home

Obama's Constitutional Shift: 1st, 2nd, 4th and 8th Amendments

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:43:00 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Dahlia Lithwick and Doug Kendall at Slate ask a good question:

Obama veers to the right, but did he have to take the Constitution with him?

They note:

It's not an overstatement to say that in the past month Obama has tugged the First, Second, Fourth, and Eighth amendments to the center. Not a day goes by, it seems, without a constitutional wink to the right on guns (he thinks there is an individual right to own one), the wall of separation between church and state (he thinks it can be lowered), the Fourth Amendment prohibition on warrantless wiretapping (he's changed his position on FISA), and on the death penalty for noncapital child rape cases (he thinks it's constitutional) as well as a possible shift this week on the right to abortion (which could further limit the reach of Roe v. Wade).

The point: [More...]

Obama appears to be compromising on the wrong constitutional issues while backing away from fights on the right ones. A liberal re-examination of constitutional philosophy need not involve a capitulation to conservative values. Obama can certainly move to the right on gun-control policy or support a limited death penalty if politics demand that he do so. But he should not, in so doing, shift to the right on the Constitution itself.

They move on to Obama's views of Supreme Court justices and have some good advice for him.They conclude with:

By rooting the results he seeks from the judiciary in the words of the Constitution—by marrying method to results, rather than divorcing these concepts—Obama can mobilize progressives and also reach beyond his base in speaking about what's at stake at the Supreme Court. By meandering to the right on some of the most important provisions in the Bill of Rights while mumbling about appointing judges who rule based on their "own perspectives," he risks alienating both groups and weakening the Constitution right along with his political prospects.

< A Better Approach to Driving While Suspended | Dampening Enthusiasm >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Constitutional Shift: 1st, 2nd, 4th and 8th Amendments | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    who says it's a shift? (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:00:30 AM EST
    he might be lying then or lying now.

    sincere shifts in the space of a month? pull the other leg.

    I really agree. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by ghost2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:28:30 AM EST
    I think all progressives (including Jeralyn, Taylor Marsh, Big Tent Democrat) as well as Russ Feingold have their head in the sand.  

    You think a candidate from nowhere who has raised $260 million dollars by now, and had the backing of Wall Street as well as countless insiders right from the beginning, doesn't owe anyone anything??

    You are kidding yourself.  

    Now Big Tent Democrat wants to extract a third promise from Obama that he would fix FISA when he is President.  That's a pipe dream.

    Obama didn't capitulate on FISA.  He delivered.


    Parent

    This isn't a shock at all to me. (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by phat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:02:32 AM EST
    I would expect it's not to many other people.

    I should be startled by the reaction to this, but I'm not.

    This is what I expected and it should have been expected.

    The writing was on the wall about this months ago, if not years ago.

    If this is Obama's idea (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by standingup on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:04:35 AM EST
    of post-partisan politics, I can live without it.  

    But that is what post partisan means (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:07:50 AM EST
    joining in and not taking sides, right?  

    Parent
    seems more like (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Chisoxy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:10:40 AM EST
    it means to take the "other" side.

    Parent
    Well put. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:11:31 AM EST


    Parent
    Post-partisan is often re-stated as, (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by DeborahNC on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:35:50 AM EST
    "Reaching across the aisle." The problem with post-partisanship in that sense, is that when the Democrats are reaching, the Republicans are keeping their behinds firmly planted on their side. They might reach a bit to grab the hand of the Dem who extended hers/his, but only to pull them over into Republicanland.

    That's why I never liked the idea of post-partisanship. I don't ever see the Repubs practicing it.

    Parent

    A few do (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by sassysenora on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:51:35 AM EST
    At least sometimes. E.g., Hagal, Chaffe, Snowe. McCain used to until he decided to run for President again in 2005 or 2006. But there are never enough of them to make any difference.

    I don't think it works unless you have a firm position to negotiate from. Then you can horse-trade in a way that can benefit both parties. The Dems don't have any firm position because they cave on almost everything. FISA. Iraq funding. Bankruptcy. Health care. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    Now Obama has embraced the right-wing frames (as well as positions) for the First, Second, Fourth, and Eighth Amendments as well as abortion. You can't effectively compromise if you buy into all the other side's frames. They're always going to win if you do that.

    Parent

    Of course, technically, bipartisanshp occurs, but (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by DeborahNC on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:23:59 AM EST
    it has happened less frequently in the more recent past. If we truly look at the people who are more willing to vote with the other party, it's the Democrats. Snowe and Hagel have their moments, but when the critical vote has to be made, they usually vote with the Republicans.

    A true bipartisan siutation would be when both parties are willing to negotiate on a somewhat equal basis. I rarely witness it anymore; Americans would benefit if both parties could work for the good of the people. Regrettably, that doesn't happen very often. We can always hope.

    I, too, am very concerned about the ever-changing nature of Obama's political positions. Americans need to hold their leaders accountable. I think that we all need to strive for that.

    Parent

    It's not bi-partisan now (none / 0) (#102)
    by sassysenora on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:16:52 PM EST
    In order to have bi-partisanship, I think you need to either have two parties who each have areas of separation but a reasonably-sized area of common ground. That would be like two circles that overlap in the middle. I think that would be ideal.

    Alternatively, you can have two parties with relatively equal strength who have almost no areas of agreement but who are willing to compromise on some things in order to get things that are more important to them (i.e., horse-trading). E.g., say the Dems want cleaner energy, no privitization of Social Security, and higher taxes for corporations and the wealthy. Say the Repubs want more money for oil, completely privitized Social Security, and lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy. If the Dems are willing to give up lower taxes for corporations in order to get cleaner energy, this can work for both parties.

