Four More Years? Just Say No!

By TChris, Section Constitution
Posted on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:57:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

John McCain admits that he doesn't understand much about economics. It's time for him to make the same concession when it comes to constitutional law.

A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.
In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.

McCain might want to double-check the validity of his beliefs by reading the Constitution. He should start with the Fourth Amendment. Then he should peruse the rest of the document in a fruitless search for a presidential exception to the Warrant Clause. He might also hazard a glance at Article I, which grants law-making powers to Congress, and at Article II, section 3, which requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" -- even laws the president doesn't like. (more ...)

Like others who embrace and extend the dubious "unitary executive" theory to argue that the president is above the law, McCain has a sorry grasp of the Constitution's function: to protect individuals from the tyranny of an all-powerful ruler. If McCain hopes to be elected to an Imperial Presidency, voters need to understand that he represents four more years of lawlessness, four more years of the abusive exercise of presidential power, four more years of freedom lost.

< Required Reading | Sexism: Are We Really Talking About It? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Four More Years? Just Say No! | 67 comments (67 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Power (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by bobbski on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:22:19 AM EST

Powers once exercised have very little chance of being rescinded by anyone inheriting those expanded powers.

The only instance in our history that I can recall of a president refusing absolute power was George Washington.

Neither Obama or McCain have that level of honor and integrity.

Mastery of the TV show, not mastery of the issues (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by HenryFTP on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:09:44 PM EST

is what has counted in American presidential politics since Ronald Reagan shattered the comfortable assumptions of elite opinion in the 1980 election.

Reagan, at least, was a professional actor and showman -- but the Presidential campaigns of Dubya demonstrate that you can succeed even with exceedingly poor rhetorical skills (I suspect Bush is not quite as dumb as his public speaking would suggest -- maintaining his faux cowboy persona puts him in a straitjacket).

We're making a huge mistake if we think that the fact that McCain wouldn't be able to tell you what Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer was about, and that if he did he'd get the holding backwards, is going to make any impression on the Media or large swathes of the voting public. Bill O'Reilly got the details of the 1944 Malmédy massacre entirely backwards, and he's still on television (although if it had happened 20 years ago I suspect a few veterans of the Battle of the Bulge would have beat the snot out of him).

John McCain may not give a good stump speech, but he gives great television -- he's a paternal "reassuring" presence on the Sunday gasbag shows, and has always parked his temper in the green room.

If Congress itself seems to have trouble upholding its own laws and the Constitution against these outrageous depredations of the Bush administration, why should any of us expect the American people to rise up in righteous indignation, particularly when everyone they see on television agrees with John McCain?

Republican primary voters gave this guy the nod precisely because he makes their radical extremist positions sound reasonable, unlike Giuliani, say.

As usual, as a Party we seem to be gearing up to bring a knife to a gunfight.

Isn't this thread (5.00 / 3) (#44)
by TomStewart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:06:05 PM EST

supposed to be about McCain and his weak, self-serving view of the constitution? Maybe Jeralyn or BTD can post an all anti-Obama for those who want to hate on the Democratic nominee....

As for McCain, the man has given up his principles to go whichever way the Republican wind is blowing. The Repubs are running away from Bush the man, so McCain runs too, but they are still defending what Bush did and the policies he put in place (there's a real disconnect there that they will have to face sooner or later), so McCain does as well. McCain is dancing to whatever the the republicans are playing, but will the voters be playing the same tune?

Give it a little time please (none / 0) (#45)
by Newt on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:14:33 PM EST

Maybe after Saturday when we hear what Hillary negotiated with Obama, there will be less Obama trashing here. If I thought my candidate had been cheated, I'd be angry too.

True... (none / 0) (#55)
by TomStewart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:08:40 PM EST

but I feel now is the time to get behind the nominee. I feel the biggest 'cheating' against Clinton wasn't Obama but a sexist and lazy media. Obama did take advantage of it, but what politician wouldn't? Hillary herself jumped on the Rev Wright thing when she could have passed it by. I still think she would be the strongest candidate in the GE, but it's not to be.

