Has power corrupted Obama? Change, indeed!

[bamacre]

Two different op-ed's, both from the Left, both spell out Obama's hypocrisy...

Glenn Greenwald...
Obama's latest use of "secrecy" to shield presidential lawbreaking

Arianna Huffington...
Obama One Year Later: The Audacity of Winning vs. The Timidity of Governing

If one were to say, here or elsewhere, that the Obama administration has been worse than the previous one, they'd catch a lot of slack for it. And rightfully so. But Obama has at least 3 and probably 7 more years in office, and it seems like he's trying very hard to make that statement true.

 

[MikeMike]

new boss same as the old boss

besides, Barack is just a black parrot head (not racist bush was a white parrot head, they just say what they are told to.)

 

[kylebisme]

I just stumbled across an excellent article on this:

What Obama Is Up Against

The first anniversary of Barack Obama's historic election finds many of his supporters already grousing. Fair enough: Obama has been more vigorous in some areas than others. But one essential question goes unasked: How much can any president accomplish against the wishes of recalcitrant power centers within his own government?

We Americans harbor a quaint belief that a new president takes charge of a government that eagerly awaits his next command. Like an orchestra conductor or perhaps a football coach, he can inspire or bludgeon and get what he wants. But that's not how things work at the top, especially where "national security" is concerned. The Pentagon and CIA are powerful and independent fiefdoms characterized by entrenched agendas and constant intrigue. They are full of lifers, who see an elected president largely as an annoyance, and have ways of dealing with those who won't come to heel.

Compound that with the Bush-Cheney administration's aggressive seeding of its staunch loyalists throughout the bureaucracy, and you have a pretty tough situation. Obama, then, has to contend not only with the big donors and corporate lobbies. His biggest problem resides right inside his "team."
...

My best hope at this point is that the Obama presidency will wake the population up to the fact that our government only very loosely resembles what is taught in civics classes.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

It is cute that people thought anything would be different though. Cute in the same way that a child believes Scruffy is "wrestling" with the neighbor's Labrador. That special innocence of an immature mind.

 

[sciwizam]

bamarce, the link to Greenwald's article is acting up. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/01/state_secrets/index.html

 

[Robor]

Two excellent articles. Thanks, bamacre! I love how the liberal media always fawns over Obama. :biggrin:

I voted for Obama and I still support him but I can't say I'm not disappointed in some of his decisions. That said, I do not think he is anything near GWB2. If he was Fox News and the rest of the GOP wouldn't be so up in arms.

 

[Kirby]

Two excellent articles. Thanks, bamacre! I love how the liberal media always fawns over Obama. :biggrin:

I voted for Obama and I still support him but I can't say I'm not disappointed in some of his decisions. That said, I do not think he is anything near GWB2. If he was Fox News and the rest of the GOP wouldn't be so up in arms.

As long as he's a dem they would be.

 

[Craig234]

Total BS from Bamacre.

He claims that the message of these commentators is Obama being a hypocrite. It's not.

He claims that their articles support Obama being *worse than Bush*. Zero to support than from Huffington, and while Greenwald has pointed out a case or two where obama has done worse than Bush, he has never come close to suggesting anything other than that overal, Obama is clearly better than Bush.

It's simply a misrepresentation by Bamacre of liberal criticisms of Obama, distorting the comments to serve his agenda against both parties.

Greenwald has been very critical of Obama - just as he was of Bush - both justifiably - but his commentaries make it clear why Obama is better overall, but not on certain issues.

It's good to have the honest discussions like Greenwald does. It's bad for the discussions to be used dishonestly by others for their own views.

Bamacre is an example why some think it's better to never say anything that can be misused, misrepresented, against your own party - stifling helpful discussion.

His approach gives us what we saw a lot under Bush, 'party unity' where Republicans did not 'speak truth to power' but would only praise Bush, for a long time.

Because sure, if Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly had come out with columns about how Bush was 'worse than Clinton' on something, it might have been helpful - but 'bad for the party'.
'
And it might have had someone like Bamacre misrepresenting them as saying that Bush was 'worse than Clinton' overall.

So instead, we get the sort of behavior Jon Stewart showed an example of the other night, where a Republican commentator went to great extremes to criticize Obama's criticisms of Fox, going on about how this was a big threat to the freedom in the nation - against a clip of him when Bush criticized MSNBC, saying how great and overdue it was for Bush to take on the media.

