Gun to head - Obama or Romney?

[cybrsage]

Did obama eat your children?

No...Obama ate his dog.

 

[Rainsford]

I would take Obama for sure over Romney. While Obama has made far too many compromises imo (and yet is still called a Communist/socialist/etc),...

I feel the same way about Obama, actually. If there was a reason I wouldn't vote for him, it would be because I feel he rolled over on too many liberal issues and isn't doing enough to stand up for the beliefs he ran on. Since the alternative is Romney though, that's really not enough to get me to switch sides And the more things he does like come out in favor of gay marriage, the more likely I'll be more enthusiastic about voting Obama in November.

Still, I really have to laugh at all the "most liberal", "socialist", "Communist", etc labels some Republicans try to tag Obama with. Really, guys? Are we talking about the same guy here? You sure you're not confusing him with Jim Obama or something?

 

[nehalem256]

A "gun to the head" is exactly what it would take to get me to vote for the GOP. Mitten's pandering and flip flops could make John McCain blush. He represents what we know doesn't work. No thanks.
.

Because Obama doesnt flip flop or pander at all :\

Oh wait, when Obama does it, it is cause for celebration...see his stance on gay marriage.

 

[sportage]

Actually I'd consider Mitt. I'd give him a chance if he didn't pander to every group he speaks in front of, wasn't against SS marriage (as if he really gives a crap in the first place, which I know for a fact he doesn't), and if Mitt didn't believe we need more of the GW Bush era fiasco to solve our problems.
Why anyone would believe more of GW Bush is what we need totally mystifies me.
Either Romney is actually a really really bad CEO at heart, or Mitt is the master of all pandering.
There is a screw loose somewhere up there in that guys head....

I still believe the true issue here is not what democrats think of Mitt, but republicans wondering if they can really trust this guy?
People just don't have some 180 degree change of heart about life unless they were:
#1. Abducted by aliens and anal probed.
#2. Cloned and re programmed.
#3. Family held hostage and threatened with death until victim cooperates.
#4. Hit in the head by a hard and very large hammer (several times).
#5. The con man of all con men ever to walk the earth.

Otherwise, people just don't do a 180 like Mitt has done.
Something is just not right with this guy...... Severely not right...!

 

[sportage]

Because Obama doesnt flip flop or pander at all :\

Oh wait, when Obama does it, it is cause for celebration...see his stance on gay marriage.

Sorry... but nice try.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sorry... but nice try.

Try this

He was against it before he was for it, or was he?

On the last day of 2011, President Obama signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which mandates that all accused terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned in military rather than in the civilian court system. But most alarmingly, the measure also empowers the current, and all future presidents, to indefinitely imprison U.S. citizens and non-citizens suspected of engaging in terrorism, without charge or trial.

As he signed the bill, President Obama issued a signing statement saying that he had "serious reservations" about the indefinite imprisonment provisions. But the statement only applies to how Obama would apply the law, and will not be binding on his successors in the White House. But Michigan Democratic Sen. Carl Levin disclosed that the White House had objected to earlier efforts to insert language in the bill that would have specifically exempted U.S. citizens from the indefinite detention provision.

Ten years after the U.S. opened its prison for terrorist suspects at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval base in Cuba, other provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act will place obstacles in the way of closing the facility, which President Obama pledged to do within a year of taking office in 2009. Further, the measure effectively prevents the release of 89 men held in Guantanamo who have been unanimously cleared by all levels of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, who discusses his objections to the National Defense Authorization Act’s indefinite detention provisions and effective ways in which grassroots activism can overturn the law.

SHAHID BUTTAR: The detention provisions center on two sections of the bill, one of which requires military detention without trial in the event of accusation, and that section is walled off from applying to citizens. The other section allows military detention without trial, and that is not limited in the sense that it can apply to citizens. President Obama, to his credit, when signing the bill – which I absolutely oppose and think was a constitutional travesty, especially from a constitutional law professor – he did announce a signing statement. But it's a very limited help. He basically said in his signing statement that he in his administration, will not use the detention provisions with respect to U.S. citizens, but there's nothing to keep the next president from choosing otherwise.

