home

Mighty Morphin . . .

Via Lambert and Kevin Drum, imagine this being written at some progressive blogs:

President Barack Obama is morphing into George W. Bush, as administration attorneys repeatedly adopt the executive-authority and national-security rationales that their Republican predecessors preferred.

In courtroom battles and freedom-of-information fights from Washington, D.C., to California, Obama's legal arguments repeatedly mirror Bush's: White House turf is to be protected, secrets must be retained and dire warnings are wielded as weapons.

The DFHs at McClatchey, once the progressives' favorite news syndicate service.

Speaking for me only

< Blagojevich's Former Top Fundraiser Gets 37 Months | Watch Those Bagels: U.S. Insists Poppy Seeds Are Narcotics >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    If he continues to speak the (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:35:16 PM EST
    English language correctly, he will not be George Bush.

    Is that difference enough to to qualify if the policies remain the same?

    Speaking only for me. No way.

    As I recall (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:54:31 PM EST
    Bush did not use a teleprompter to announce job nominations.  Who knows what Obama would be like without a teleprompter.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 03:54:34 PM EST
    Maureen Dowd believes the public thinks he's decisive, certitudious, after that fly swatting incident:

    The moment may have resonated so much because some Americans fear that President Obama is too prone to negotiation, comity and splitting the difference, that he could have been tougher on avaricious banks and vicious Iranian dictators.

    Yes, she really said that.  I wouldn't <flyfood> you, you're my favorite <flyfoodinadifferentform>.

    Certitude, even if it's Bushian...it's a good thing.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 03:55:59 PM EST
    she really said that in reference to the fly swatting. She did, she really did.

    Parent
    that woman is so insanely stupid (none / 0) (#37)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 03:57:54 PM EST
    she is Peggy Noonan with red hair.  In fact I think I prefer PN.  At least she seems to be a nice person, evern if she writes AND in bodice ripping prose.

    Parent
    What is it called ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 07:32:47 PM EST
    when you go beyond self-satire?

    Parent
    Jumping the shark (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 07:44:51 PM EST
    or maybe in Maureen's case we can change it to 'swatting the fly'.

    That truly may be the stupidest thing she has ever said.

    Parent

    Today is sort of blowing me away (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:37:17 PM EST
    Could it be that the left flank is remembering something other than standing down?  Do we finally have enough dry powder?  Will I get to become something other than a shrill biotcher?

    P.S. Have you been watching the Power Rangers lately?

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    Just thought it made for a catchy title.

    Parent
    And I initially misread it as (none / 0) (#7)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:49:46 PM EST
    Mighty MORPHINE - coming as it does right after Jeralyn's Poppy-Seeds-Are-Narcotics post...  ;-)

    Parent
    I wanna be sedated (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:51:46 PM EST
    I had to live with a pink Power Ranger (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:55:40 PM EST
    too long to misread :)

    Parent
    On NPR (none / 0) (#2)
    by eric on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:39:51 PM EST
    recently there was a commentator who suggested that there is a sort of continuity or momentum in the Justice department that keeps it from shifting the government's position too quickly. It was suggested that the government can't just do a 180 and concede something that it has been fighting in court for years.

    I don't know if I buy it, though.

    I do not buy it one bit (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:40:21 PM EST
    CHANGE, my friend, has a definition.

    Parent
    It sure does (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:53:03 PM EST
    Everyone gets to believe that CHANGE means whatever anyone wants it to mean.  It is just the same old being all things to all people gig.  Sooner or much sooner reality sets in.

    After all the problem is not in the promise of CHANGE, but rather the listener's unreasonable expectation that it applied in any particular instance.

    Parent

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:54:23 PM EST
    I agree with your comment.

    Parent
    There's no mystery (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 06:30:09 PM EST
    Remember? We didn't want "experience," we wanted "change."