Unfortunately, Bamacre is no more able to get past his desire to promote his opinion against both parties that leads him to misuse commentaries as he did here, than the Republican above was to do anything other than parrot the Republican line however hypocritical it needed him to act.

Huffington and Greenwalds's articles are demonstrating liberals' putting what's right ahead of the 'party interests' - and not claims that Obama is nearly as bad as Bush overall.

 

[QuantumPion]

I just stumbled across an excellent article on this:

Quote:
What Obama Is Up Against

The first anniversary of Barack Obama's historic election finds many of his supporters already grousing. Fair enough: Obama has been more vigorous in some areas than others. But one essential question goes unasked: How much can any president accomplish against the wishes of recalcitrant power centers within his own government?

We Americans harbor a quaint belief that a new president takes charge of a government that eagerly awaits his next command. Like an orchestra conductor or perhaps a football coach, he can inspire or bludgeon and get what he wants. But that's not how things work at the top, especially where "national security" is concerned. The Pentagon and CIA are powerful and independent fiefdoms characterized by entrenched agendas and constant intrigue. They are full of lifers, who see an elected president largely as an annoyance, and have ways of dealing with those who won't come to heel.

Compound that with the Bush-Cheney administration's aggressive seeding of its staunch loyalists throughout the bureaucracy, and you have a pretty tough situation. Obama, then, has to contend not only with the big donors and corporate lobbies. His biggest problem resides right inside his "team."
...
My best hope at this point is that the Obama presidency will wake the population up to the fact that our government only very loosely resembles what is taught in civics classes.

So once again it's Bush's fault Obama's presidency isn't going well? QQ Pikachu.

 

[Kirby]

Total BS from Bamacre.

He claims that the message of these commentators is Obama being a hypocrite. It's not.

He claims that their articles support Obama being *worse than Bush*. Zero to support than from Huffington, and while Greenwald has pointed out a case or two where obama has done worse than Bush, he has never come close to suggesting anything other than that overal, Obama is clearly better than Bush.

It's simply a misrepresentation by Bamacre of liberal criticisms of Obama, distorting the comments to serve his agenda against both parties.

Greenwald has been very critical of Obama - just as he was of Bush - both justifiably - but his commentaries make it clear why Obama is better overall, but not on certain issues.

It's good to have the honest discussions like Greenwald does. It's bad for the discussions to be used dishonestly by others for their own views.

Bamacre is an example why some think it's better to never say anything that can be misused, misrepresented, against your own party - stifling helpful discussion.

His approach gives us what we saw a lot under Bush, 'party unity' where Republicans did not 'speak truth to power' but would only praise Bush, for a long time.

Because sure, if Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly had come out with columns about how Bush was 'worse than Clinton' on something, it might have been helpful - but 'bad for the party'.
'
And it might have had someone like Bamacre misrepresenting them as saying that Bush was 'worse than Clinton' overall.

So instead, we get the sort of behavior Jon Stewart showed an example of the other night, where a Republican commentator went to great extremes to criticize Obama's criticisms of Fox, going on about how this was a big threat to the freedom in the nation - against a clip of him when Bush criticized MSNBC, saying how great and overdue it was for Bush to take on the media.

Unfortunately, Bamacre is no more able to get past his desire to promote his opinion against both parties that leads him to misuse commentaries as he did here, than the Republican above was to do anything other than parrot the Republican line however hypocritical it needed him to act.

Huffington and Greenwalds's articles are demonstrating liberals' putting what's right ahead of the 'party interests' - and not claims that Obama is nearly as bad as Bush overall.

Did you even read the article or the OP? Bamacre didn't say that Obama was as bad as Bush and yes, the article points at his hypocrisy.

Yet here is Obama doing exactly the opposite of those claims and assurances: namely, he's now (a) seeking to immunize not only telecoms, but also Bush officials, from judicial review; (b) demanding that courts be barred from considering the legality of NSA surveillance programs under any circumstances; and (c) attempting to institutionalize the broadest claims of presidential immunity imaginable via radically broad secrecy claims. To do so, he's violating virtually everything he ever said about such matters when he was Senator Obama and Candidate Obama. And he's relying on the very same theories of executive immunity and secrecy that -- under a Republican President -- sparked so much purported outrage.

 

[Lemon law]

I very much agree with those that point out that the first six years of GWB has given us a very distorted view of "normal" US governmental operation. But the GOP, during the first six years of GWB was lock step united behind the Presidency, and the GOP held the House majority and Senate majority except for a few years.