And that's the danger with passing laws like this, to paraphrase the words of Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in a seminal case from the 1950s exploring the limits of executive power: "Executive power is like a loaded weapon lying around for some future president to find an excuse to use it or to come up with one." And the danger of signing into law a bill that entitles the government to deny Fifth Amendment rights to due process, Sixth Amendment rights to trial, to through that power infringe on First Amendment rights of speech and assembly and Eighth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. It is easily the worst thing that has happened to the Constitution in the last 10 years – and I say that including the Patriot Act. I do think this was substantially worse. And one of the worst things about it is that most Americans have never even heard about it, because there's been essentially a corporate media blackout with respect to these concerns.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Now, I've heard there's at least one U.S. senator that said he was ready to put in a provision that would take U.S. citizens out of indefinite detention provisions altogether, but the Obama administration rejected that option, giving you the impression that the White House is talking out of both sides of its mouth, saying in the signing statement they wouldn't apply it, but apparently, they didn't want to rule it out legally through putting some plank in the legislation that would have prohibited it.

SHAHID BUTTAR: Yeah, one of the problems with a secret process – and that's what led to this bill being passed – was an entirely secret process with not even a single congressional hearing. One of the problems of the secret process is that it gets really hard to pin the tail on the donkey. And so Sen. Carl Levin, D-New Mexico, chair of the Armed Forces Committee, who introduced the bill and is its principle proponent, he alleges without support – though there's no document on the public record to know who said this – he claims the administration did not want to go so far as to excluding citizens from the detention provisions. Now many members of Congress have actually attempted to assert that position. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif. have each taken that position, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. the chair of the Judiciary Committee, has taken that position. So you have the chairs of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees both backing the idea that citizens should not be subject to these powers. And they've backed a bill, the Due Process Treatment Act that's been introduced in the Senate, and the corresponding bill in the House. Neither of them will move with the same alacrity that the Defense Authorization Act did, however, because they are not "must pass" bills.

Again, the secrecy with which this process happened is maybe not as offensive as the subject matter of the bill, but they are both very offensive and they both present many reasons to be very concerned both for the future of the republic, but also to get down to what that means – essential liberty that has enabled a civil society of which our nation has long been proud and which has long inspired the rest of the world to follow our example.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Shahid, I imagine you and your staff at the Bill of Rights Defense Committee have been talking with other civil liberties groups around the country to figure out some strategy how to most effectively challenge and overturn these provisions that codify indefinite detention for Americans and non-American citizens. Where are things headed? Is this something that will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court, you think?

SHAHID BUTTAR: I don't think so. Actually there's a least three different tracks on which the challenges will proceed. There will be a litigation track, there will be a policy track, which is to say the bills in the Senate, the House and there will certainly be a lot of opportunities for people to voice their support to their congressional representatives to support those bills, to again make clear and change the law so that citizens are not subject to indefinite detention. And then third, there's a grassroots track. The key I think is always, in any policy area, is grassroots action. And it's important for people to raise their voices in through any channels available, whether that's shooting a YouTube video with your friends in a satire, posting that to get the word, or whether that's visiting your congressperson in their office when they're back in your district, whether that's writing an op-ed, or whether that's staging a protest.

One opportunity we'll be pushing a lot, is the opportunity to seek symbolic resolutions from city councils and state legislatures to keep the issue in the press and to generate a groundswell for a legislative fix to repeal the detention provisions of the NDAA. While Congress may be out to lunch and the executive branch may be off the rails, we the people of the United States are still sovereign. We have a lot of opportunities to raise our voice at the layers of government while we still have a voice.

There there's this little bit here

Clearly a Republican shill.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You're making a very serious mistake in assumptions here.

Romney was a moderate conservative in Massachusetts because that's what sells in MA. That doesn't mean he'd be the same way at a national level.

Were you watching during the primaries? If so, you saw Romney tack hard right. He did this specifically because he was a "Massachusetts moderate" as Gingrich put it. The GOP knuckledragger base didn't trust him and still does not. So he bends over backwards to show that he's a "severe conservative" as he famously put it.

What reason do you have to believe that this will change once he gets into office? He'll be beholden to the powers that got him there, and if he makes a single "etch a sketch" move the base will be on him like white on rice (pun intended).

Or, put another way: if Romney will pander to the fringe whackjob elements of his party to get elected, why wouldn't he do the same to get RE-elected?