    I think right now, the problem is that the Dems "compromise" but don't get anything in return. They compromise today (often on core issues for the Dems, which are not the issues they should compromise on) in the hopes of getting something vague tomorrow. E.g., what did the Dems get by caving on FISA? Or Iraq? What did Obama get by adopting right-wing frames and positions on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, & 8th Amendments or the due process clause?

    Parent

    So few R's do that most votes are 100% or nearly (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jawbone on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:30:35 AM EST
    100% of Repubs for whatever legislation the R leadership and BushBoy want.

    The FISA percentages were not out of the ordinary.

    Parent

    Reaching across the aisle = bipartisanship (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:11:55 AM EST
    to come to a compromise.

    Caving in this way is, yes, post-partisanship -- to the point of being apartisan.

    I.e., not partisan at all, guided by no party principles, etc.

    Parent

    The Fine Art of Framing (none / 0) (#88)
    by santarita on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:51:10 AM EST
    I'm afraid that "post-partisanship" was just an invented term for negotiating and compromising.  It was up there with the invented terms "triangulating" and "incrementalism", which were used in the pejorative sense to refer to what Clinton did.  The Obama campaign had to come up with a different word for the same tactics.  And it worked well to distract the voters from Obama's positions.  

    Parent
    Post-partisanship is a fiction, a lie. (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:54:08 AM EST
    It's dead, an idea that belongs to a long-gone, more gentlemanly political era of moderate Republicans and politicians who believe in keeping religion out of the public square.

    Many things killed off PP. I'd blame the rise of combative conservatism, the hyper-concentration of power in the executive branch, the rise of "spectacle" media and personality-driven politics.

    One politician can't wave a magic wand and bring it back. The intense partisanship of our era is structural. That's why I distrusted Obama's talk from the beginning. The only way to make American politics less combative is for Democrats to become MORE combative. And wipe out extreme Republicanism. Re-define the center.

    When we do that, THEN and only then can we start talking post-partisanism.

    Parent

    His outreach to 2nd Amendment voters fails when (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:30:06 AM EST
    he's seen as abandoning the 4th. The Giuliani security obsessives were never in play. The Ron Paul constitutionalists were.

    Hit it on the head here (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:41:35 AM EST
    from what I hear from a (surprising to me) number of the 20 somethings, older sorts from seniors to grad students.  Libertarians, cynical but hoping for hope, and have Ron Paul as a hero.  That made me pay more attention to him, if only to try to figure out this group of students -- as they tend to be very smart ones.  

    Parent
    That's easy Cream.... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:53:05 AM EST
    if they're anything like me, they just wanna be free and come what may.  That is the appeal of a Ron Paul...he's selling freedom, freedom on principle, freedom as the default position, freedom warts and all.

    Parent
    Which of course (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:57:26 AM EST
    is why Ron Paul is rabidly anti-choice.  Because someone else's opinion on when life begins should overcome your freedom.

    Parent
    That's where I part ways with him..... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:13:34 PM EST
    I am of the believe its not a life until it occupies its own space and breathes its own air.  I have moral qualms with abortion but believe in a woman's right to make her own decision....the prohibition of abortion accomplishes nothing, it only puts women in danger.

    That being said, I am not so bold as to say reasonable can't disagree on when life begins and can't come to a different conclusion.    

    Parent

    Paul himself is not relevant, (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    so much as the voters who were attracted.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#109)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:50:56 PM EST
    but my point is that "the appeal of a Ron Paul" is something of a bumper-sticker slogan that isn't being sold by any actual political candidate.  Well, other than yourself, perhaps.

    By the way, I saw this excerpt from a Supreme Court argument earlier today:

    Mr. White: The Libertarians require you to sign a membership application that they oppose the use of force in the resolution of political disputes.

    Chief Justice John Roberts: Libertarians have a lot more rules than the other parties. (Laughter.)



    Parent
    Too bad there's no recall in the Dem Party (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Yotin on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:30:48 AM EST
    Obama feels he has no accountability to the voters in the Democratic Party. He owns it now. Without the threat of recall, you can't make him toe the line or keep to his words.
    There's only one way to make a statement and you know it.
    This was made easier that it's McCain.

    Obama's NOT the official nominee...yet! (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by DeborahNC on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:37:57 AM EST


    Parent
    It's getting to be a choice, all right (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:42:55 AM EST
    A choice for the Super D's:

    A) Keep Obama as the nominee and elect McCain as President
    or
    B) Open the choice to conventioneers in the form of live delegate vote counts for BOTH Hillary and Obama.

    It's been awhile since I've seen such wanton self-destruction. Its like an episode of Intervention, except in this case the psychologist / intervention leader is also doing crack, and the family / friends can only sit by and watch helplessly as both addict and counselor fire up their pipes.

    Parent

    Why JUST Hillary and Obama? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:24:22 PM EST


    Parent
    ...only one way to make a statement? (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:41:06 AM EST
    I think that if things continue the way they are going at present, it's going to be a very interesting Dem Convention in August. The more Obama wobbles, the more nervous those superdels are going to become... I hope.

    Going off to McCain is not an answer for me. McCain is not the same man he was in 2000. If he were, I may consider it. But he is just not the same man.

    See? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:47:33 AM EST
    That's why I said Obama was a Weeble.  

    "Weebles wobble but they won't fall down!"

    (Do they still make Weebles?  What a great old toy!:)

    Parent

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#19)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:57:07 AM EST
    I remember you saying that. In fact I was thinking of your comment when I typed it.