McCain, on the other hand, is what my Grandpa used to call an 'eggsucker', shiny and glossy and not to be trusted around the eggs.


: Obama (none / 0) (#69)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:49:11 PM EST

has not been trying to unify the party. This is the fatal mistake all you guys make: blaming Hillary or her voters. You guys should be thrashing Obama for his failures to get people on board. He should start taking his own supporters out to the woodshed for the huge numbers of voters they've run off.

what about all the Hillary "trashing" (none / 0) (#60)
by ChuckieTomato on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:29:17 PM EST

I suppose it's OK when so called progressive blogs do that to Hillary huh. You probably joined in too, huh

Give it a little time, yeah, right.


: Nope. Not Ok there either. (none / 0) (#63)
by coigue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:49:22 PM EST

Not OK here either.

Obama should do the same reading (3.00 / 4) (#2)
by Foxx on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:59:33 AM EST

: Be nice (5.00 / 0) (#27)
by anydemwilldo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:47:02 AM EST

At least give Obama his due on this issue. He's been consistently and loundly opposed to the warrantless wiretapping issue, as was Hillary.
Posters here can no doubt find any number of policy reasons on which to base an opposition to Obama's candidacy. This just isn't one of them.

If not Hillary, then MacCain (2.80 / 5) (#50)
by clinton dem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:07:59 PM EST

This time I am going to vote for the candidate whom i think is qualified. My party is dead as far as I am concerned. DNC selected its own nominee and I am not going along with it just for the sake of unity! If Hillary is the not the finl nominee, MacCain is my only choice. By the way I don't buy all that about him being another Bush, etc. He is much more moderate and willing to work with Dems. To me he much more honorable than Hussein Obama.

: Mayb you should (5.00 / 0) (#56)
by Chincoteague on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:09:24 PM EST

change your name then, to McCain Repub.

: Wow Clinton Dem (none / 0) (#57)
by TomStewart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:17:44 PM EST

... that's really sad, and not the way the Clinton's see it either. I expect Hillary will swallow her disappoinment and anger (rightly earned, but useless now) and campaign for Obama just the same.
With that 'it's my bat and ball' attitude, I think you should look at what party you really belong to. Four more years of Bush policies? Four more years of endless war and economic meltdown? This is what you want? You can say that McCain is not 'Bush 2', but what Bush policies has he renounced? Sorry, McCain is just not fit to be president, and yes, Hillary got a raw deal (not as bad as Gore), but a raw deal none the less, but this justifies McCain?
Really.

four more years???? (2.33 / 3) (#49)
by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:05:48 PM EST

doesn't really bother me so much. I'd rather have 4 more years with McCainh than to reward the behavior of the DNC and Obama supporters. If I reward their behavior and they win, they would just be inclined to do it again.

Until now my position has been that I will vote for Obama ONLY if Clinton is the VP.

But, I have come up with a new way for Obama to earn my vote.

Obama just used his new power in the party to force the DNC to no longer accept PAC and Lobbyist money. I want to see him weild that same power to take back the convention blogger credentials of the following: Atrios, HuffPo, DailyKos and AmericaBlog. And, his stated reason should be because he doesn't want to be seen as rewarding their behavior of allowing and encouraging the kind of vile discourse that they did on their blogs through the primaries. Add any more pro Obama or Pro Clinton blogs that you want to the list. But, anyone on either side who engaged in the kind of stuff these I mentioned did, should not be allowed to blog at the convention.

If that happens, I'll vote for him. I'll send him money, I'll campaign for him.

: You will be rewarding this: (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by coigue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:46:24 PM EST

Sen. McCain's closed-door impeachment statement
Released into Congressional Record, February 12, 1999
Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona): Mr. Chief Justice, I intend to vote to convict the President of the United States on both articles of impeachment. To say I do so with regret will sound trite to some, but I mean it sincerely. I deeply regret that this day has come to pass.

McCain would be a HORRIBLE President (1.00 / 3) (#11)
by RonK Seattle on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:27:38 AM EST

... but it looks like he'll have my vote.

What cognitive dissonance... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Addison on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:36:18 AM EST

...do you have no interest in the issues, or are you a solely personality-based voter?