    So, a brilliant politician, schooled in the sleaze-pit of Chicago's "government" engineered a political con job that will be taught, with jaw-dropping amazement, in Universities for generations to come. David Ward's, "The Sting," was a "B" grade mediocrity compared to what Barack Hussein Obama pulled off. And he did it in broad daylight, right out in the open. His hubris, testosterone on steroids, was such that he didn't leave dots to connect; he left bowling balls.

    For me, the moment that captured the delusional pixie-dust that was Obama's "resume" came when Sean Hannity, speaking to an audience of deranged Obama boot lickers, known at the time as "the youth movement," asked the question, "can anyone here name one thing that Obama has accomplished?" I believe the silence that followed broke all records for pregnant pauses, and should have been the moment that thinking people began wiping the sh$t from their eyes, and started taking the election seriously. Unfortunately, by then, too many "serious players," Ted Kennedy, Claire McCaskill, Bill Richardson, et al, had gone "all in" and so, the delusion had to be played out to it's tragic conclusion.

    From "winning" his race to the Illinois Statehouse by having his three opponents disqualified, to engineering a blood libel "racist" tag against true civil rights warriors, Obama was a fraud. We fluffed off bald-faced lies regarding his politically expedient relationships with Rev. Wright, Tony Resko, Wm Ayers, and his cynical manipulation of the entire A.A. Community. Does anyone remember even a single testimonial from a Chicago A.A. (or any) constituent regarding some noteworthy accomplishment which improved anyone's life?

    What I do remember was a massive multi-part investigation by the Boston Globe, spelling out in lurid detail how the "street organizer" organized a half billion dollars worth of Federal dollars, and doled them out to his financial supporters. Instead of building the "low cost, affordable housing" the loans were supposed to provide, Obama's coterie of dirt-bags threw up decrepit, instant slums instead. After being declared uninhabitable by the city, most have been razed to the ground. Interviewed later, one old, poor (now homeless) black resident said, "Thank you, Obama; at least the slum I lived in had a roof."

    From being the only President of the Harvard Law Review, in its 140 year history, to have never written a paper, to being Chairman of a Senate Sub-Committee and never holding a meeting, he screamed out his incompetence, and disinterest. And, I guess it never dawned on anyone, to question what form of metastasized ego feels compelled, at age 30 something, having accomplished nothing of note, to publish not one, but two autobiographies.

    So, here he is now, our President; clueless, lost, as unprepared as a grunt on his first day at boot camp. What is he supposed to do? He never gave it a thought. So doing what he's doing, changing nothing, panicked into frozen status quo, but giving the illusion of frenetic activity, is all he can do.

    What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall of Bill and Hillary's study late at night as they look into each other's eyes; no words necessary, the eyes would say it all.

    Parent

    Tell us how you really feel (none / 0) (#48)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 06:52:53 PM EST
    :-)

    Parent
    Come on - be fair (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 07:25:36 PM EST
    You need experience to run the cash register at Wendy's - you don't need experience to hold the most important job in this country, if not the world if you have enough charisma and hope!  That's what we were told!

    Parent
    The poppy seeds are outlawed (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 07:29:11 PM EST
    because we have the hopium now!

    Parent
    Having read that (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:21:22 AM EST
    I now feel completely naked.

    Parent
    Now you tell me... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:31:34 PM EST
    I should have used that line when I was younger....

    The best I could do was, "hi, what's your sign?"

    lol

    Parent

    I take that back (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by eric on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:40:51 PM EST
    I KNOW I don't buy it.

    Parent
    They're wrong (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:46:33 PM EST
    See Microsoft Antitrust Lawsuit and the difference in behavior between the Clinton DOJ and the Bush DOJ.

    Parent
    Good point (none / 0) (#9)
    by eric on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:52:15 PM EST
    I don't buy it either (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:54:12 PM EST
    Was it the tobacco lawsuits that GWB immediately stopped and actually settled for a number much less than what had already been negotiated?

    Anything that does not deal with executive power seems to be pretty easy for them to give up.

