurled at him and threw it back into their faces. He didn't let those things burn him and he made the opposition look silly for even bringing it up. He made the public believe that none of those things were true nor that they mattered.
Also, before you start throwing ad-hominem attacks against people, maybe you should check your mental capacity first and actually try arguing on the merits of the post and argument at the time and not try to conjecture up something I didn't say at all.
If you don't think the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity and plethora of GOP members accused Obama of any of those things, then I would love to buy some real estate in that bubble of ignorance you live in.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
mAcOdIn said:
Not really.
Haha what? If the photo's get leaked the US has no ownership of that debate anymore. It may hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats but it'lll hurt the country more than either party if they get leaked instead of the US owning up to them.mamacint said:
There's more at stake with those photo's than Republicans and Democrats, there's the entire worlds perception of the United States. Obama is part of the government now, while American voters may look at policy issues as Republican or Democrat the rest of the world sees them as US policies. If Obama holds them to his chest hoping they'll leak just to damn the Republicans more the rest of the world wont see it that way, they'll see it as Obama covering for US policy.
Obama has enough political capital in the US anyways, especially on this issue, so your take on the "plan" as far as I can see it is both bad for the United States as a whole and idiotic.
Yes really. I can forgive an idiot for not being a great man, I can't forgive a great man for not doing great.mckmas8808 said:
I don't know why you're pissed at Obama for not doing anything. If you believe that he doesn't have the political capital and actually might make things worse if he took this issue on at this place in time, then why not actually take that anger and resentment and point it towards the people that are actually preventing you from having the rights to seek?Mercury Fred said:
Obama is not the problem here, and I indeed believe he will be part of the solution. Castigating him for not meeting your criteria at this point in time is a little misguided.
Those people blaming Obama for Prop 8 have it completely backwards. They should point their anger towards the people that funded and created that campaign. The sooner you get rid of the opposition that is in the way of your rights, the sooner the politicians will have room to actually move ahead with legislation that will give you what you want.
Painting him as part of the same ilk as George W Bush does you no favors.
Re: who thinks Obama has a "bad hand"
This is a good point actually; the political media has a vested interest in trumping-up divisions and conflicts, and certainly talks endlessly about what are ultimately irrelevant minutiae for the benefit of its audience (you guys), but one must not mistake this for "reality." The punditocracy has a perspective that's entirely different than most human beings on this planet, including the politicians they follow.
mckmas8808 said:
This is a good point actually; the political media has a vested interest in trumping-up divisions and conflicts, and certainly talks endlessly about what are ultimately irrelevant minutiae for the benefit of its audience (you guys), but one must not mistake this for "reality." The punditocracy has a perspective that's entirely different than most human beings on this planet, including the politicians they follow.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Yeah no.mAcOdIn said:
For what it's worth my take on this whole thing is if somebody has been posting second after second over the last 6 years about the abuses in Iraq or the very poor basis of the war in the first place then they probably have the right to be posting that they are upset about Obama on this issue. If they haven't it strikes me as pure hypocrisy. Not really aimed at you since I haven't analyzed your posting history but just saying in general.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
There's also the significant point that pursuing the issue now, ie The Supreme Court, would only set the DADT/Prop 8 issues back further. Not nearly enough people are angry about this to set anything in motion.
- Status