: If obama is timid with domestic reforms (none / 0) (#42)
by Salo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:58:56 PM EST

and gets the US out of Iraq, he'll lose in 2012 without really changing much.
He'll be blamed for losing the war (yes yes yes he will either way) and he'll have been too timid to reform healthcare.
So midterm interests do indicate we might be better off with a full throated liberal going into office in 2012 with the war already wrapped up and completely blamed on the GOP. Just a theory though.
It's got its pros and cons.

Well, that makes sense . . . (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by txpublicdefender on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:14:10 PM EST

Something about a cutting off a nose comes to mind.

I am amazed at how the level of Obama-hatred by Hillary supporters has taken them to the point that they would actually vote for someone who would essentially carry forward all of the unconstitutional, illogical, illegal, and ill-advised policies of the Bush administration.

Obama has repeatedly made clear his opposition to Bush's program of warrantless wiretapping and yet his haters still manage to make this topic all about how awful Obama is.


It doesn't stop with wiretapping. . . (none / 0) (#41)
by Tzal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:55:29 PM EST

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/obamas-first-100-days-what-we.php

Rebuilding the Constitution will require this sort of "minutiae." I think this sort of talk is more encouraging, in a way, than the wiretapping stuff.


Sorry to those (none / 0) (#43)
by Tzal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:00:02 PM EST

who brought this up downthread before me. But hey, I brought the linky goodness.


: Linky Goodness (none / 0) (#58)
by TomStewart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:19:58 PM EST

Should be the right format, so as not to skew things.
Just being the cop while Jeralyn is busy preserving justice.

If youve come here... (none / 0) (#47)
by Thanin on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:29:54 PM EST

at all over the past few months I dont see how you could be 'amazed' by any of this. People are very angry to see a candidate theyve loved for around two decades, maybe more, get flamed by the media, both 'progressive' and traditional. If there is hatred, which there is, its understandable.


Do you hate Bill Clinton???? (none / 0) (#51)
by coigue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:44:30 PM EST

Sen. McCain's closed-door impeachment statement
Released into Congressional Record, February 12, 1999
Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona): Mr. Chief Justice, I intend to vote to convict the President of the United States on both articles of impeachment. To say I do so with regret will sound trite to some, but I mean it sincerely. I deeply regret that this day has come to pass.

Yes, but McCain is in the opposition party ... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Inky on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:13:37 PM EST

It's only to be expected that he would try to destroy Bill Clinton. But when a fellow Democrat heaps nothing but contempt on Bill Clinton's accomplishments for 16 straight months, and further than that, as a deliberate campaign strategy, paints both Bill and Hillary as racists, and further than that, allows his surrogates to use sexism and misogyny and revive every ugly piece of right-wing-inspired slander to demonize his Democratic rival, and further than that, relies on anti-democratic means to game the primary election and once and for all crush the Clinton wing of the Democratic party, some of us take it a little more to heart than when a Republican does the dirty work.

Frankly, I never even realized that I was a member of the Clinton wing of the Democratic party until I saw what the alternative was. Obama always said that we could judge his executive skills by the way he runs his campaign, and I've seen enough to know that I can't vote for him in November (not that I'm planning to vote for McCain).


Like me Grandpappy said... (none / 0) (#59)
by TomStewart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:21:15 PM EST

an 'eggsucker'.


and what did papps mean by that? (none / 0) (#62)
by coigue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:47:34 PM EST

: It's a reference... (none / 0) (#64)
by TomStewart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:05:09 PM EST

to 'no good' hound dogs who get into the henhouse and eat (suck) the hen's eggs. It makes their coat very glossy and shiny, but costs the farmer many an egg. It's what he called most politicians, (except FDR, who was a saint).

Let us also... (none / 0) (#68)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:52:35 PM EST

...not forget what McSame did to his first wife.


Someone said McCain's knowledge (1.00 / 0) (#18)
by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:39:43 AM EST

is a mile wide and an inch deep.

I guess this kind of proves it.