    Parent

    He may be mirroring Bush (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:52:31 PM EST
    but he's also, with his national security, executive priviledge arguments mirroring just about every President since Give-'Em-Cold War B.S Harry kicked off the national security state sixty years ago.

    And any extensive public disclosures that threaten to undermine the prerogatives and interests of the MIC STILL will be resisted and deflected at every turn.

    nah (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 03:30:57 PM EST
    Clinton did not claim "national security" every two days, nor was he nearly as free with exectutive orders as bush.  There is a difference between the behavior of repug Presidents and democratic president, and Obama is acting more like the republican variety at the moment.
    There are people who call Obama DubyaII and unfortunately I am one of them.
     ps...for anyone reading this comment, Obama hasn't morphed at all, it is just that some folks hopium is wearing off.

    Parent
    Thanks for yet another (2.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 05:57:25 PM EST
    installment of romantic Clinton revisionism -- and be sure to let us all know when Hill starts talking about resigning her position in protest.

    Parent
    Ummm...Hil and Bill are (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 06:28:50 PM EST
    actually two different people who might actually have (gasp) two different views on a given subject, some worth resigning in protest over...some not.

    Parent
    But ALL worth (2.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 06:34:44 PM EST
    glossing over in the interest of getting a prestigious position with an administration that you radically differ with.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 06:43:39 PM EST
    They weren't that different on foreign policy, and in any case, there are two ways to effect change: from without and from within.  She chose to work within the administration.  So what?

    Parent
    I'm with you (none / 0) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 07:23:13 PM EST
    Hillary is a typical politician.  Pols are pols, they do what they do.  They are all about their power.

    Hillary would have been a good voice on the outside.  She chose to move into the inside, where she's conveniently stifled.

    Parent

    I'm not sure she's so stifled (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 09:13:20 PM EST
    In her interview with George Stephanopolous on "This Week" just a few Sundays ago, Hillary indicated that not only had she selected Holbrooke & Mitchell as Special Envoys, but she had suggested the roles to Obama before accepting the SoS post, as sorely needed given the large number of international hotspots the SoS would be expected to handle.

    Perhaps she disagrees with Obama on some aspects of domestic policy, for example, healthcare comes to mind, but domestic policy is not her domain.  I also think if she had remained in the Senate, anything she said that was even mildly critical of the Obama administration would have been dismissed as the whining and kvetching of a sore loser.  

    Parent

    Actually, Teresa, I think she's (none / 0) (#57)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 11:39:49 PM EST
    atypical.

    Yes.  Pols are pols and do what they do.  The issue is why they do what they do and why they want to be pols...

    The amswer is:  there are two kinds of people in politics...those who want to 'be somebody' and those who want to 'achieve something.'  Doesn't take long to cull the misfits and losers or to identify the achievers and the winners.  For people like the Clintons and the Obamas, I will judge them by what they did with the time they were given.  

    And, did they learn from their mistakes and keep moving forward, solving problems and making the world a better place?

    Parent

    Presidents Seek to Accrue Executive Power (none / 0) (#12)
    by Michael Masinter on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:53:17 PM EST
    As Jack Balkin predicted several times at Balkinization, then candidate Obama would, if elected, seek to retain executive powers that accreted during the Bush administration.  His argument was an institutional argument -- presidents of both the left and right seek to maximize, or at least retain extant executive power during their tenure in office, viewing the question as one of an institutional struggle with a competing branch rather than one of liberty versus tyranny.  I don't necessarily buy the argument, but it does tend to account for the tendency of executive power to accrue both under Presidents like GWB and FDR, and the fairly steady decline in congressional power through most of our national history.

    The phenomenon has alot (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:59:55 PM EST
    of historical precedents.

    Gore Vidal dealt with it masterfully in his treatment of Jefferson's executive-power-accruing tendencies in Burr.