I believe your premise is flawed. Neither Republicans nor Democrats will decide between the two. It will be as it has been, the independent voter, who chooses. Romney needs to get the Republican nomination. That's it. The political reality is that he then has to become moderate and attract the independent. Once in office the realities also dictate that he does not have to pander to anyone to be nominated for reelection. That's a given. Romney will be a sitting President. That's his needed qualification, just like Obama has no challenger within his party for the same reason. The Reps will push behind him like the Dems do with Obama.

He needs the far right of his party to be nominated, but once that happens he must move towards the center. He can't win otherwise and he knows it. BTW, I lived in MA for 10 years and Romney was gov during that time. I think I saw enough of the day to day affairs of government to have an opinion on his tendencies.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Or, put another way: if Romney will pander to the fringe whackjob elements of his party to get elected, why wouldn't he do the same to get RE-elected?

Since Romney is like a Mormon bishop, isn't he the fringe already?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Since Romney is like a Mormon bishop, isn't he the fringe already?

Then thank goodness he isn't a Muslim eh?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Then thank goodness he isn't a Muslim eh?

If he was Muslim, we would have no clue who Mitt Romney was.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Since Romney is like a Mormon bishop, isn't he the fringe already?

No, actually, that doesn't really mean a whole lot to me. I actually think LDS people are mostly pretty decent (though I thought a lot more of them before they got involved in denying gay rights) and the rank of "bishop" doesn't mean in the LDS what it does in, say, the RC church.

Once in office the realities also dictate that he does not have to pander to anyone to be nominated for reelection. That's a given. Romney will be a sitting President. That's his needed qualification, just like Obama has no challenger within his party for the same reason. The Reps will push behind him like the Dems do with Obama.

You're presuming rationality where it may not be warranted. In case you haven't noticed, the far right is big lately on primarying incumbents. Romney was very weak during the primaries this year. If Romney governs as president the way he ran Massachusetts, it is guaranteed that he'll face a serious primary challenge in 2016.

Furthermore, he's going to be seriously pressured by congressional Republicans to push through the legislation they want. There are quotes around basically saying all they want out of Romney is to rubber-stamp their legislation.

Why anyone would believe more of GW Bush is what we need totally mystifies me.

Being intellectually dishonest and utterly disconnected from reality helps.

 

[Carmen813]

Not sure this poll makes sense...I mean, think about it...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You're presuming rationality where it may not be warranted. In case you haven't noticed, the far right is big lately on primarying incumbents. Romney was very weak during the primaries this year. If Romney governs as president the way he ran Massachusetts, it is guaranteed that he'll face a serious primary challenge in 2016.

When the rubber meets the road there is one consideration and one alone. Do you want to win the election or not? Note that Romney IS going to be the Republican choice. Why? Because of his track record as a hard core conservative?

No, the answer is because he is the only one in the field that has the slightest chance of winning.

Now Romney can be as bad a President as some Dems hope and disaster can follow in his wake. Assuming that the world does not come to a metaphorical end as defined by moderates then the Reps will pick him again because of Darwinistic considerations. He will have proven that he can win. Do not underestimate the advantage one who already holds office has.

I submit that irrationality does not necessitate suicide.

Consider my post-

From the "Carter" thread.

The site which you used for your graph is most informative. Note the primary concern? Polarization, the effect of which is that Republicans will vote for republicans and the Dems for their own, with increasingly fewer defections. It is a reflection not just of Congress but our diseased political ecology as well.

Ecology is my analogy here. A political organism has as its mandate survival. It must live and reproduce and if the environment is hostile then it will evolve to protect its interests, no of which is greater than protecting itself and its future generations.

Republicans will vote for Romney if they think he'll win, just as the Progressive extols the virtues of those who are arguably disinterested in his concern, even to the point of contempt. Yes the Progressive will vote for Obama and the Republican equivalent will pick Romney. Because they like them? Perhaps but with increasing frequency to prevent the other from assuming a prized position. Consequently Romney (or for that matter Obama) has greater freedom of action than his supporters might like. As long as the independent is satisfied then the political natural world will ensure continued existence.