Frankly, I think McCain is the type who would research what he doesn't know before making/changing any laws or doing anything. Given that he didn't get along with (or agree with) Bush for a long time, I don't think he'd suffer any heartburn overturning things that Bush thought were law.

The guy was a legislator... (none / 0) (#1)
by mike in dc on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:51:18 AM EST

...for over 25 years, and doesn't understand Constitutional law very well? Sheesh.

The problem of the last 8 years hasn't been that Congress was out of control (at least, not compared to the Executive Branch).

Anyone still want to vote for this guy?

congress (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by bobbski on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:25:01 AM EST

Actually, the problem of the last 7+ years is that the congress abdicated their duty in deference to the executive branch and yes, I include the past two years of democrat control in that statement.


McCain, for all his patriotism, (none / 0) (#3)
by litigatormom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:08:38 AM EST

doesn't really have a strong understanding of what it is that the armed forces are supposed to be protecting: freedom from tyranny. Not freedom from the responsibility to take care of those less fortunate than we are. Tyranny, the kind that only a highly centralized, opaque and secretive executive power can impose.

The last 8 years have shown us that tyrants who claim to want to protect us from the "other" won't protect us from themselves. In that way, and so many others, McCain is a worthy successor to Dubya.

I wish I could say with confidence that Obama both understands the Constitution on this issue, and isn't going to try to find "common ground" with Republicans. There's no compromising on this point, I think.


I think that... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by festus800 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:12:12 AM EST

Obama's experience as a constitutaional law professor (and from people I know who took his class, a damn good one) will be a great asset here. Bush (and I would say McCain because he's surrounding himself with the same people) understands the constitution as an instrument to manipulate through executive fiat.


Of course, A lot of what Bush is doing (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:43:02 AM EST

isn't even encoded in law and is really extra-legal, so yes, Obama could abolish those practices by himself if he wanted to.


he said he would call the atty general (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by coigue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:43:24 AM EST

that means he would sue against the laws to get them overturned.

He skipped some steps in the process, that is all.

Mountain out of a molehill.


The new president has sweeping powers . . . (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by wurman on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:50:59 AM EST

. . . in the first few days all of the cabinet officers can instruct every level down through the system to cease implementing various "laws," a word which actually requires careful definition anyway.

In the first few days, the new pres. can invalidate all of the signing statements. New Executive Orders can over-ride, counter & eliminate all previous ones.

There are presidential "findings," often highly classified, that can be removed or re-written.

Gov't contracts that are in process & not yet active can be ended with a phone call & the stroke of a pen. Contracts that are in effect can be terminated, sometimes with cost penalties, but ended all the same.

And, for a wonderful example, as president, Mr. Obama could eliminate every element of the Patriot Act, which is "law," putting an end to all of the wiretaps & surveillance with a few phone calls to department heads ordering them to stop.

Almost every power that Bu$h & Buck$hot have acquired by fiat can be undone.

Literally, the new president could ask for the finding on interrogation techniques, slip it into the shredder & instruct all military & civilian de-briefers to return immediately to the standards of 1999.

I think Sen. Obama has a clear understanding of what the executive branch can do with "laws."


Just because he was am adjunct con (none / 0) (#5)
by litigatormom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:17:50 AM EST

law professor doesn't mean he's a real constitutional expert. I haven't seen much to indicate what his constitutional views really are.


Well... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by festus800 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:26:15 AM EST

He taught a class on advanced constitutional law at the University of Chicago, one of the most prestigious (and hard to get into) law schools in the country. You don't get to do that when you're a no-nothing dummy at that kind of an institution. Those students (many of whom I work with) are whipsmart and would see through an imposter.

As for him being an "adjunct" (even if that is meant as an insult) that's not what the UC Law itself says --

UC Law School statement to the press: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.


Pointless... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Addison on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:33:56 AM EST

...a noble try but clarifications like this are pointless when people are already trying to use "adjunct professor of consitutional law at U of Chicago" as somehow an insult, or to somehow bring Obama down. I mean, any clarification will result in either a moving of the goalposts or a blanket statement (see below) that Obama has no integrity and so therefore discussion isn't worth it.