    Parent

    Fact or fiction? Quite the mix (none / 0) (#58)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 11:54:08 PM EST
    in Vidal's historical novel "Burr."  His treatment of the founding fathers shocked us more than Nixon's Watergate...and especially his treatment of Thomas Jefferson.

    Jefferson worshippers should read Vidal.

    Parent

    No president since Geo Washington (none / 0) (#18)
    by tokin librul on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:15:12 PM EST
    has voluntarily relinquished powers to the Congress and the People that he (so far) had arrogated to the Executive for thepurpose of meeting some specific emergency.

    Somehow it always seems that powers used for one purpose are extremely useful in ways that weren't immediately anticipated.

    That said, Obama did say, repeatedly, during the campaign, that he was going to give us back our Constitution. And I don't see any evidence that that is still  his intention...

    Parent

    Carter, in the original FISA (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 06:11:09 PM EST
    After winning Presidential wiretap prerogatives in Truong, went to the Congress for some limitations. The law actually passed had slightly greater restraints than the Carter Justice Dept. draft, largely thanks to my then Cong. Bob Kastenmeier's amendments tacked on in House Judiciary.

    Parent
    Yer right. (none / 0) (#63)
    by tokin librul on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:08:24 AM EST
    Jimmuh was a good president, and is probably the best ex-president we ever had...

    Parent
    Another former DFH favorite, Joe Galloway... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Romberry on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:12:58 PM EST
    ...has also started calling it plainly (which is what Joe Galloway is pretty much noted for) where Obama is concerned.  Check his last column for McClatchy:

    Obama's promise of a new beginning now hollow

    Who stole our change?

    Who hijacked a popular uprising that was going to put a stop to business as usual in Washington, D.C.?

    ...

    (Obama) can still talk the talk and he does that incessantly. But he seemingly can't walk the walk. He may still sound like a revolutionary but more and more he looks and acts like George W. Bush, albeit a George W. Bush who can speak a complete sentence in the English language.


    Much more at the link.

    yup (4.00 / 1) (#29)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 03:33:35 PM EST
    he can talk in complete sentences with TOTUS, but without..uh uh uh uh.... not exactly erudite.

    Parent
    Obama morphs into Bush (none / 0) (#21)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:53:37 PM EST
    at his own political risk.

    Those of us who voted for change are in no way obligated to again vote for the President should he, as all too often now appears the case, fail to deliver.

    But as he told Hillary supporters like me (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:55:18 PM EST
    ...where ya gonna go?

    Parent
    Netroots raised a lot of money, can (will) do so (none / 0) (#24)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:58:55 PM EST
    again, if need be, for a primary challenger.

    Money.  It's the only language pols understand.

    Parent

    The Democratic Party (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 03:11:43 PM EST
    will not run a primary challenger against the sitting president.  That is a sure loser in the general.  See Jimmy Carter/Teddy Kennedy.

    The netroots have no clout at this level.  They were used and abused by Obama last time, and will be again.

    Parent

    The Democratic Party (none / 0) (#26)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 03:11:52 PM EST
    will not run a primary challenger against the sitting president.  That is a sure loser in the general.  See Jimmy Carter/Teddy Kennedy.

    The netroots have no clout at this level.  They were used and abused by Obama last time, and will be again.

    Parent

    But even a sure-to-lose ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 07:37:30 PM EST
    primary challenger can be used to send a message.

    And, who knows, sure-to-lose primary challengers do occasionally win.

    As recent history has proven.

    Parent

    If the recent history you're talking about (none / 0) (#59)
    by Spamlet on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:35:05 AM EST
    is Obama's nomination and election, recall that there was not a sitting president of either party up for re-election.

    No Democrat is going to primary Obama. Ever since the 1980 primary season, that has been against Teh Roolz.

    Parent

    Heheh (none / 0) (#30)
    by lilburro on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 03:34:28 PM EST
    I seem to remember during 2008 a lot of horrified shrieking that Hillary would do just that.

