Jump to content

U.S. Politics part X


EHK for Darwin

Recommended Posts

I would assume that a SCOTUS nomination is about as big-ticket as it gets.

Let's see Obama has:

  • Extended and defended warrantless surveillance of American citizens
  • Not shut down GitMo
  • Extended indefinite retention without trial
  • Extended and defended Bush era secrecy policies
  • Discarded single-payer health insurance
  • Nominated a centrist jurist for the Supreme Court
  • Expanded military commitment and budget
  • Given money hand-over-fist to Wall Street without any oversight
  • Appointed conservative Republicans to many important posts.

.

I assure you, as a rigorously liberal voter, I'm extremely annoyed. Obama was always a status quo center politician, but c'mon - with a mandate like he got, he could have done SOMETHING for the left, right?

With a strong majority, he's still courting the opposition as if he were in a slight majority or even minority. Ironically, Bush took his narrow margin of victory as a "mandate" and proceeded to act accordingly - if only the two were reversed!

I'm pretty ticked off, and not seeing a big difference between Bush and Obama. Except that maybe Obama is more popular abroad.

C'mon Mr. President. Start acting like a Democrat. Oh wait - by constantly caving to the Republicans, you ARE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can those of you who are saying Sotomayor is a "centrist" please explain to me why you are labeling her that way?

I don't claim to have been keeping up with comments on Obama's possible Supreme Court picks in any detail, but I really have not heard her described as a "centrist" on any of the few TV news shows I've seen. Just this morning, she was definitely said to be the most liberal and probably the most controversial of the four people still supposedly on the "short list" (Napolitano, Kagan, and Wood being the other three.)

What rulings has she made that qualify her as a "centrist" instead of a "liberal"? And who would you have wanted to see appointed who would be more "liberal" than Sotomayor is?

P.S. Maybe replies to this should be in the separate Supreme Court thread -- most of the posters over there certainly don't seem to be calling her"centrist".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assume that a SCOTUS nomination is about as big-ticket as it gets.

Sure it is, but he obviously also has a big ticket legislative agenda. I imagine she looks like a reasonable replacement for Souter (evidently she arguably more liberal), without (hopefully) having to spend a lot of political capital trying to ram someone else through at a time he has other big fights pending this year like healthcare, Gitmo, climate and so on. YMMV on his priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just in. California's Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8. There's a link to the story here.

I guess this means there's going to be a concerted effort to get it overturned in 2010?

I hope so. Although I think that California is foolish to allow 50.1% of the population to amend their founding document, but if those are the rules of the game it's time for the liberals to show that we can play, too. Put that question on the ballot in 2010, and 2012, and 2014, and keep hammering that fucker until Californians get so tired of hearing from us they remove referenda or else drop their opposition to same sex marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why though. I think Gates is money. I felt like Obama kept him on only because it made so much sense, not because he wanted to appoint a token conservative.

Seriously. I know he's not solely responsible for the improvement in Iraq, but I do know things were a total clusterfuck before he took over. I also like his proposed reallocation of DoD spending, which makes a lot of sense considering the kind of conflicts we'll be in the forseeable future. He seems like a pretty good example of non-partisan professionalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope so. Although I think that California is foolish to allow 50.1% of the population to amend their founding document, but if those are the rules of the game it's time for the liberals to show that we can play, too. Put that question on the ballot in 2010, and 2012, and 2014, and keep hammering that fucker until Californians get so tired of hearing from us they remove referenda or else drop their opposition to same sex marriage.

I have a few friends in the California political community, and it's pretty clear that the No on Prop 8 campaign was grossly mismanaged this time around. Very little minority outreach, a weak ground game, poor messaging, etc., etc. The 50.1% method ensures that controversial issues will be decided on the basis of financial and organizational muscle, and the "family values" crowd had it in spades this time around - it certainly didn't help that some of so much of the Democratic field presence was channeled towards Obama's election in states like Nevada and Oregon (which were barely competitive), but hindsight is 50/50 and it's time to look ahead.