A small group is certainly oriented to see every iota of Obama as negative, and there's no overcoming that (when it comes to them). When a person says (incorrectly, as it turns out) that Obama was just an adjunct professor of law at the University of Chicago to somehow indicate that Obama may not understand the consitution, in a post about how MCCAIN is in support of the Bush laws/Exec. orders Obama has ALREADY SAID he'll overturn with his AG. It's bizarre. It's a bizarre focus. I mean, that debate is too detached from the topic and the facts to be credible.


There are federal appellate judges (none / 0) (#31)
by litigatormom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:51:06 AM EST

who teach at U. Chicago whose constitutional jurisprudence I question. I am thoroughly comfortable that Obama is ten times as smart as McCain. What I am not so clear on is what Obama believes when it comes to the constitution, the limits of executive power, warrantless domestic spying, etc. I knew Obama was never a full-time professor, which is why I used the term "adjunct" -- the difference between "adjunct" and "lecturer" isn't terribly meaningful to the point I was (apparently not very successfully making): that he hadn't done the sort of academic writing as a professor that would allow one to get a sense of his constitutional views.


you're right... (none / 0) (#46)
by festus800 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:27:40 PM EST

of course there are judges at U of C who are conservatives, like Posner and others, who I disagree with. U of C is a deeply conservative law school, which is why it is surprising that Obama was so successful there, because he demonstrably does not hold conservative constitutional views (either originalism or the economics of law varieties). But even for the conservatives I disagree with, I would not call them unknowledgeable or not experts in the constitution. I think what I was responding to is a general tendency on this website to discredit Obama in ways that don't make any sense. I may have misperceived what you were saying.

Obama has elaborated his views on warrantless wiretapping and other Constitutional issues in many different forums (fora?). What I have read and heard is very much more in the liberal tradition. But in order to figure these things out you just need to take the time to look for them, this is all widely publicly available.


: "It's all on my website" (none / 0) (#54)
by litigatormom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:05:38 PM EST

is a bit of a sore thumb for some people...

actually that is exactly what it means (none / 0) (#23)
by coigue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:41:25 AM EST

That is incorrect. (none / 0) (#12)
by festus800 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:30:30 AM EST

The judicial branch can declare laws unconstitutional, but then it's up to the legislative branch to amend or abolish those laws. Obama could be talking about working with the legislature to overturn laws that Bush's initiative pushed through Congress, or could be talking about the series of more informal "Executive Orders" that Bush issued (or even practices that he engaged in) that also violated the constitution.


At first he was talking about exectuive orders but (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by Y Knot on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:39:48 AM EST

then, apparently added the word "laws." This might be a slip of the tongue, or it might've just been shorthand for "working with Congress" to overturn those laws. Might. It might not. For now, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I definitely want to hear him talk more about this.

The Bush Administration has done an extremely effective job of undermining and subverting our Constitution. I'm glad at least one of the candidates seems to realize that that's something that needs to be addressed.

I'm assuming for now he realizes he needs to do that within the bounds of our laws and Constitution. I hope someone in our glorious media manages to pin him down on the issue in the next few months.


you're mischaracterizing and parsing... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by festus800 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:39:54 AM EST

what he said to an unreasonable degree. Here's what he said.

"I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution," said Obama.

He explicitly talks about executive orders and decisions. Obviously, if he's talking about laws, that would have to involve the support of what will be a Democratic Congress. But there's nothing wrong substantively in what he's saying.


The executive orders have had the force of laws... (5.00 / 0) (#21)
by Addison on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:40:05 AM EST

...under Bush, in violation of SCOTUS case law. You're being willfully clueless so you can continue making the same hollow point.

Just as an added point, just because you found a clever acronym (WORM) sadly doesn't mean, for the rest of the world, that Obama is always going to be 100% perfect in what he says or that clarifying remarks is off limits. And it certainly shouldn't mean that if you get a chance to use the clever WORM acronym -- or diss Obama -- in a post about how MCCAIN is going to keep BUSH's executive orders you should necessarily go off topic and take it.