    Parent
    As for whether or not (none / 0) (#22)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:11:23 AM EST
    they still make weebles, I don't really know. I have not lived in the US for many years. (I looked up an image on Google Images just now to see what you were referring to.) Here in Japan there is a wooden children's toy that looks something like that.

    Parent
    I've seen Weebles on eBay (none / 0) (#25)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:45:03 AM EST
    in the past.  

    Once, when I was in college, my roommate and I were watching a tearjerker movie on TV (this was 30+ years ago) about a guy who couldn't walk -- and then, you know, at the climax of the movie he suddenly discovers he can walk with the aid of crutches -- and she and I looked at each other at the very same moment and yelled "Weebles wobble but they don't fall down!"  It totally destroyed the feeling of the movie but it was hysterically funny when it happened.  I still remember it to this day because the line came up completely out of the blue and we both thought of it at the same time!  :)  

    Parent

    Weebles gone? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:05:03 AM EST
    I don't think they do make them any more.  I have vague memories of a big controversy about them because they turned out to be a choking hazard for young children years and years ago.

    My younger brother had Weebles, but I never liked them, they just wouldn't stay put on the one hand and you couldn't do a heck of a lot with them on the other.

    Parent

    in a close election (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yotin on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:27:41 AM EST
    wobble is all you need to lose a close election

    Parent
    it's funny you said that... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yotin on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:26:18 AM EST
    it really looks like that Obama is not the same man he presented himself during the primary.

    McCain couldn't be more of the same person he ever was. His policies changed somewhat, making them move a bit truer to his party.

    Obama campaigned for a different kind of politics, presenting himself as above the fray and the candidate of change.

    He's no different and if any, he's a more skillful practitioner of the bottom politics he pretends to despise. Instead of changing the politics and the politicians in Washington, it's he who's changed from the person he presented during the primary.

    And the changes in his policies moved him farther away from his party.

    His candidacy was never about the "movement". It's all about Barack and Michelle. It's Barack's ambition to be president and Michelle's pride as an American when he becomes one.


    Parent

    His tactics clearly showed his duplicity (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:06:01 AM EST
    in the primary -- the many reports from caucuses of questionable practices, etc. -- so I for one am not at all surprised by his duplicitousness in principles now.  Perhaps because to me, how you win is as important as what you win.  I.e., the calculated politics of winning at all costs has a cost beyond calculation.

    Parent
    As I wrote on another thread (none / 0) (#94)
    by g8grl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:27:45 AM EST
    The thing that McCain's got going for him is that he's probably not going to run again in 2012.  That means once he becomes President, he'll be able to spit in the eye of all the right wing nuts if he wants to.  McCain may very well go back to the man he was in 2000.  That man was still far too conservative from a social standpoint but this tacking to the extreme right now, I think that it's not who he really is and if he becomes President, I think he'll think he gets to do whatever the he** he wants.  

    Compare that to Obama who will do whatever his handlers want.  IMHO that means he will not want to rock the boat, or do any of the hard work that would require taking a strong stand.  He will not want to make his Congress critters look bad nor will he want to commit to anything where he might fail.  With an Obama Presidency, we go nowhere AND the Democrats look worse than ever.

    Parent

    big assumptions in article could be wrong (5.00 / 10) (#13)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:41:38 AM EST
    WIth many of the issues in the article, there is always the assumption that Obama is compromising or shifting for political reasons. I think that's a big assumption to make, and I think it's wrong.

    I think these positions Obama is taking are based on what he really things. I don't think he's being political here. He even said as much the other day in addressing some of these conflicts when he said it's hot moving to the right, this is just how he feels on these issues. I take him at his word. Especially since I think these positions only lose him votes in my opinion. Which means, yes, I think he was shifting to the left to win the dem primary, and now he's moved back to where he lives.

    If that's true, then he can't be pushed back to the left. That's not who he is.

    That's a positive take! (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:18:20 AM EST
    You've asserted that Obama has a center, a moral base, a philosophical foundation.

    This is more than I've been willing to credit him with.  I will ponder your theory as this election season progresses.

    Parent

    I agree that Obama (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:15:56 AM EST
    does have a center and a philosophical base (I would say foundation), as Fabian has framed it. But I don't believe he has a moral foundation. After all, he remained in Wright's church for 20 years and I'm not buying that Wright suddenly changed and that Obama didn't know this "new" aspect of Wright. That's just nonsense.

    But that's neither here nor there. My difficulty is not with his lack of moral foundation but rather with his center and philosophical foundation.

    Barack has demonstrated again and again that he has an agenda. But this agenda is NEVER fully defined... almost as though he doesn't trust the unwashed masses with it. It is always buried in vague platitudes and trite cliches not much more specific than "change" or "yes we can" which are about as meaningful as "have a nice day".

    Parent

    its hard to tell what Obama really thinks and if (none / 0) (#45)
    by kimsaw on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:32:32 AM EST
    he really lives to the right of center, how could he have been a member of a Black Liberation Church for 20 years that promoted hate speech? His religious affiliation does not lend credibility  that he really lives right of center or even center left. In fact I wonder if Obama knows what his true opinions are. You have a right to take him at his word. Unfortunately I don't not have any faith that his words are his truth, and believe that his words are only part of his campaign design.

    Obama plays at being everything to everyone for political expediency. A man who can throw his grandmother under a bus is a man willing to do anything to forward his own ambition. He's played the political game of bait and switch with the voters, and no one can tell who's been baited or what the switch actually means for the voter. He can keep us guessing all the way to November.

    Parent

    The Rebuttal To Your First Paragraph (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by creeper on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:51:25 AM EST
    is in your second, to wit:
    Obama plays at being everything to everyone for political expediency.