In that context, then, a Newsome primary victory would be beneficial to marriage-equality advocates. Since I have not been impressed with Poizner or California's charming collection of failed female CEOs-turned-McCain surrogates, the prospect of a Democratic gubernatorial candidate coasting to victory while NOT ducking gay marriage is encouraging. I'm not sure where marriage-equality forces are in terms of securing ballot status for a repeal in 2010 (or the legality of it), but you have to like its chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to be fair, it was the Dem-controlled Congress that put the kibosh on closing Gitmo. Obama wanted to, but they refused to fund it.

I understand it was the Congress. But for a Democratic President to get backed down by his own party on a pledge he made on day one of his presidency is pretty telling. I'm very displeased with the President's decisions, for the most part, and see him acting in a way more consistent with his recent predecessor's policies than anything else.

Also I'm very grumpy today about Prop 8 (and the knuckleheads who support it with open bigotry, especially.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dammit, people, it's Newsom. Not Newsome. :tantrum: (Tris.........you keep doing this.)

I hope so. Although I think that California is foolish to allow 50.1% of the population to amend their founding document, but if those are the rules of the game it's time for the liberals to show that we can play, too. Put that question on the ballot in 2010, and 2012, and 2014, and keep hammering that fucker until Californians get so tired of hearing from us they remove referenda or else drop their opposition to same sex marriage.

Referendum != Initiative. Although I think after the latest budget debacle, we're sick of referenda as well, but those are arguably less shitty because at least actual lawmakers think those out before submitting them before the voters, so they're sometimes actually thought out instead of idiotic knee-jerk, sometimes illegal new laws. But yes. I'm going downtown now and seeking out people who are looking for signatures, because I can't wait to get this back on the ballot.

*sigh*

I'm sick of direct democracy. Are there any states without an Initiative process (that don't suck a lot), and how soon can I move there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gates seems like a sensible guy and always has. I applauded Bush for appointing him and I applauded Obama for keeping him. Obama also tried to appoint Judd Gregg, but Gregg backed out, and after seeing what an asshole he is I'm just as glad.

It's way, way too early to know what to think about Sotomayor. I don't want the left's version of Scalia, but I would like the left's version of Roberts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Scalia is a genius. I mean, say what you like about his personality and his viewpoints, but his reasoning, while often tortuous, is tight.

Are we talking about the same Scalia? I mean, the guy on the Supreme Court? It sounds like you're talking about some other Scalia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see Obama has:

  • [*]Extended and defended warrantless surveillance of American citizens
  • Not shut down GitMo
  • Extended indefinite retention without trial
  • Extended and defended Bush era secrecy policies
  • Discarded single-payer health insurance
  • Nominated a centrist jurist for the Supreme Court
  • Expanded military commitment and budget
  • Given money hand-over-fist to Wall Street without any oversight

.

The bolded are not true. Shame on you for lying.

Expanding the military was a great idea. It creates jobs and brings the country together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bolded are not true. Shame on you for lying.

Expanding the military was a great idea. It creates jobs and brings the country together.

Maybe you need to check your facts? I'm certainly not lying, and can't imagine why I'd be ashamed to be disappointed in the failure of President Obama to keep many - nearly all - of the promises on which he campaigned.

Edit to add: I really don't like being called a liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it sure seems like single-payer health care has been taken off the table. The most progressive health care reform that anyone seems to think may happen at this point is the introduction of a government plan that competes with already existing insurance companies.

Honestly, I never thought single payer was seriously on the table from what I recall reading. I thought it was going to be the latter from the campaign onwards. I remember folks talking about it in here (myself included) not as a final solution, but as a step in that direction. *shrugs*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I never thought single payer was seriously on the table from what I recall reading. I thought it was going to be the latter from the campaign onwards. I remember folks talking about it in here (myself included) not as a final solution, but as a step in that direction. *shrugs*

In recent speeches, President Obama has gone from his original point of view - that a serious and working overhaul of the healthcare system called for single-payer insurance; to saying that a tweaking of the existing system is called for, and nothing "drastic". But with whom is he compromising?

It's infuriating! Earlier this year a 35 year old friend of mine *DIED* of a known and treatable heart condition. It was easily dealt with by medication, but because he had two part-time jobs, he didn't qualify for healthcare in either. So he died. Dead. Totally preventable. I want single-payer health insurance, at the least for every American citizen, and I want it last year so my friend didn't die.

Now call me a liar again, and damn your eyes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...