    (Also no way the netroots will dislodge Obama)

    Parent

    I would have no problem (none / 0) (#31)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 03:36:05 PM EST
    voting for a moderate republican woman who is or is not pro-choice, but either way is not out to change abortion law.  If the republicans run someone like that I hope women will stop acting like the the subservient women's auxilary of the democratic party and vote for the woman.

    Parent
    but Olympia Snowe (none / 0) (#32)
    by lilburro on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 03:43:35 PM EST
    is already President...

    Parent
    then she has the wrong private parts (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 03:55:51 PM EST
    Reading around this morning (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:32:18 AM EST
    doesn't bring with it much hope for brighter days in the near future either.  The Repubs completely destroyed themselves as an opposition party at this time in history.  We get to choose from worse or worser.  Obama has become a big scumbo and his competition can't even lay a finger on the daily reality of the lives of Americans right now so I don't know how they'd ever get "in touch".  Our political incompetency and able competition seems to match our economic and market incompetency and able competition.

    Parent
    Drum's link, June 21 (none / 0) (#27)
    by lambert on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 03:21:10 PM EST
    Corrente's link, June 20.

    If you want to keep up with the DFHs, you've got to read the C list blogs. Just sayin ;-)

    And +1000 on McClatchy, whose motto is "Speaking truth to power." What a concept! Hardly "progressive," of course, since it's tilting at windmills, but inspiring nonetheless.

    Meme is Catching On (none / 0) (#33)
    by The Maven on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 03:49:01 PM EST
    Yesterday over at The Big Picture (Barry Ritholtz's economics blog), President Obama was given a new, "honorary" middle initial for his continuation of far too many of Bush's economic/fiscal policies, particularly the weak-tea revised regulatory framework announced last week.  The reference can be found at the end of this post.  Most folks can presumably guess what it is without clicking through the link.

    Cut the Pres. some slack (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 05:05:20 PM EST
    Won't you?  According to today's Int. Herald Tribune the White House debated for one week the proper language for the latest Obama pronouncement re Iran.

    Forgive me please (none / 0) (#39)
    by glennmcgahee on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 05:15:52 PM EST
    What is DHF?

    D!rty F^cking Hippie, iirc (none / 0) (#44)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 06:30:52 PM EST
    Bush expanded the powers of the Presidency. (none / 0) (#46)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 06:39:42 PM EST
    It seems Obama doesn't want a retreat on this front.

    Lord God a'mighty, (none / 0) (#55)
    by wagnert in atlanta on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 08:59:25 PM EST
    this Neanderthal conservative has never seen anyone called more names in less space ever before!  Have you forgotten that this was your winning candidate?

    We are a pathetic bunch around here (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:37:45 AM EST
    eyeballing actions and achievement over loyalty.  Perhaps if Conservative supporters did a bit more of that the whole Conservative party wouldn't be imploding in on itself daily.  Maybe you guys could all ask yourselves some serious questions everyday about whether or not you were all being a big bunch of family values hypocrites or free market hypocrites.  Oh never mind, I'm always going off on tangents every 28 days or so.

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:11:02 AM EST
    there was no actual name calling by anybody there.

    But that is the strange reality for some - if it is not unadulterated hero worship it must be name calling.

    Pretty funny really.


    Parent

    No name calling? (2.00 / 1) (#66)
    by wagnert in atlanta on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:51:12 PM EST
    NYShooter on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 06:30:09 PM EST
    TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 03:30:57 PM EST
    tokin librul on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:15:12 PM EST
    Romberry on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:12:58 PM EST
    BobTinKY on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:53:37 PM EST
    Militarytracy on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:32:18 AM EST

    ...unless "just like Bush" is a term of endearment among liberals?

    Parent

    You have my comment listed... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Romberry on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 03:53:57 PM EST
    ...under your "name calling" thing but my comment is essentially two sentences from a column by Joe Galloway and a link to the source. Where'e the name calling? (Pretend I'm from Missouri and show me.)

    Parent