    Obama joined Rev. Wright's church not from a desire for religion in his life but because the people he came in contact with as a community organizer in Chicago told him he needed to be a member of a church if he were going to get anywhere in politics.  Wright's church made the most sense, since it catered to Obama's original base of support--angry African-Americans.

    There is no substance to this man.  He holds no principles inviolable (if he holds any principals at all).  The self-described "Constitutional scholar" will happily trash the Constitution if doing so puts him in the White House.

    What we have in Barack Obama is a Democratic clone of George W. Bush...a man with neither experience nor vision...a man who doesn't know what he wants to DO as President but who desperately wants to BE President.  Bush, dog help us, may have been better.  He at least has some firm principles.  

    Barack Obama is a tabula rasa...a blank slate upon which his supporters can write any description they choose.  I wrote "charlatan".

    Parent

    Excuse me but... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:27:33 AM EST
    this is the FIRST Afro-American Chief Editor of the Harvard Law Review. This is no tabula rasa no matter how much we may dislike him. I think he has motivations. We just don't know what they are, and this makes me very nervous.

    Parent
    No, the first AA editor of the law review (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:08:26 AM EST
    was Charles Hamilton Houston almost a century ago, in 1919.

    The title changed just before Obama's time to president of the law review, and he was the first AA after the title change.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#82)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:19:42 AM EST
    This link suggests that the HLR had a "President" as far back as the 1920's.  As a law review guy myself, it honestly seems pretty pretentious to me for a journal to have a "President" as opposed to an editor-in-chief, but there you have it.

    By the early 1920s, the Review had established a clear convention for selection. The President of the Review received from the Secretary's office the rank list of students at the end of their first year, and the Review was required to follow the rank list in order, although the Review had discretion to decide where to stop on the list.

    I think when sources say that Houston was the first black editor of the HLR, they mean that he was the first black member of the editorial board - a notable distinction, to be sure.  I haven't been able to find any sources that say he was the president, or the editor-in-chief for that matter.

    Parent

    I see the distinction; sources vary (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:44:46 AM EST
    a lot on the first black editor (the institute named for him, for one, says so) vs. an editor, as I scan around.  Interesting.  Personally, I always appreciate those who recognize others who have paved the way.

    Re the law review presidency position, I had read on another legal blog quite a discussion of this by Harvard Law Review alumni who seemed to be quite in the know, and it apparently is more complicated.

    It always is, isn't it?  It just has been reported in such simple terms even by the likes of the NYT.
    Of course, there are historians who would debate whether, if elected, Obama would be the first black president of the country.  But I'm not getting into that tempest in a political teapot.:-)

    Parent

    I don't see this losing him votes... (none / 0) (#70)
    by blueaura on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:56:53 AM EST
    Sadly, most people are not paying a lot of attention to these issues and don't really understand them. He can appeal more to centrists and also beef up the "anti-terror" section of his resume with his support for FISA. Some Democrats (like myself) are going to be very disappointed in him, but what are we going to do, vote for McCain? I think he is making these shifts for very political reasons and he thinks that the few votes he might lose will be offset by the votes he stands to gain. He's also declaring "look at me, I can be bipartisan!"

    I was an enthusiastic Obama supporter, but I feel a bit like I've been hoodwinked. I'll be voting for him, but I don't think I'll be making any more financial contributions (I've already given several hundred).

    Parent

    Obama has moved from the center to the right. (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by lorelynn on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:56:46 AM EST
    I have no idea why anyone thinks he has any interest progressives. FISA is a core progressive issue and he totally blew us off. Feingold says he can fix FISA when he is president, but if he has that intention, why vote for it now? It makes no sense.

    He's not going to cut back on executive power (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by sassysenora on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:02:46 AM EST
    once he's in the White House. No one ever does. It makes much more sense to think he was for expanding executive power because he wants to use it himself.

    Parent
    Gerald Ford did. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:27:36 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree... he's marching to the right. (none / 0) (#41)
    by lentinel on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:28:36 AM EST
    Obama is not moving "to the center".

    For example, we know that only about 29% of the American people
    want us to continue our course in Iraq. That's 71% that want out.

    So where does Obama move? To the position of Bush and the 29%.
    He'll abandon any timetable. He'll "listen to the commanders on the ground". He'll "refine" his position.

    If he were to move to the center, he would ally himself with the cry from the majority of Americans to extricate us from this immoral nightmare with all deliberate speed.

    But he is moving, as you say, from the center to the right - the Bush position.

    Parent

    Is he being blackmailed w/ info BushCo acquired (none / 0) (#63)
    by jawbone on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:51:49 AM EST
    illegally?

    There are some Dems I simply can't comprehend voting for the FISA Abomination unless they were being blackmailed.... Sill thought, perhaps, but it also seems the simplest explanation at times.

    Maybe they've got stuff on Obama as well?

    Parent

    I have yet to hear Obama take a (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:12:05 AM EST
    stand that is going to force my hand to vote for him.

    With the Congress and the Demo. presidential candidate taking our liberties away, just screams that the country is headed into the dangerous path of a police state.

    It doesn't matter that the people called, wrote,to uphold the Constitution. The culture of corruption through big lobbyists and donations has clad them together ('representatives of the people') as the best government money can buy.

    In a perfect world we should vote for people who promise to stay in government for 3 terms in the House and 2 in the Senate. I'm tired of the lifers with the sense of entitlement who get rich while "serving"  and think they're better than the people who got them there. Obama is dancing all over that line.

    Since we're revisiting some of the liberties that worked for the first 200 years, I'm all for looking at term limits for the Congress. I don't want to hear that they can be voted out. I want to see their careers given the same consideration that enabled their vote for a modern version of the FISA and faith based funding.