The only comparable period might be during the the first few years of LBJ, where legislation was cranked out with more regard to quantity than quality.

A more serious student of US history can point out many examples where the legislative branch has completely frustrated the agenda of the then President. And we need only go back to the GHB administration to see a classic case. Because after the profligate spending of the Reagan years, the legislative branch completely ended any GHB domestic agenda, and somewhat as a result, GHB spent his time conducting foreign policy, an area where the President has more constitutional freedom of action.

The anti thesis of that is the last post WW1 years of the Wilson administration, where the legislative branch effectively killed the Wilson vision of the League of Nations.

And any serious student of the US Constitution can point out that the US President has little real power, and the power to make laws is really vested in the Legislative branch. And what has somewhat increased US Presidential power has been the tendency to vest more and more of the information gathering power in the executive wing. And with countless agencies added post WW2, almost all the growth of the US government is under the executive branch. Not only have we seen a huge growth in tradition cabinet positions named in the constitution, we now have huge countless new agencies like the EPA, health and human services, and now we have added Homeland Security. Even a year into the Obama administration, Obama has barely seized the reins of power in these agencies, and unlike GWB, Obama is not using them as bludgeons.

Sadly it has somewhat become the policy of the GOP to lock step resist everything in the Obama administration agenda. And credit where credit is due, the GOP is very good at maintaining unity, although we have to wonder if the GOP has any real agenda to govern on. The real question is in the future, will the American people reward the GOP in the election of 11/2010 for resisting "CHANGE" or not. If the GOP gets punished for the third election cycle in a row, it will effectively end the GOP tyranny of the minority that now rules the day.

 

[ayabe]

How the OP or anyone can posit that Obama is worse than Bush is pretty laughable.

Whether it's entirely his fault or not, W was captain of the ship when it hit the iceberg. We are facing serious decline on pretty much every front and things are not moving the right direction. We will never have the influence that we had circa 2000, those days are over - forever.

Obama is just not up to the challenge of repairing the damage that has been done, I don't think anyone is. He lacks the courage to do what he said he would, right now I'm going to place 90% of that on weasels like Rahm - he needs to get the fuck out.

The Rahm's and Rove's of our system have pushed partisanship to new heights and in doing so completely rendered our Congress unable to accomplishing anything other running reelection campaigns.

That's what our government is right now, self-aggrandizing reelection committee.

 

[Moonbeam]

Fool me once and step into the same river again.

 

[Siddhartha]

How the OP or anyone can posit that Obama is worse than Bush is pretty laughable.

Whether it's entirely his fault or not, W was captain of the ship when it hit the iceberg. We are facing serious decline on pretty much every front and things are not moving the right direction. We will never have the influence that we had circa 2000, those days are over - forever.

Obama is just not up to the challenge of repairing the damage that has been done, I don't think anyone is. He lacks the courage to do what he said he would, right now I'm going to place 90% of that on weasels like Rahm - he needs to get the fuck out.

The Rahm's and Rove's of our system have pushed partisanship to new heights and in doing so completely rendered our Congress unable to accomplishing anything other running reelection campaigns.


That's what our government is right now, self-aggrandizing reelection committee.

What exactly do you think Mr Obama should be doing?

 

[lupi]

Who would have ever thought a career chicago style indoctrinated politician would have his administration end up being run the way it is. Absolute total shock I say.

 

[ayabe]

What exactly do you think Mr Obama should be doing?

Well let's see for starters:

1. End all Bush era torture and surveillance programs without equivocation - like he said he would.

2. Not abandon the public option, should have been up front with this from the get-go without any waffling. This is a rather large item which involves many instances of O selling us out completely, see secret deal up front with big pharma and continue from there.

3. Close Gitmo - like he said he would.

4. End DADT which he could do right this second if he wanted to.

5. Get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan - like he said he would.

6. Get us going on a 21st century energy independence program, not this weak sauce, wholly inept cap and trade bill which does basically nothing.

Just as I'm typing, I'm reading about Rahm trying to neuter the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to exclude all but the very biggest firms - again pandering to small group of people at the expense of the general population.

This is just a very small list of things that Obama promised to do in his campaign, by my count he's 0-6 on these. It's even worse if you really dig deeper, it's not just that he has failed to get any of this done, he has in many cases moved in the opposite direction completely.