 

[Double Trouble]

Pretty much no contest: there's no way I'd vote for Obama, unless the GOP had a truly terrible candidate. Romney isn't my cup of tea, but I'll take him over Obama every day of the week.

 

[a777pilot]

Pretty much no contest: there's no way I'd vote for Obama, unless the GOP had a truly terrible candidate. Romney isn't my cup of tea, but I'll take him over Obama every day of the week.

This ^^^^^^

 

[soulcougher73]

Ya can't fix stupid.

Yeah we gave up on you a long time ago.

 

[soulcougher73]

Does it really matter? You are all are arguing over puppets. If you want to see real change, attack the puppet masters (corporations). Or at least attack and vote out congress and house critters.

 

[CallMeJoe]

You want four more years of this shit?
Ya can't fix stupid.

I guess Bush was better right?

Much better. Thank you for asking.

Congratulations, you prove your own assertion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Does it really matter? You are all are arguing over puppets. If you want to see real change, attack the puppet masters (corporations). Or at least attack and vote out congress and house critters.

You do not fully understand the nature of power. There are two entities private and governmental. They exist in symbiosis for their benefit. You are powerless.

Think not? Propose a workable solution.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Congratulations, you prove your own assertion.

Look at this dudes sig.
It's like * I'm stupid, but I'm proud of it*

edit- I should of said * his sig * , I did not mean yours Joe

 

[nextJin]

Mishandling Katrina?

I agree with all of those other than this. In Decision Points, Bush covered exactly why Katrina was such a screw up and why he handled it the way he did. The ultimate blame certainly should not have been his, the mayor and governor made horrible choices.

His reasoning behind everything else was bullshit especially Iraq, but Katrina made sense.

@ OP, this is why Romney is going to lose. I am a libertarian-republican and I will vote for Obama because of a few reasons namely:

- I know where he stands
- He has made the right choices for Iraq and Afghanistan (wrong ones for Libya but Romney would have still done it)
- He will most likely not use military action against Iran

Romney is everywhere on the map and if you honest to god vote for
Romney or seriously believe in anything the man says you are part of the problem.

 

[Craig234]

I agree with all of those other than this. In Decision Points, Bush covered exactly why Katrina was such a screw up and why he handled it the way he did. The ultimate blame certainly should not have been his, the mayor and governor made horrible choices.

His reasoning behind everything else was bullshit especially Iraq, but Katrina made sense.

@ OP, this is why Romney is going to lose. I am a libertarian-republican and I will vote for Obama because of a few reasons namely:

- I know where he stands
- He has made the right choices for Iraq and Afghanistan (wrong ones for Libya but Romney would have still done it)
- He will most likely not use military action against Iran

Romney is everywhere on the map and if you honest to god vote for
Romney or seriously believe in anything the man says you are part of the problem.

So, why are they tied in the polls?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Republicans will vote for Romney if they think he'll win, just as the Progressive extols the virtues of those who are arguably disinterested in his concern, even to the point of contempt. Yes the Progressive will vote for Obama and the Republican equivalent will pick Romney. Because they like them? Perhaps but with increasing frequency to prevent the other from assuming a prized position. Consequently Romney (or for that matter Obama) has greater freedom of action than his supporters might like. As long as the independent is satisfied then the political natural world will ensure continued existence.

You make a good argument. I hope you're right.

But I don't find his behavior of the last few months encouraging. He's an exceptionally dishonest and unprincipled man, and that makes him very dangerous. I still think he's beholden to far too many of the far right fringe, and that he's going to do what he has to in order to keep them happy.

Pretty much no contest: there's no way I'd vote for Obama, unless the GOP had a truly terrible candidate. Romney isn't my cup of tea, but I'll take him over Obama every day of the week.

Why?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You make a good argument. I hope you're right.

But I don't find his behavior of the last few months encouraging. He's an exceptionally dishonest and unprincipled man, and that makes him very dangerous. I still think he's beholden to far too many of the far right fringe, and that he's going to do what he has to in order to keep them happy.

I'm hardly one to discourage a skeptical outlook. I don't know what Romney's real chances are and what I have posted is not an endorsement. It's as impartial and objective analysis as I can provide equipped with what I know. The truth is I'd rather have Carter

 

[Moonbeam]

Why?

He doesn't know.