    I can do without the LIebermans the Byrds, the Kennedys, Domenicis,Stevens, the crusty old men who are past their moments in legislating and are taking space. Apologies to those who value them, but when they're ill and are on their 5th or 6th terms in either House, I'm going to suspect they're not the sharpest tool in the box.

    The one vote that these guys are (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:58:43 AM EST
    all always together on is voting for their own payraises.  You never see a 50/50 vote on that.  They all think they deserve to make more money regardless what anyone else thinks.    

    Parent
    Term Limits Have Their Own Limitations... (none / 0) (#83)
    by santarita on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:36:42 AM EST
    The office holder has less of a stake in getting things done and the unelected staffs and technocrats can wield more power and influence because they are the ones that know the ropes.  

    Obama and Bush both show the perils of inexperience.  They rely heavily on advisors because they have no choice.

    Parent

    The Weakness of the Dems (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by makana44 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:56:30 AM EST
    Republicans voted 100% in lockstep today on FISA, Democrats split about 50/50. The reason why Republicans have so much power vis a vis the Dems is their discipline. They truly are a party who work together, and those who haven't played along have been ruthlessly culled over the years. Obama's post partisanship can only serve to further weaken the already lightweight Democratic caucus. The real heavyweights are the R's because they are always! always! partisan. Post partisanship for them will be a license to steal from the children across the aisle. Uncle President Obama will bring the kool aid and everyone will have a grand old time, but the Republicans will still stand together and obstruct. Conversely, even if they are in the majority, it will be a constant struggle for the Dems if McCain wins.  Dems are the party of wimps. Yay Lieberman the traitor - give him a chairmanship! Even the paragon, Feingold on MSNBC today, couldn't bring himself to criticize Obama though he was livid and clearly hated that vote. He kept on saying that Obama will somehow undo it if he wins. But what if he doesn't? Embarrassing to be a Dem. I wish there was a viable third party. I would tell these jokers to choke on it.

    The only viable third party (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:06:44 AM EST
    would be Hillary -- and she doesn't seem to want to run as an Independent.  

    She's the only person who could get enough votes to knock both Obama and McCain off the tracks.  

    Parent

    Obama's needlessly burning furniture for firewood (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Ellie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:42:21 AM EST
    Halle-freakin-lujah for that rundown of what Obama's tearing up for personal gain.

    His Unity Pony ride comes at far too great a price, and simply because his "brilliant" campaign burns through too much capital just to tread in place. (I don't buy the strategy / promise that the "real" progressive Obama will reveal himself to the masses at a more opportune time.)

    It's a p!ss poor excuse too that he "has" to auction off inalienable, cherished rights for "political" reasons.

    If he can't sell himself via his vaunted Charisma he has no business being the nominee, and certainly no cause to burn through people's constitutional protections that aren't his to barter.

    He's a steward tearing into the precious store that he was nominated to guard, or an embezzler so blinded by the immediate chance to turn hard earned human rights into cash-money he's selling whatever he can for transitory personal gain.

    Parties can split (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by laurie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:50:59 AM EST
    and go down plugholes.

    It happened to the Whigs mid 19C, and to the Liberals in England post 1910. It happened in Italy just recently when the Christian Democrats disappeared because of overwhelming, entrenched corruption (tangentopoli). The list is endless...

    Two party systems are never monolithic, although they can appear so. Fissures can often be deepened by wars and their aftermath, economic recessions.

    However, Parties can regroup.
    Obama's combination of Patrician Dems, with the activation of underrepresented communities, is interesting. So too, is his call for a  centrist party which should include Republicans.
    It is difficult not to see this as a call for the formation of a new Dem Party.

    This, together with the additional erosion of Constitutional liberties caused initially by 9/11,
    placing ever more power into the Executive branch of government, is what is scaring traditional Dems.

    Bitter Knitters, (remember all those knitters around the Guillotine?) are fighting because that's what they feel they have to do.
    It isn't gender. It's the New Deal/FDR of our fathers slipping down that drain.

    Were Obama actively supporting the Checks and Balances of the Constitution, he would have a better chance of success.
    Otherwise older voters will feel that a strong Dem Congress and Senate would be better balanced by a Repub Exec.

    What that (none / 0) (#77)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:10:17 AM EST
    "new" Democratic party under Obama means is that the American people will only have a choice between right and farther right and that about finishes the American experiment.

    Parent
    BTD & TalkLeft cited in NYT (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Josey on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:59:26 AM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/6p9j9u
    Much as I hate to agree with (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:49:33 AM EST
    Red State, the quote from there in the last paragraph seems, alas, to be quite true.  Having invested so much in Obama, the netroots would rather invest more now than admit they were wrong to believe in him all along.

    That's an economic fallacy, which I think has a name but I can't think of right now....

    Parent

    How about (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:07:46 AM EST
    "throwing good money after bad"?

    Parent
    Sunk costs or maybe sunken costs... (none / 0) (#84)
    by santarita on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    Many times (in business) the first or early loss is the least costly.  

    It would be best for people disappointed by their choice to do a lessons learned exercise in order to avoid future unpleasant surprises and to plot a campaign to restore the Constitution.

    Parent

    Yes! Thank you (none / 0) (#110)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:04:44 PM EST
    Sunk costs is what I was thinking of.  

    Parent
    That is (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:13:59 AM EST
    a pretty solid sound bite from Josh Orton.