 

[Lemon law]

Who would have ever thought a career chicago style indoctrinated politician would have his administration end up being run the way it is. Absolute total shock I say.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What an absurd thing to say lupi, Obama was never part of chicago machine politics and was instead a community organizers working from the fringe. And his main tool was consensus building.

Obama's problem is and remains a GOP who is dedicated to resisting any and all Obama efforts to build any kind of a political consensus.

And as such, its the GOP who more resembles an old style political machine that tries to retain their hold on all levers of power.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Obama's problem is and remains a GOP who is dedicated to resisting any and all Obama efforts to build any kind of a political consensus.

The doors are closed and the GOP is totally locked out...and you actually 'see' efforts to build consensus. Please elaborate.

 

[Robor]

Who would have ever thought a career chicago style indoctrinated politician would have his administration end up being run the way it is. Absolute total shock I say.

First he's an inexperienced community organizer and now he's a career politician. Whatever...

 

[Moonbeam]

I am an idealistic dreamer who dreams of a better day brought to me by a true and sincere third party, but alas there is no change. The religion of the OLD GODS is too strong and we are destined to bounce between left pillar and right post forever.

The more things don't change the more they remain the same.

Oh Great Universe, you are an eternity of tears. Ron Paul, why have you abandoned me?

All I ever wanted was change, to change the Republicans back into fiscal responsibility, but alas and alack, there is no change.

 

[cubby1223]

All I ever wanted was change, to change the Republicans back into fiscal responsibility

Stop spreading your radical extremism!

 

[MotF Bane]

Well let's see for starters:

1. End all Bush era torture and surveillance programs without equivocation - like he said he would.

2. Not abandon the public option, should have been up front with this from the get-go without any waffling. This is a rather large item which involves many instances of O selling us out completely, see secret deal up front with big pharma and continue from there.

3. Close Gitmo - like he said he would.

4. End DADT which he could do right this second if he wanted to.

5. Get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan - like he said he would.

6. Get us going on a 21st century energy independence program, not this weak sauce, wholly inept cap and trade bill which does basically nothing.

Just as I'm typing, I'm reading about Rahm trying to neuter the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to exclude all but the very biggest firms - again pandering to small group of people at the expense of the general population.

This is just a very small list of things that Obama promised to do in his campaign, by my count he's 0-6 on these. It's even worse if you really dig deeper, it's not just that he has failed to get any of this done, he has in many cases moved in the opposite direction completely.

I'm with you on five of those six.

 

[blackangst1]

I'm with you on five of those six.

Well let's see for starters:

1. End all Bush era torture and surveillance programs without equivocation - like he said he would.

2. Not abandon the public option, should have been up front with this from the get-go without any waffling. This is a rather large item which involves many instances of O selling us out completely, see secret deal up front with big pharma and continue from there.

3. Close Gitmo - like he said he would.

4. End DADT which he could do right this second if he wanted to.

5. Get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan - like he said he would.

6. Get us going on a 21st century energy independence program, not this weak sauce, wholly inept cap and trade bill which does basically nothing.

Just as I'm typing, I'm reading about Rahm trying to neuter the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to exclude all but the very biggest firms - again pandering to small group of people at the expense of the general population.

This is just a very small list of things that Obama promised to do in his campaign, by my count he's 0-6 on these. It's even worse if you really dig deeper, it's not just that he has failed to get any of this done, he has in many cases moved in the opposite direction completely.

Why has no one considered the possibility that once Obama got into office and sat through a few security briefs, hearing and seeing things only a select few are privy to, he had an "ah ha!" moment and decided that just maybe Bush was doing the right thing?

 

[MotF Bane]

Why has no one considered the possibility that once Obama got into office and sat through a few security briefs, hearing and seeing things only a select few are privy to, he had an "ah ha!" moment and decided that just maybe Bush was doing the right thing?

Let's see. Torture is illegal, surveillance on our own citizens is illegal, habeas corpus exists for a reason, reducing our overseas military presence is logical, cap and trade is fucking retarded, DADT takes away some good soldiers and officers. So the only one that could have had really taken something from a security brief would be ending/not ending the wars.

 

[blackangst1]

Let's see. Torture is illegal, surveillance on our own citizens is illegal, habeas corpus exists for a reason, reducing our overseas military presence is logical, cap and trade is fucking retarded, DADT takes away some good soldiers and officers. So the only one that could have had really taken something from a security brief would be ending/not ending the wars.

I read this and the only thing I can think of is simpleton. To each their own I guess.