So, it turns out Obama is worse than Bush

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The reason you don't create policies like this is because they're hard to reverse.

I am another who cannot equate Obama with Bush, but is there evidence that Obama has made ANY effort to reverse those policies?

At this point, I've given up on reversing Bush's policies. I'd settle for not making them worse. But, Bush didn't take it upon himself to kill US citizens. Bush didn't attempt to remove American's Miranda rights. Bush was not the one who appealed the court decision that would treat prisoners at Bagram the same as those at Gitmo, leading to today's decision reversing that ruling. It would be bad enough if Obama was simply continuing Bush's policies. But, over and over again, he is going further than Bush and getting away with it because so many people are willing to make excuses for him.

[Anonymous]

I rarely agree with you, but Amen brother. Funny when the twain meet!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey, look. Does the reduction of civil liberties suck? Yes. But let's not favorably compare the guy who let the barn door open and all the horses out with the guy who comes back later and hasn't put them all back in the barn.

The reason you don't create policies like this is because they're hard to reverse.

Bush, to me, had the excuse of immediacy, necessity, and war footing (America was UNDER attack--still is, but we have a much better grasp now of from where/by whom). Obama, in all those years that he was AGAINST the Bush policies was presumably formulating some alternatives? THIS IS IT? Seems like it was easier to sit back for a DECADE and toss rocks without actually thinking, well, what would I do?

[Anonymous]

I'd love to see anyone second-guessing Obama do any better. It's easier to campaign - or sit on an anonymous board spewing what you'd do- than it is to govern. Obama is living that reality.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to see anyone second-guessing Obama do any better. It's easier to campaign - or sit on an anonymous board spewing what you'd do- than it is to govern. Obama is living that reality.

That is a very totalitarian mindset. Essentially, you are saying that it is impossible to criticize Obama and/or campaign for better policies. If Obama is doing it, it is not to be questioned.

Here is my reality. In my reality, Obama does not have to kill American citizens. In my reality, Obama does not have to destroy Miranda rights. In my reality, Obama can live up to his own words of criticism for the lack of Habeus Corpus for detainees. Can you explain what is different about Obama's reality which causes the opposite of these things to be true?

[Anonymous]

I semi-agree with 21:41 that a president deserves a bit of slack to deal with situations about which we have much less information. On the other hand the whole idea of representative democracy requires that voters judge their leaders and makes the leaders responsible for some level of justification. "Just have faith in me" is not a very convincing argument, especially when we are talking of stretching or tearing the Constitution..

[Anonymous]

As a leftist, I was under no illusions when I voted for Obama. Politicians usually don't do everything they say they're going to do. I've lived through too many years of promises from Democrats that go unfulfilled to have fallen for his line now. Additionally there has been some balderdash floating around that Obama has gone back on promises when he decided to increase troop strength in Afghanistan. But that's what he said he was going to do when he campaigned! He is not an anti-war president, people!!!

That's why I find it so amusing that some right-wingers 1) keep going on as if he is some dangerous Marxist Muslim radical and then 2) act all self-satisfied when Obama disappoints his liberal supporters. You guys (speaking to those few who think this way -- not all conservatives) are worried he's going to make this country the Soviet Socialist Republic of America but then it gives you such glee every time he turns out to be not as left wing as you had feared because you can rub it in the liberals' faces.

1) I knew he was going to turn out like this and a bunch of us did so we don't really care. It doesn't matter who is in office, one always has to fight for human rights and justice; 2) If Obama is not as left wing as you had feared why don't you just enjoy that fact, take a deep breath, and stop screaming that the country is plunging towards socialism?

Sorry, I know I'm veering off where the thread was -- just felt like shooting off my mouth today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to see anyone second-guessing Obama do any better. It's easier to campaign - or sit on an anonymous board spewing what you'd do- than it is to govern. Obama is living that reality.

UM except that he sat around for ten years spewing what he would do. Kind of egg on the face now, no? And I think my two year old could do better than Holder--sheesh --he is the Rumsfeld (ie embarrassment) of this administration. Time to cut him loose.

[jsteele]

The last real news show in America, The Daily Show, has also noticed how Obama has turned into Bush on civil rights. See John Stewart's take here:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

(unfortunately, I can't embed this clip here).

The clip is appropriately titled, "Respect My Authoritah".

My wife grew up in the Soviet Union and tells me how the media only reported the official line, which nobody believed. The truth was only spoken by comedians who could get away with it under the guise that they were only joking. Interesting that a similar phenomenon is happening in America.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:... See John Stewart's take ...

Stewart is a national treasure, so shape up and get his name right, Jeff, it's Jon Stewart.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:... See John Stewart's take ...

Stewart is a national treasure, so shape up and get his name right, Jeff, it's Jon Stewart.

Dude, you have had plenty of time to figure out that I can't spell.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:... See John Stewart's take ...

Stewart is a national treasure, so shape up and get his name right, Jeff, it's Jon Stewart.

Dude, you have had plenty of time to figure out that I can't spell.

You know it and I know it, but do they know that they should get the 'h' out of the John?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:... See John Stewart's take ...

Stewart is a national treasure, so shape up and get his name right, Jeff, it's Jon Stewart.

Dude, you have had plenty of time to figure out that I can't spell.

You know it and I know it, but do they know that they should get the 'h' out of the John?

Well, then where should the "h" go?

[Anonymous]

Jeff, I think this issue is actually more difficult than you make it sound. To take a hypothetical -- assume an American citizen defected to Germany in 1942 and took up arms against the U.S. I assume you'd agree he would be a valid military target for the U.S. to the same extent as any other German soldier, right? The U.S. would not have to make efforts to capture him and try him for treason. The same would be true if a U.S. citizen joined the Viet Cong during the Vietnam war, to use an example of a less traditional military conflict. While terrorist activities are not exactly the same situation, I think it is not that different, and this is a particularly difficult case. This is coming from a confirmed Obama hater -- I guess if you are being principled and criticizing him from the left, I can defend him from the right. lol.