    Parent
    Obama, constitutional compromiser (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by suzieg on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:48:28 AM EST
    www.counterpunch.com/ramakrishnan07092008.html

    excerpt

    And where is the Angel of Change at this crucial hour? Busy playing for the Hispanic vote. Barack Obama has already shot his bolt, saying he will vote for the current FISA bill, and hinting darkly that unless the vote goes through, there will be loopholes in the law leaving the country open to unnamed threats. A laughable notion, wouldn' you say? Didn't  this whole business start because the Government cared nothing for the law? As Bob Ostertag wrote in the Huffington Post,

    "Imagine how inspired you would have been if, instead of turning and running, Obama was interrupting his campaign schedule to fly to Washington and lead the filibuster against the FISA legislation. Take the money donate it instead to Russ Feingold, the senator who is leading the struggle. Then tell everyone you know to do the same."

    read more...

    Oof! This hurts! Fits Blue Dogs--and other curs.. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jawbone on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:02:03 AM EST
    The late Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale once defined the difference between a dog and a lion. When beaten with a stick, he said, the dog attacks the stick; the lion goes after the hand holding the stick. Not for the first time, the Democrats (save for a few) are busy once more staging a feint by fulminating against the stick instead of tackling its wielder.

    Hear, hear.  

    Parent

    And the call to action from article linked to: (none / 0) (#58)
    by jawbone on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:09:12 AM EST
    Here's what we can do immediately. We tell every Senator that if he or she votes for this bill, we will work to defeat that Senator in the upcoming election, regardless of party. The Constitution is above parties. And yes, that goes for Senator Change also. And for Senator 100-Years-in-Iraq as well. There is a website, The Strange Bedfellows, which is engaged in exactly such an effort. Start by contributing to it, and then act on your threat to defeat those who will not stand up to defend the Constitution.

    Well, that's one possible approach. Any other ideas?

    I'd love to see disappointed Obama supporters actually ask for their money back. The Benjamins do seem to matter, and that might get Obama's attention.

    But, what else??

    And I still don't get Whitehouse's vote! He must have a rationale which works for him. He seems to have a really sharp mind.

    Parent

    Pressure (none / 0) (#69)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:51:01 AM EST
    voters can put their money behind challengers that run against a politician for voting it, but politicians can put their money and resources behind a challenger that doesn't vote for it.  Being targeted by your party is the bigger threat as they have more money and resources.  It really is no more than a big club.

    Parent
    Whitehouse is a career Prosecutor. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:32:32 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't think he's all that knowledgable (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:56:08 AM EST
    on the issues.

    Obama said so himself. (1.00 / 0) (#108)
    by halstoon on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:12:39 PM EST
    People like this haven't been listening what he's said all along. The man is not a flip-flopper, and that's the real problem. He refuses to embrace Leftist policies that he does not agree with.

    Obama has not 'shifted' at all. He has been consistent in his views (well, at least he issued a statement on FISA).

    Try as they might, the most liberal wing of the party will not convince Americans that Obama is a flip-flopper, and they should be ashamed for trying, imo.

    Great article for non lawyers (none / 0) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:57:31 AM EST


    NYT editorial (none / 0) (#14)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:44:35 AM EST
    The Audacity of Listening

    Editorial makes sense but it doesn't make me like Obama any better.  

    So why should we vote for him? (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by sassysenora on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:42:47 AM EST
    Obama has made it clear what issues he thinks all this cleverness and compromising are supposed to serve: national health care, a smart energy policy and getting American troops out of Iraq.

    his national healthcare plan isn't good.

    his energy policies are probably worse than McCain's. for example, Obama supported the Bush-Cheney Energy bill which McCain opposed.  Obama supports subsidies for corn ethanol - which McCain opposes - even though it drives up food prices and isn't as clean or efficient as sugarcane ethanol. McCain supports sugercane ethanol and Obama opposes it. http://www.bythefault.com/2008/07/09/backtracking-with-barack-corn-ethanol/
    http://www.bythefault.com/2008/07/08/obamas-energy-ad/

    and he's signaled that he won't stick with the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070303919.html?hpid=topnews

    he's selling us out on the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, and the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights; Article II; the Equal Protection Clause; campaign financing; and NAFTA so that he can give us mediocre healthcare, bad energy policies, and maybe get us out of Iraq during his first term if he doesn't change his mind. how is this a good thing?

    Parent

    I'm still waiting for (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:54:24 AM EST
    some reason to vote for him.  

    So far I don't have one.  

    I won't vote for him just because he is the Dem nominee even though I have voted for others in the past "just because they were the Dem nominee."  

    Obama, for some reason, strikes me as a dangerous choice.  Unless some really good reason to vote for him comes up, I won't vote for him.

    I was trying to convince myself to vote for McCain but I'm just not sure about him either though I don't feel that "dangerous" thing with him.  I guess that is because McCain's been around for so long he's kind of a known quantity.  

    Parent

    You're right that McCain is a known quantity, but (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by DeborahNC on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:33:32 AM EST
    since what I do know about him I don't like, I can't vote for him. I am becoming less inclined to vote for Obama.

    At first I had no inclination to vote for Obama, but I was trying to work up some enthusiasm. Now, I'm not sure that I can. Troubling, isn't it?

    Parent

    So was I (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:43:09 AM EST
    trying to work up the enthusiasm. Hillary called upon us to do this. I tried. I read and studied and followed carefully what was going on. I really wanted to be and feel loyal to the party. But I just cannot. And yes, it is troubling.

    Parent
    I'm having the same problem. (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:58:01 AM EST
    It's not just raising the enthusiasm however, I'm concerned my vote for Obama might be a vote for something bad, something I don't want.  (Like a vote for Bush would have been -- that would have been a vote for something bad.)  