: I know you'll decide whether to marginalize... (none / 0) (#34)
by Addison on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:58:28 AM EST

...yourself or not with such off-topic, unconvincing jabs at Obama in a post that's clearly about McCain and Bush (in an area where Obama is clearly not on their side at all). But if you choose to I'm perfectly willing to help you along and elucidate and detail exactly how you're marginalizing yourself. So, on this, we're in agreement.

If the courts overturn a law (none / 0) (#32)
by litigatormom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:54:11 AM EST

it's a nullity (once all appeals are exhausted) and doesn't need to be abolished. Congress doesn't have to do anything unless it wants to pass a new, constitutional version of the statute.

I don't know what Obama meant by the statement referred to above, it could mean a number of things. I'd rather have him tell me what it means as opposed to guessing.


: true, (none / 0) (#48)
by festus800 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:38:33 PM EST

it's functionally a nullity, because it can't be enforced, but that doesn't mean it's automatically taken off the books -- that takes the legislature. That's why the judicial branch is always sending laws back to the legislature for re-drafting and tweaking language to conform with the dictates of the constiution -- they can't do it themselves.

: I'm With You litigatormom (none / 0) (#61)
by MO Blue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:46:52 PM EST

First and foremost I would prefer that Obama spoke more clearly to begin with. Baring that, I want him to clarify exactly what he meant and not have his various supporters come up with their verision of what he really meant to say.

If it's anyting like his legal career, forgive if (none / 0) (#71)
by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:12:50 AM EST

I'm somehat skeptical...

Obama's legal career seen as average | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Obama's legal career seen as average. Attorneys at his old law firm say he handled few cases ... Obama arrived in Chicago in 1993 from Harvard Law School and ...
www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5679210.html


Obama has a civil rights background (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by coigue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:40:41 AM EST

McCain is a lapdog to the power in the GOP.


It is beyond Me why McCain (none / 0) (#6)
by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:19:18 AM EST

even wants to run as Bush III. Usually you temper your positions once you get into general, not make them more fringe. McCain is doing the usual primary-to-general dance, but in reverse. It makes zero sense to me. His advisers must be about the dumbest people on the planet.

He's trying to pander to (none / 0) (#24)
by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:42:06 AM EST

the very conservative base that doesn't like him.

I wish he would make a turn back to the middle. There are more people in the middle.


: He's never been in the middle (none / 0) (#33)
by litigatormom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:57:35 AM EST

What were his claims to being in the middle. That he wouldn't pander to fundamentalists? That's over. That he opposed the Bush tax cuts? That's over. Beyond these two things, and a few other issues like campaign finance and (more recently) global warming, McCain is and always has been a doctrinaire economic and social conservative.

Remember the amygdala (none / 0) (#40)
by Newt on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:42:28 PM EST

McCain will attempt to pull a Bush '04 win. He plays up his feel good "vision," reassuring people that he'll take care of their needs. My guess is it still works, especially for low information voters. Remember that GW Bush had an ad on TV and in AARP's magazine right before the 2004 election claiming he fixed Medicaid and Medicare for seniors? Well they bought it, in more ways than one. Bush came across as watching out for their interests, and retired/elderly voters took him at his word and reelected him. Bush's great plan didn't go into effect until after he was reelected, which is when seniors realized he fixed Medicaid alright, but not for them. He fixed it for the drug and insurance companies, and the people that believed him got screwed. Many elderly people still don't realize they got duped.

McCain recently presented his fantasy, I mean vision, of the future with him as Prez. He didn't not promising anything, it's just his "vision" of America if we elect him. Next fall, just before the elections, he'll convince people the surge worked, which will allow him to now "change course" and start reducing troop levels next year. He won't have to follow through after he's elected. He'll look like a tough guy who's gonna make everything alright, the same as Bush did.

It's all perception, and that's what will get him votes against the interests of those who vote for him.


Another reason to pursue criminal charges (none / 0) (#13)
by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:32:43 AM EST

Hopefully we will finally get a Congress and new leadership that will put an end to this. Whatever you allow becomes the norm and the Bush admin has moved the bar beyond belief. Unfortunately too many powerful Dem's were in on this and they will continue to fight any investigation. Obama has already stated he's not too anxious to do anything either. He'll instruct his AG to look into these things and if there was clear criminal intent, he'll have him pursue it. Of course there wasn't criminal intent. It was done for the good of the country!

McCain is a tamed maverick (none / 0) (#17)
by coigue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:39:24 AM EST

over the past 8 years he has been punished and kicked for his "willfulness". Now he is their lapdog, counting on his past reputation that only exists as a shadow now.

Yeah, but he's old now (3.00 / 2) (#28)
by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:47:33 AM EST

Old people seldom feel like they have to answer to anybody.

Look at his mother. She says exactly what is on her mind.

I feel he would not be Bush III. I think his basic ideological makeup won't allow for that. He's more into bipartisan things and he's willing to work with others, which is something Bush never felt a need to do. Bush had a need to twist things to get what he wanted. I don't think McCain believes in twisting (ie. lying) to get things accomplished.


Was he old earlier this year (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by coigue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:33:26 PM EST

when he voted against the anti-torture bill?

Was he old when he asked for the religious right preachers to endorse him?

Seriously?

Your contention is that he won't care because he is old, but what I see is a man who really, really wants to be president and leader of his party. Thus he cares a lot, and he is acting like he cares more for his success than for the success of his ideals.


: Unfortunately ... (none / 0) (#67)
by Inky on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:45:13 PM EST

He still had to secure the Republican primary at that point. Most Americans oppose torture, but Republican primary goers, not so much.

and what will he get done? (none / 0) (#52)
by coigue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:45:48 PM EST

If you like the Clintons there is no reason not to hate McCain. He was part of the pile on.


Every time (none / 0) (#66)
by Kevin on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:21:49 PM EST

McCain says Barak is inexperienced or naive, all Obama's people have to do is show clips of McCain saying things like "You won't find a bigger supporter of Bush's Iraq war" (paraphrased) Or show that this year, he's voted 100% with Bush's wishes, last year was 95%.

He has given people so much ammo that it will be easy. It is 4 more years, and anyone who doesn't see that is blinded by hate right now. Remember, it wasn't Obama who called you names on a message board. It wasn't Obama saying Hillary was pimping Chelsea. So don't put that baggage on him.

: He did (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:56:12 PM EST

a lot of this stuff himself but also egged it on. He did it passively agressively. Has he come down on his supporters yet? They are a huge problem. Has he issued a public apology for his campaign? They are still trashing the Clintons. Can he decide whether he wants them to campaign for them or not? What is his stance?

I'm seriously giving them a look as an (none / 0) (#72)
by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:21:50 AM EST

alternative...

counterpunch.com

June 5, 2008
Is This Change?

Obama Woos AIPAC
By JOHN WALSH

I have tired of reading cyptic Obama endorsements, masquerading as attacks on "illogical" women feminists. Clearly Hillary's sins are legion, but Obama is making it clearer by the day that he is eager to follow in her bloody footsteps. And the Left? It is running after Obama in the "hope" that he can be pressured "like FDR" into responding to a "real grass roots movement." That simply does not cut the mustard for any rational being. Obama beat Hillary Clinton by taking on the mantle of the "antiwar candidate" who ceaselessly pointed out she voted for the war. Obama of course was not yet in the Senate for that vote. But once a Senator Obama voted for each and every appropriation for the brutal Iraq war and occupation - hundreds of billions of dollars to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and lay waste that ill-starred nation. In fact his votes were not different from hers in this crucial area.

Meanwhile, the Left remains completely silent about the Nader/Gonzalez candidacy. Want to see what Nader/Gonzalez offers compared to Obama? I quote from today's message on the VoteNader.org web site:
"There is one clear choice this year for peace in the Middle East. Nader/Gonzalez. Only Nader/Gonzalez stands with the courageous Israeli and Palestinian peace movements. Only Nader/Gonzalez stands with the majority of Jewish Americans and Arab Americans which polls repeatedly show support a two-state solution as a way for peace in the Middle East. Only Nader/Gonzalez would reverse U.S. policy

more.....