    Parent
    I have the same concerns (none / 0) (#30)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:38:21 AM EST
    about Obama. In fact I think that for Hillary to associate herself in any way with what I believe will be Obama's disasterous administration could be ruinous for her reputation.

    On the other hand I have serious concerns about McCain. He is not the same person he was in 2000. That person I might have voted for. Today's McCain is far too far to the right. He is a tool (though I think the right is strategically denying this) of the neo-cons.

    This may be the first election since I was old enough to vote when I cannot in good conscience bring myself to vote for anyone at all.

    Parent

    At first Obama seemed as if he didn't want her. (none / 0) (#43)
    by DeborahNC on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:58:47 AM EST
    Apparently, there might be renewed interest, since he and Hillary and Caroline Kennedy all flew to New York. I don't any inside scoop, but he must know many of Hillary's supporters feel uncomfortable with him, and he needs the demographics that she dominated in the primary.

    He might state publicly that he doesn't, but there are only about 6 points separating them, and the Republicans havn't really pushed back in a big way yet.

    But, as you say, it might not be to her advantage. If I were in her position, I'd be cautious before I entered a situation in which I didn't know what to expect. You know, I think there are probably on a small group of people who know Obama's true agenda.

    Parent

    Obama forgot Clinton at that fundraiser (none / 0) (#71)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:57:08 AM EST
    This was a fundraiser for Obama and Clinton.  Obama spoke (it went over well) for 30 minutes and walked off the stage without ever mentioning Clinton.  He had to get back up on stage and the clip I saw was an unenthused reference to 'Hillary still has some debt'

    JJ basically called him a snob for talking down to black people and IMO he came across as looking like a snob with regards to Clinton.

    Parent

    That would mark my last attempt (4.66 / 3) (#79)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:13:39 AM EST
    at "Unity," but Clinton is a better person than I am.

    Parent
    Seriously? (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    Do you have a link for that?

    Parent
    Here'e the link (none / 0) (#106)
    by sassysenora on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:30:33 PM EST
    //news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080710/ap_on_el_pr/obama_clinton_fundraising

    Parent
    Not Her Intent (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by santarita on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:59:05 AM EST
    I thought Collins was good in that column except she kind of meandered at the end.  I took her column as more of an indictment of the people who supported Obama without listening to what he said.  Except for his obvious shift on FISA what he has said in the past few weeks is not inconsistent with his record or what he has been saying in the primary campaigns.  It's just that now when people see how his three syllable words get translated into actions, they think that they've been had.  And in reality they have been had because they fell victim to a clever marketing campaign.

    Parent
    Audacity or Hope (none / 0) (#91)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:05:58 AM EST
    Gail Collins, usually an insightful and humorous columnist, gives an undeserved pass to Senator Obama, the skilled talker and blames the unskilled listener. Really, she says, what you heard is what you are now getting so don't get your unders in a knot. Some changes in positions are acknowledged, but breezed past as insignificant. Moreover, what did we expect, she argues, after all,  Mr. Obama did say there were going to be no more red states and blues states. Apparently, if he cunningly meant that there would be no more red states and blue states, just red states, it is the listeners fault. Ms. Collins glosses over, completely, that we did listen, quite carefully, when he stated that he would filibuster the FISA bill if it included the telecom immunity provision.  But it is all OK since his cleverness and compromising will make for a better nation.

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:01:10 AM EST
    see how Obama can campaign against the Roberts court when he pretty much agrees with a lot of their decisions.

    All nine (none / 0) (#47)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:18:54 AM EST

    ...a constitutional wink to the right on guns (he thinks there is an individual right to own one)

    All nine justices in Heller held there is an individual right.  So much for "winking."

    Heh (none / 0) (#60)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:24:50 AM EST
    An individual right to do what?  Let's not play word games here.

    Justice Stevens:

    The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right." Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second
    Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right...

    Whether it also protects the right to
    possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case.

    Justice Breyer:

    The majority's conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS--namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests.

    Would any advocate for the individual-right position be happy with a holding that "sure, you have an individual right - an individual right to own a gun for militia purposes only"?  Of course not.  Nor is that Barack Obama's position.  

    On the question of whether you have an individual right to own a handgun for self-defense - something Obama used to be against, I guess, and is now in favor of - the Supreme Court split 5-4.  Pretending they were unanimous on the individual right issue, when the four dissenters supported an individual right that is so withered and circumscribed as to be worthless, is just semantics.

    Parent

    Lile Kelo (none / 0) (#68)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:46:35 AM EST

    ...the four dissenters supported an individual right that is so withered and circumscribed as to be worthless...

    Well a good chunck of the supremes seem to be quite happy to read rights protected in the Bill of Rights as having no practical meaning at all.  Shameful.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#75)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:06:58 AM EST
    I can't argue with you there.  Remember when Robert Bork referred to the Ninth Amendment as an inkblot?

    I'm a fan of all the amendments, myself.  I think self-defense is a human right, and if it can't be located in the Second Amendment (as the dissenting Justices in Heller believe) then it's certainly got to be protected by the Ninth.

    Parent

    Not shifting (none / 0) (#50)
    by greenscott on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:48:43 AM EST
    With the exception of the FISA vote (a disappointment, but in the end that compromise was a done deal) he has not shifted on any of these issues. In his previous writings he has been consistent with his current positions. We are just trying to find issues here people. You really want McCain in there leading us for 4 years? Really?

    Not quite (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:00:34 AM EST
    Obama is like looking in the Bible to find support for a position; flip through enough pages and everyone can find at least one line that makes their case, whatever the case is.

    He's been hopping all over the spectrum all along.  That way, no matter what he says today he can find concurrence with something he said in the past.  Of course, when he says the opposite tomorrow, he can find concurrenc in the past with that too.

    That's actually the opposite of consistency; rather, it's a sort of super-shifting.  And it looks to be what comprises the new and changing in his new and changing politics.

    Parent

    Ok then (none / 0) (#64)
    by greenscott on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:52:13 AM EST
    Lets all vote for McBush and have more of what we have been getting. That feels better to everyone?

    Parent
    You are the only one (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:58:02 AM EST
    saying that any criticism of Obama means you want McCain elected.

    Parent
    Look at the facts (none / 0) (#66)
    by greenscott on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:09:46 AM EST
    the more we criticize Obama and let McCain off the hook, just what do you think will happen??

    Parent
    Nobody is letting McSame (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:58:22 AM EST
    off the hook. But quite honestly, I do not see how I can in good conscience vote for either McSame or Obama. To me, McSame is not even a possibility. But I have had over seven years of a McCheney administration that did the same thing that Obama is doing right now, running a campaign on vague slogans and jingles. And then just when I think he HAS told me something that he stands for, he reverses his position. I am sick of it.

    He spent too much of his time in the primaries dazzling the digikids with empty phrases while we over sixties felt like we were being talked down to. It wasn't just me either. I heard this over and over again from my friends.

    With Obama it is all strategy first. What will win him the election. Everything else gets thrown under the bus. Well guess what... there are a hell of a lot of us under here and we have a say about what we're going to do or not do with it.

    Parent

    Never criticize Obama (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:02:44 AM EST
    of course.  Don't blog about Obama, don't discuss him with acquaintances, don't write any letters to the editor and most of all, never, ever contact his campaign nor your own reps to let them know of any dissatisfaction with Obama's positions.  You nominated him, it's your done deal, now the rest of us need to sit down (as Lambert puts it...) shut up and give him more money.  We sure don't want the rest of the country to know that they can expect nothing from a Pres Obama.   shhhhhh, don't tell....

    Parent
    This is a real stretch (none / 0) (#53)
    by TChris on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:57:09 AM EST
    To be fair, Obama's Second Amendment position is about the same as TalkLeft's, he's proposing to strengthen the separation of church and state that was weakened during the Bush Administration, and the linked article about abortion reinforces that the anti-abortion crowd disagrees with his firm belief in the right to an abortion subject to greater regulation in the third trimester which is exactly the holding of Roe v. Wade.  On the 4th and 8th, I agree he's a disappointment, but let's not get carried away.  He isn't trying to gut the Bill of Rights.

    How you can find comfort (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:16:30 AM EST
    in Obama's comments on abortion, and doing so with evidence from the anti-abortion "crowd," is the stretch.

    Parent
    Obama supports Roe v. Wade (none / 0) (#87)
    by TChris on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:49:14 AM EST
    I find comfort in Obama's position on abortion, which is stated in the linked article and which is wholly consistent with Roe v. Wade.  The fact that opponents of abortion disagree with Obama's position seems like a good thing.

    Parent
    Thanks, TChris (none / 0) (#97)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:47:26 AM EST
    What you write is what my sense of Obama's positions are with all the events of the past couple of weeks.

    You delineated the distinctions clearly.

    Parent

    Roberts, etc. (none / 0) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:15:20 AM EST
    " ...while mumbling about appointing judges who rule based on their "own perspectives,"

    The argument that voting for Obama will insure proper court nominations is a lame "hope."

    Once again, the Roberts confirmation is the Rosetta Stone to Obama.

    I'm curious. (none / 0) (#93)
    by TChris on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:13:54 AM EST
    What is it about Obama's position on Roberts or his vote with which you disagree?

    Parent
    It's not the vote, (none / 0) (#111)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:02:13 PM EST
    it's the way he determined his vote.

    Obama, as you're probably aware, was set to vote to confirm Roberts until his top aide, Pete Rouse, spoke up.  Rouse told him that there could be future political problems FOR Obama if he voted to confirm. Rouse's remark 'This was no Harvard moot-court exercise.' was telling.  It was Obama the sophomoric elitist, who wanted to confirm Roberts because he, Obama, was impressed with Roberts' intellect. There was no thought given to the effect on the nation of a man of Roberts' philosophy sitting on the court.

    Obama was effusive in his praise of Rouse; "Pete's very good at looking around the corners of decisions and playing out the implications of them, he's been around long enough that he can recognize problems and pitfalls a lot quicker than others can."

    Funny how Obama was unable to see what even a modestly informed citizen would deem fundamental. Experience has nothing to do with any of this.

    To shorten a very long story; in Obama there appears to a fundamental disconnect between action and effect.

    The Roberts confirmation episode makes every Obama gaffe and much of the content of Obama's campaign understandable.

    Parent

    Center? the debate is 15 degrees (none / 0) (#92)
    by seabos84 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    off of FAR RIGHT.

    think of a protractor -
    0 degrees is ALL the way Right
    180 degrees is all the way left.

    the country is 15 or 20 degrees off of FAR RIGHT, and obama is playing on THEIR side!

    WTF is center about that?

    IF the incompetent / sell out Dems had 1/2 of the message of the fascists, we'd have policies backed by the public at 110 or 130 degrees off of far right.

    While it is extremely disappointing to see barack walk in the footsteps of the sell outs in the DLC & Blue Dogs, I'm not surprised he's trodding the 'path' blazed by the Clintons, DiFis, McAulliffes ...

    ugh.

    rmm.  

    Obama's Constitutional Shift: 1st, 2nd, 4th and 8th Amendments | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment