HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Russ Feingold: Obama Supe...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:08 PM

Russ Feingold: Obama Super PAC Reversal Will Lead To 'A Legalized Abramoff System'

WASHINGTON -- Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) ripped into both President Barack Obama and his re-election team on Tuesday morning for backing off its previous criticism of outside spending on campaigns and embracing the role that super PACs will play in the 2012 election.

"It is a dumb approach," Feingold said in a phone interview with The Huffington Post. "It will lead to scandal and there are going to be a lot of people having corrupt conversations about huge amounts of money that will one day regret that they went down the route of what is effectively a legalized Abramoff system."

.snip

"The president is wrong to have embraced the corrupt corporate politics of Citizens United and that's what you're doing when you start using and consorting with super PACs. They can raise unlimited amounts of money from wealthy individuals and corporations and often they can do it in total secrecy," he said. "I am a supporter of the president. I will continue to support the president. But on this one I couldn't disagree more."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/obama-super-pac-russ-feingold-campaign-finance_n_1259836.html

156 replies, 14466 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 156 replies Author Time Post
Reply Russ Feingold: Obama Super PAC Reversal Will Lead To 'A Legalized Abramoff System' (Original post)
avaistheone1 Feb 2012 OP
OKNancy Feb 2012 #1
Liberal Veteran Feb 2012 #3
klook Feb 2012 #4
groovedaddy Feb 2012 #24
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #57
DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #58
groovedaddy Feb 2012 #117
DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #128
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #7
Firebrand Gary Feb 2012 #14
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #18
Liberal Veteran Feb 2012 #22
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #32
Liberal Veteran Feb 2012 #35
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #50
Liberal Veteran Feb 2012 #52
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #55
Liberal Veteran Feb 2012 #56
truthisfreedom Feb 2012 #62
ermasdaughter Feb 2012 #74
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #76
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #63
OnyxCollie Feb 2012 #67
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #68
OnyxCollie Feb 2012 #69
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #71
OnyxCollie Feb 2012 #72
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #75
OnyxCollie Feb 2012 #73
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #78
boppers Feb 2012 #81
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #82
boppers Feb 2012 #83
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #84
boppers Feb 2012 #93
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #95
boppers Feb 2012 #96
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #102
boppers Feb 2012 #103
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #104
boppers Feb 2012 #115
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #121
boppers Feb 2012 #124
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #125
boppers Feb 2012 #141
24601 Feb 2012 #114
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #119
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #85
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #88
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #91
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #86
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #89
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #92
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #94
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #99
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #107
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #111
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #120
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #123
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #126
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #131
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #142
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #143
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #145
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #146
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #147
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #148
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #149
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #150
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #151
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #152
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #153
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #98
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #101
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #112
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #118
inna Feb 2012 #137
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #138
LanternWaste Feb 2012 #154
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #156
truedelphi Feb 2012 #134
boppers Feb 2012 #97
FedUp_Queer Feb 2012 #100
boppers Feb 2012 #116
inna Feb 2012 #136
midnight Feb 2012 #139
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #144
truedelphi Feb 2012 #135
democrat_patriot Feb 2012 #10
OKNancy Feb 2012 #19
Liberal Veteran Feb 2012 #26
loyalsister Feb 2012 #66
The Doctor. Feb 2012 #87
MidwestTransplant Feb 2012 #29
malaise Feb 2012 #31
grantcart Feb 2012 #46
onehandle Feb 2012 #2
Myrina Feb 2012 #43
qazplm Feb 2012 #5
SoapBox Feb 2012 #23
Liberal_Stalwart71 Feb 2012 #6
Big Tent Feb 2012 #17
pnwmom Feb 2012 #8
SaintPete Feb 2012 #9
Firebrand Gary Feb 2012 #11
AtomicKitten Feb 2012 #12
FredStembottom Feb 2012 #13
vi5 Feb 2012 #15
Scuba Feb 2012 #16
Ian David Feb 2012 #20
Robbins Feb 2012 #21
tpsbmam Feb 2012 #25
groovedaddy Feb 2012 #27
Liberal Veteran Feb 2012 #34
groovedaddy Feb 2012 #45
LanternWaste Feb 2012 #155
elleng Feb 2012 #28
JaneQPublic Feb 2012 #30
Liberal Veteran Feb 2012 #37
EFerrari Feb 2012 #38
ProSense Feb 2012 #33
CAPHAVOC Feb 2012 #36
Douglas Carpenter Feb 2012 #39
UCmeNdc Feb 2012 #40
Demonaut Feb 2012 #41
Beacool Feb 2012 #42
ProSense Feb 2012 #44
Beacool Feb 2012 #47
stopbush Feb 2012 #48
Obama3_16 Feb 2012 #49
graham4anything Feb 2012 #51
RickFromMN Feb 2012 #53
patrice Feb 2012 #54
boxman15 Feb 2012 #59
provis99 Feb 2012 #70
bvar22 Feb 2012 #132
McCamy Taylor Feb 2012 #60
madrchsod Feb 2012 #65
midnight Feb 2012 #61
undeterred Feb 2012 #90
madrchsod Feb 2012 #64
Kablooie Feb 2012 #77
woo me with science Feb 2012 #109
Hutzpa Feb 2012 #79
bvar22 Feb 2012 #80
RBInMaine Feb 2012 #106
bvar22 Feb 2012 #108
woo me with science Feb 2012 #110
DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #129
midnight Feb 2012 #140
RBInMaine Feb 2012 #105
fujiyama Feb 2012 #113
truedelphi Feb 2012 #133
msanthrope Feb 2012 #122
Worried senior Feb 2012 #127
grantcart Feb 2012 #130

Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:15 PM

1. I don't think they have backed off criticism of the super PACs, they have backed off losing

Last edited Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

It's a hard pill to swallow, but Obama and the Dems just can't lay down and take it.
They have to be able to fight Rove, the Koch's and all the swiftboaters.
No repeat of the smears John Kerry got....

This is going to get ugly, but all is fair in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:21 PM

3. Thank you. I couldn't agree more.

Agreeing to go into the fight with his hands tied would be a mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:22 PM

4. Agree. They're bringing a gun to a gun fight.

After winning the election they can advocate for knife-only fights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to klook (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:51 PM

24. Back when special interest money started flooding into campaigns in the 90s, corrupting the entire

system, I advocated that Democrats abandon the practice. People were hyperventilating about how stupid that would be, essentially giving the republicans free reign to do whatever they wanted. I countered with: Let the republicans show their true colors even if it results in hardship for a short time. Voters will abandon republicans in droves because they know they can't trust them. Winning isn't always everything. The republicans did get control of the federal government from 2001 - 2007, so that happened any way. The difference is that there many, many voters who now recognize the system as corrupted and these voters don't draw any distinctions between the corruption republicans and the corruption of democrats. If the Dems had sworn off the money in the 90s, things would look very different now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groovedaddy (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 05:32 PM

57. Then we saw the power of the highest-bidder media.

 


Voters respond to the massive media campaigns funded by special interest money. It's sad, but unfortunately our inattentive populace is very susceptible to the corporate messages.

This is a case of having to play into the hands of the enemies with the hopes of turning the tables, or outright losing everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groovedaddy (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 06:14 PM

58. wishful thinking

If florida taught me anything, it is that the masses will believe whatever the television tells them to. It is easy to say if the dems swore off the money, things would be different, perhaps, perhaps we might have had a president Dole instead of a Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #58)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 07:16 AM

117. A good from Robert Scheer on this very topic

Let’s just dip our fingers in purple ink and pose for photos now that voting has the same significance for us as it had for those Iraqis who got conned into thinking they were participating in some grand democratic experiment.

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/72-72/9893-elections-are-for-suckers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groovedaddy (Reply #117)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 05:27 PM

128. one quote that shows why his whole argument falls

"It is not entirely true that shunning the PACs would have left the president at a disadvantage, since he commands predominant media space by virtue of his office"

Note two things,

the "not entirely" argument, where Scheer resorts to the same weasel talk he acuuses others of. Not entirely true alomst always translates to DAMN TRUE, which is why the right wiong loves that term.

and
he commands predominant media space by virtue of his office"

Sir, that died when Fox news took over, thanks in no small part to the Clintons. The Media will make what THEY want, because there is no obligation on them to be truthful, at all. It will take ten dollars to every five they spend just to end the swiftboating, because the media is complicit, bad news sells, and if trashing Obama makes bad news, they will push it, just like they dhieled Bush, because Bush's bungles made them MONEY..if he lost the election in 2004, they know they would have had to settle for Kerry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:25 PM

7. I don't like Obama (and won't vote for him), but he's right on this one.

 

You can't fight a bonfire with a $.99 Bic lighter or a squirt gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:32 PM

14. Who do you plan on voting for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:41 PM

18. No idea.

 

Will likely leave it blank. Given I live in New York, it doesn't matter much anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:48 PM

22. What issue is the deal breaker between yourself and Obama?

If one may inquire?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:12 PM

32. There are several.

 

In fairness, fairly early on, I became disappointed. However, I guess these items built to a crescendo:

Arguing complete government immunity in the Jewell v. NSA case. (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush)

In favor of indefinite detention (the irony of giving this speech in the national archives in front of the Constitution was not lost on me. ()

In favor of detention of acquitted individuals (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/7/8/15175/41817; http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/08/12598/#more-12598)

Asserting the right to kill American citizens without trial. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)

Proposed cutting funding for the poor (https://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/USCM-ON-FY2012-BUDGET.pdf&rct=j&sa=U&ei=tmgxT-_SG-P00gHH7qjRBw&ved=0CHEQFjAI&sig2=XzWJoEHOyZN5rk5kzGy08A&q=obama+community+development+block+grant&usg=AFQjCNFSPjtPOhN9AzwAyh8XjoCNVnkNhA&cad=rja)

This one item was the backbreaker: (http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA).

After that, I decided I wouldn't, COULDN'T, vote for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:39 PM

35. Fair enough.

I appreciate the answer, although I don't necessarily agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #35)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:13 PM

50. Count me curious.

 

With which do you not agree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #50)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:34 PM

52. The not voting for him part.

There is enough good about President Obama that I feel differently despite my misgivings on certain things he's done/not done.

From my vantage point, many similar criticisms could be leveled at FDR during his terms, but in the end, he turned out to be one of our best presidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #52)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:54 PM

55. Interesting.

 

I'm going to thank you a hell of a lot. I just had "light bulb moment." If I were alive then, given the Japanese internment, would that have prevented me from voting for FDR? I don't know (I suspect I could not have voted for him). But I want to thank you for being respectful about my views and, at the same time, giving me something very poignant to think about. I will admit to finding myself often quite defensive because many often label me a GOP shill or a troll or "closet" right-winger. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the insults (because I think of politics as a contact sport and am a free speech purist), but I appreciate your insight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #55)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 05:13 PM

56. I appreciate the opportunity to have a good discussion.

It is such a rare thing in the current political climate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #56)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 08:00 PM

62. Nicely done. 8^D We need more like you.

Consider this a virtual heart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #56)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 03:23 AM

74. Fantastic Dialogue you two!!

Substantive and respectful. I'm in Liberal Veteran's camp. But I respect both view points and am really encouraged by the tone of your discussion. A glimmer of HOPE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ermasdaughter (Reply #74)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 04:03 AM

76. "Fantastic" is exactly right.

 

How sad it is that such simple and earnest discourse is no longer considered 'Realistic' even on a 'Liberal' site.

Think on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 09:30 PM

63. Please consider the possibility...

 

That Obama was not lying when he said he was not in favor of the very points you are also opposed to. Consider that to do some real good in the face of what is arguably the most ardent and unreasonable opposition any president since Lincoln has ever faced, Obama had to make compromises that he was unequivocally opposed to.

Consider that the reality is more frightening and potentially more dire than "Obama did it because HE wanted it", but "Obama did it because there was no alternative".

Re-read your links. I did just that. They paint the picture described above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #63)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:20 AM

67. Knowing that Lt. General DeWitt had misgivings about mass the internment of Japanese-Americans

prior to declaring the entire west coast of America a "military zone", probably gave great comfort to the Japanese-Americans who had to give up their possessions and leave the farms they had operated so successfully so they could go to concentration camps

FDR sold out the Japanese and Japanese-American farmworkers to the farm corporations, who profited greatly. Executive Order 9066 was the last in a series of increasingly repressive measures to reap greater profits from labor.

As great as his accomplishments were, FDR compromised with corporations and as a result, 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans were forced into concentration camps. That's pretty bad.

So when the next Too Big To Fail bank collapses and the citizens are forced to pay for it with deep austerity cuts, will you say, "He had to compromise. He had no choice" and will you be satisfied with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #67)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:53 AM

68. False Parity is a sad resort of a desperate argument.

 


When Obama starts imprisoning entire ethnic populations, then I'll have a reason not to treat posts like this as bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #68)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 02:01 AM

69. Before you start shouting, "Argumentative fallacy!"

try to have fucking clue as to what you're talking about. Read some of Max Weber's theories on society and economics, for starters.

The internment of Japanese nationals and Japanese-Americans is the subject of my Master's thesis, which I am currently writing.

Seeking to increase profits from labor, those sharing similar preferences in the capitalist class organize and lobby the government for repressive measures to constrain the worker class, in particular an ethnicity-based status group, limiting its movement, its reproduction, and expropriating it from the machinery. This status group, driven by a religious work ethic and constrained to relationships solely among its own members, develops a unifying force, heralding greater control over labor conditions. This runs counter to “rational” actions by the capitalist class to raise profits, necessitating even more repressive measures. When an opportunity is presented, severe measures to obtain the maximum calculable profit from labor are enacted which, in turn, threaten to expose an unnatural collusion between government and economic sources of power, thereby destroying their credibility. The government counteracts through elite responses to condition the masses (status groups) to accept the disenfranchisement of “outsiders,” as opposed to members of the working class, as just and defensible.

Whereas I had previously been reluctant to include the "revenge" aspect, I have found it be an integral part in obfuscating a "rigged" market economy. In a rigged market economy, capitalists lobby the government for increasingly repressive actions against a particular status group. It is expected that these measures, which restrict movement, prohibit ownership of property, and limit reproduction, will increase profit for the capitalist class by preventing worker class organization. Opportunities to obtain an objective monetary incentive, i.e the maximum calculable profit from labor (expropriating the Japanese from their crops) will be seized.

Transparency is the last thing those with the ability to affect social change, i.e. the capitalists, want. If workers can see how the strings are being pulled and how their life chances are affected by those tugs, they will organize and make "irrational" demands (as far as the capitalists are concerned) to improve their lives. Now the Japanese have always had to deal with obstacles, so for them it was natural. However, if the rest of the status groups, who either had not suffered or were not aware of an unnatural market economy, could see themselves and the Japanese solely as workers, they would realize the capitalists have had a thumb on the scale, taking advantage of an subset of workers who were ultimately just like them. Due to the severity of these repressive measures (apparent arbitrariness, violation of constitutional constraints) the legal-rational authority of the government is jeopardized. This requires conditioning of the masses by cultural elites to accept these actions, though the facilitation of patriotism, racism, bigotry, and threats to personal safety.

This play was just run in the mortgage crisis. Banks lobbied the government for deregulation, ripped everyone off, got bailed out, and blamed it on the blacks and the liberals.

Look at the increasingly repressive measures now in place: The USA PATRIOT Act I & II and its reauthorizations, domestic surveillance, National Security Presidential Directive 51, and the National Defense Authorization Act. Those measures aren't there for our protection, they're there for when people start to realize we live in a rigged market economy, as OWS is now demonstrating.

Your hero-worship of Obama reveals your naivete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #69)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 02:27 AM

71. Yelling and screaming will not persuade me,

 

It never has and it never will.

Start over without the hissy-fits and foul language, and I'll consider entertaining whatever your position is.

Until then, nothing you say is worth even examining.

If you can't be an adult, do not expect to be treated as one.

If you can tamp down your ego, you'll find I'm very earnest and considerate.

If you can't, your next response will reveal your true character.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #71)


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #72)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 03:23 AM

75. Your true character is revealed.

 

I don't deal with people that can't control themselves.

Good-bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #71)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 02:50 AM

73. THIS PERSECUTION IS AN OUTRAGE!

Your "conservative crybaby" impersonation is flawless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #63)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 01:09 PM

78. Hmmmm....

 

It seems to me that if a person really believes in a particular point, they don't compromise on it. These were not things that someone imposed on him. They were positions his administration affirmatively took.

For instance, in the Jewell case, the Bush justice department had asserted the states secrets defense on why the court should dismiss the case. After the election, the court even asked the justice department if, given the change in administration, it wanted to take a different position. The justice department not only did not do that, it took a more extreme position, which shocked the plaintiffs so much.

On the cuts for the CDBG, these were items he proposed in his budget. Nobody forced him. This was something he proposed. The same goes for indefinite detention, detention for acquitted persons and asserting the right to kill citizens without trial.

I just can't agree with you on those items. Perhaps, I could understand the political reality of not vetoing an entire defense bill that has the egregious indefinite detention provision in it.

The health care bill probably best fits your meme. He kept out things he ran on (public option, importation of Canadian drugs) because he thought they would prevent passage. (I don't think he fought hard enough for those things, but that's another story.)

But, it just seems to me that there are certain principles that are so fundamental that when when a person goes against them, it negates everything else. For me, those are the things I'm talking about. Perhaps, it's my legal background, that things like denial of due process are things that are make or break. I just can't pull that lever for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #78)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 05:27 PM

81. "if a person really believes in a particular point, they don't compromise on it"

That's the difference between religion and logic. Religion often holds a simplistic, absolutist, position, which leads to absurdities.

For instance, in the Jewel case, the argument that nobody should ever be wiretapped, anywhere, ever, for any reason, and establishing any capability to wiretap is therefore wrong. Or that it's wrong to kill people who are actively conspiring to commit mass murder, regardless of the reason, or method. Or that it's wrong to detain prisoners of war.

As far as adjusting block grant budgets, I guess the absurd belief is that we should always pay bureaucracies more money if they claim to use it for the needy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #81)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 05:53 PM

82. Actually...no.

 

You may want to come down off that high horse there, sport. I'm not criticizing or denigrating or calling anyone simplistic there for holding their beliefs. In that regard, I will overlook your high-minded and apparently condescending remarks about someone, whoever, who has something for which she or he draws a line in the sand and says they are inviolate.

The government killing people, who happen to be citizens, absent a trial, absent a presentation of charges, is always wrong, particularly when that person is riding in a jeep in the desert unarmed. Otherwise, why have trial? Why have due process? The executive (king?) can unilaterally determine they're a bad person, they don't "deserve" a trial and "off" them. This is not as if this was a person standing in front of a building with explosives strapped to his person ready to blow up a building. If the executive can so blithely throw out due process (and then say he doesn't have to tell us the reasons for his logic), then he's a king, plain and simple.

Regarding the Jewel case, nobody ever made the argument that a government should not wiretap for law enforcement purposes. The plaintiffs brought the case in Jewel because the government in violation of the fourth amendment wiretapped them (that's why I said "warrantless"). The Bush administration argued the state secrets privilege precluded even proceeding with the case to discovery...even letting the judge examine the documents in camera (because, you know, you can't trust judges). The Obama administration went even further and said the government was completely immune from citizen lawsuit (you know that part of the first amendment where these citizens were seeking to redress their grievances?).

As for community development block grants, I wonder if you even know how they work. They are monies given to localities. In fact, they are small amounts given to localities, but they are, nevertheless, extremely important serving to bridge the gap between demand and supply of services to the very poor. The point is that Obama proposed a rather sizable cut to a small program. Imagine if he had proposed a 7.5% absolute cut (not from the baseline) of the military.

In addition, I have personal experience of the CDBG and know how necessary the money from that is and the oversight and regulations that recipients must follow to make sure the money is spent properly.

If a person is comfortable with the President cutting such small, but vital, program all out of proportion to its impact on the federal budget, fine, have at it.

But, on a macro level, to accuse a person of parochialism for having a few views and beliefs that are inviolable, is pretty sad in my book. It begs the question: if everything IS negotiable, what DOES a person believe?

Due process, free speech among others are inviolable to me. That is why I will not "flag" someone's comments on here no matter how much I think they may go against the community standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #82)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 06:20 PM

83. "is always wrong"

No more need be said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #83)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 06:25 PM

84. "is always wrong"...yeah...some things are "always wrong." However, I'm curious when...

 

is murder right?

is starving a child right?

is "The government killing people, who happen to be citizens, absent a trial, absent a presentation of charges...particularly when that person is riding in a jeep in the desert unarmed" right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #84)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 11:58 PM

93. Some people keep killing until they're stopped.

If you cannot somehow get to them and legally try them, you either have to kill them instead, or accept the blood piling up on your hands.

Was killing bin Laden wrong? Ghadaffi?

Are they any less dead than Saddam Hussein, after his show trial with a known outcome?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #93)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 12:19 AM

95. I'm tired but I'll try again.

 

I don't believe in killing but I think killing may be justifiable in certain instances. Murder is never justifiable.

It appears from your post, that you don't really believe in due process. That's fine. You would have been right at home with Winston Churchill during WWII who was in favor of summary execution of the German high command rather than, say, the IMT at Nürnberg. Hell, even Israel gave Eichmann a trial and defense counsel. The reason is because process matters. Doing it the right way matters. If someone, somewhere, gets to decide who receives due process and who doesn't, who decides that? What are the criteria?

I personally would rather have seen Hussein and Qaddafi brought to justice and put on trial...real trials. But, again, some folks aren't interested in due process, or they seem only to be for the not guilty of innocent.

You still didn't answer the questions as to whether you think murder, killing a child or killing an American citizen without trial, without presentation of charges, while unarmed, riding in a jeep in the desert are ever acceptable?

As a corollary, who gets due process and who doesn't? Who decides?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #95)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 01:40 AM

96. Let's take, oh, the terrorist.

"killing an American citizen without trial, without presentation of charges, while unarmed, riding in a jeep in the desert are ever acceptable"

1. Unarmed? Nope. Outgunned? Yes.
2. No charges? He couldn't be bothered with responding to warrants and charges. Neither could the nation he was in.
3. "Riding a jeep in the desert" is a funny way of saying "waging war from foreign soil".

Sure, process matters, if there is uncertainty about outcome. If there is no uncertainty, it's a mere pomposity, worshiping at the altar of bureaucratic routine, paying for the paper-pushing. Hussein was brought to trial, for example.

"If someone, somewhere, gets to decide who receives due process and who doesn't, who decides that? What are the criteria?"

In US matters, that would be the Supreme Court.

....Who authorized much of what you're railing against, long, long, before Obama.

Tap without a warrant? Totally legal to do (but cannot be used as evidence in court). Kill without due process? Totally legal on foreign soil, or in combat situations. Hold somebody as a war prisoner until hostilities cease? Also legal.... and most of the decisions on this are over 100 years old, and some date back to the US civil war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #96)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 12:45 PM

102. Wow.

 

You're really just wrong. There is no precedent for holding people indefinitely under the modern laws of war. What you are speaking of are "prisoners of war" under the Geneva Conventions. First, there is no war. The "war on terror" is nothing but a fabrication because one cannot fight a tactic. Second, "terrorism" while undefined in international law is a crime. We are not, in fact, fighting a war at all. Those who commit acts of terrorism, commit crimes. Given there is no war, there is no beginning to the war and there is no end to the war. During wars between nations, nations could hold combatants of the opposing army until the end of hostilities. Again, we have none of that. If we can define any actions against criminals as a "war," then I guess we can have a drug "war" so we can detain combatants in that "war" as long as that "war" is going on.

The Supreme Court has not, in fact, decided this.

Mr. Awlaki was, at the time of his killing, unarmed and posed no threat to the United States. He was a citizen entitled to due process.

As for this statement: "Sure, process matters, if there is uncertainty about outcome. If there is no uncertainty, it's a mere pomposity, worshiping at the altar of bureaucratic routine, paying for the paper-pushing. Hussein was brought to trial, for example."

That is, frankly, both profoundly sad and scary. According to you, trials only matter for the obviously innocent or for the questionably guilty. You seem to want to do away with the presumption of innocence. John Gotti: most likely guilty. Yet, time after time, he went free because the state could not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the Rome Statute, which governs the International Criminal Court, preserves the presumption of innocence and calls for a conviction only upon a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

By the way, warrantless wiretapping is NOT legal. Even under FISA, the government must obtain a warrant within 72 hours of the wiretap. Otherwise, they can't.

How sad is it that certain American, particularly liberals, have taken to calling due process "bureaucratic routine." I weep for this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #102)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 03:25 PM

103. That's some wool.

Re: War, the Supreme Court and congress said otherwise.

Re: Awlaki, his tribunal said he was a clear and present danger.
"You seem to want to do away with the presumption of innocence."
Well, that's a memetic fabrication that resulted from some linguistic messiness. "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" is the original. Proof was given, Awlaki did not deny it, but even boasted of his guilt. A show trial was not needed to repeat this exchange.

Re: Tapping,

We've been wiretapping without warrants since there were wires.

Nothing illegal about, oh, the phone company listening to the traffic on their wires. Always been legal. Law enforcement can't *force* a tap without a warrant, but voluntarily listening in on equipment a company or person owns is legal. They can even tap for months, or years, without a warrant, and if they get something interesting, ask for a warrant. Sure, they can't admit it as *evidence* without a warrant, but if they get other evidence, they don't need the tapping evidence.

That's part of what the Jewel case was all about, the strange society assumption that wiretapping requires a warrant... it doesn't. Third party doctrine killed it, many, many, years ago, along with common carrier laws, and border laws.

The US government is more than happy to let people believe otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #103)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 04:26 PM

104. Fantastic. Efficiency at last.

 

When people think it's ok that only certain people are entitled to due process...the "good guys." Sadder still that people don't understand who does and does not require a warrant under the constitution.

There was no trial. There was not court of law. Awlaki's killing was an extrajudicial killing. There is no disputing that. Silence has never equaled admission.

You know...never mind. You're right. Only innocent people deserve trials. Only the good guys deserve trials. You're right. There is no fourth amendment. The government can listen to what they want. Hell, they can come into your house, root around and look at your things, as long as they don't "use it." So, let's see...

The 1st Amendment is gone.
The 4th Amendment is gone.
The 5th Amendment is gone.

Now, we that we've done away with silly things like trials, the presumption of innocence, we can really enforce the 6th Amendment. Now we can just skip the trial and go right to the execution. I know...let's just post the accusations in a newspaper somewhere, if the person doesn't deny them...GUILTY!!!! Damn, think how much money we will save. No courts; no DoJ; no legal aid.

I'll be sure and tell my prosecutor friend in New Jersey that she doesn't need a warrant for anything. She can just walk into people's houses, rummage around then go to the judge and say she wants a warrant to use it. Think how much more efficient justice will be. The innocent get trials. The guilty don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #104)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 03:39 AM

115. "Silence has never equaled admission. "

Awlaki was not silent.

You are also confusing trespassing (going into somebody's house) with people posting things in a public square (crap on the internet).

Also, you should ask your prosecutor friend about when a warrant is, and is not, needed. You might be shocked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #115)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:12 PM

121. Been there, done that.

 

I've even asked criminal court judges about the whole warrant thing. Guess what...well...I'll leave it to your imagination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #121)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 03:28 PM

124. Not much imagination needed, as I once worked for an internet "tapping" company.

Warrants are only needed, used, or required, for legal reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #124)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 03:35 PM

125. More satire. That's good.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #125)

Sun Feb 12, 2012, 05:55 AM

141. LOL, no, I was being serious.

Snort-based tapping (basically tcpdump+filtering), with happy java GUI's to de-nerd it all. Our test labs ran into 500+ nodes to generate traffic, and our "white room" test labs replayed the network traffic sniffed out of nuclear laboratories, embassies, etc. Gigabits per second, all scanned and analyzed and filtered, real time.

http://www.snort.org/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #82)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 10:18 PM

114. Absolutes are always wrong.... It did seem that your post had

a self-contradiction.

In one part you wrote, "The government killing people, who happen to be citizens, absent a trial, absent a presentation of charges, is always wrong, particularly when that person is riding in a jeep in the desert unarmed."

But then you added later, "This is not as if this was a person standing in front of a building with explosives strapped to his person ready to blow up a building." So this implied you were changing course and presenting the case when it's OK to kill them, absent a trial. Did you intend to carve out exceptions? If so, that negates the absolutes.

I believe that there are plenty of circumstances when the killing is justified including but not limited to being ready to blow up a building. Hold a gun, knife, glass of acid, billy club or whatever on any of my family (or likewise threaten any other person, or even our little beagle) and you're a fair target. Rob a bank and refuse to drop your gun and/or halt and you're a fair target. Reach for a gun in the vicinity of the President and you're a fair target. US citizenship or lack thereof is not a relevant factor in my view. I would argue also that even though intercepting an individual's communications is a lesser degree of force than a hellfire missile, I support the President's decision.

And just out of curiosity, how do you know anyone riding in a jeep was armed or unarmed? I'd bet a donut or apple fritter that most, if not all those in the jeep were packing. But unless you were there, we don't really know, do we?

But like I started, absolutes are always wrong. Irony of the statement is absolutely intentional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #114)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 12:57 PM

119. That's not what I was saying.

 

What I was pointing out was that the person standing in front of the building example might be justified (I was using that example to contrast chasing a car with two men in the desert who posed no imminent threat). However, I think killing is always wrong. There are ways to incapacitate people without killing them. Finally, as for the guy being unarmed in the jeep in the desert, the reports were that the men in the jeep were unarmed. Either way, even if they had guns, they posed nobody any imminent threat. So...I'm a purist when it comes to due process. In the same way we afforded due process to the NAZI High Command at Nuremberg, that Milosevic received due process, that Manson received due process, that Eichmann received due process, I think, when any government (or entity, such as the ICC) accuses someone of a crime, that person should receive due process consistent with international law, as currently codified in Article 66 of the Rome Statute (or Municipal Law as in the U.S. or State Constitution). Does that mean bin Laden? Yep. Does that mean Saddam Hussein? Yep. Does that mean George Bush? Yep. Does that mean Charles Taylor? Yep. That even means Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld or Doug Feith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #78)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 07:03 PM

85. First and foremost, let me get one thing right out of the way...

 


Obama is not the Department of Justice.

I'm not sure if you were around during the Gonzales hearings, but one of the big issues was whether or not the White House had its hand in the federal prosecutor firings. For the White House or President to direct the Department of Justice is a no-no. They follow only the law. It is up to Congress to change that, and the President can certainly make such a request of Congress.

I'm getting very sick and tired of people around here who were all over the scandal of the White House (likely Rove) having say in the actions of the Attorney General, and who are now turning around and blaming Obama for the actions of the DoJ.

He CAN'T direct the DoJ or even put pressure on them except to urge them to investigate possible federal crimes. He cannot tell the DoJ NOT to investigate something or 'go easy' on any group. It is a very hazardous place for a President to go.

Just so we are absolutely clear: Obama is NOT the Department of Justice.

I'll get to the rest momentarily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #85)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 08:03 PM

88. Let me get this out of the way.

 

By his appointment of the AG to head the DoJ, he states clearly where his policy objectives lie. It was the Court in Jewell who asked the DoJ if, given the change in administrations, if they wanted to scrap the state secrets privilege defense. The DoJ, now under Obama's AG, did not do that. Under Obama's AG (who is incidentally nothing but a shill for banks...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/eric-holder-banks-lanny-breuer_n_1218452.html), went further and assert complete government immunity. I guess it was a coincidence that the government's defense became more draconian after Obama's election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #88)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 11:51 PM

91. Do you know why he appointed Holder?

 


I don't. I'm not going to assume that it was because he wanted the DoJ to do as it has. From every moment up until he became president, Obama has shown what he truly wants either through words or actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #78)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 07:15 PM

86. Okay, I'd really like to know how you came to the conclusion that indefinite detention was something

 

Obama proposed.

That I'd like to know. Having read that you believe that, I am becoming dubious about the claim that the CDBG cuts were his proposals as well.

Can you show me any evidence that Obama proposed indefinite detention?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #86)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 08:15 PM

89. Huh?

 

He proposed the CDBG cuts in his latest budget...of course they were his proposals.

Did you watch the speech in the national archives where he talks about keeping people locked up who are acquitted? Or here...http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/08/12598/#more-12598; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8516402)

You will notice here: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/guantanamo/timeline/ look at March 7, 2011.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-officials-drafting-secret-indefinite-detention-policy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #89)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 11:53 PM

92. I'm sorry. I looked and I wasn't able to find it. If you could please show me

 

The actual quotes or position of the evidence in the documentation you've provided, I'd very much appreciate it.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #89)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 12:00 AM

94. It's all here. If you can't see it, I give up.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #94)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 06:53 AM

99. If it is there, then you can pinpoint it.

 


I could throw you a thousand links and claim they 'prove' something. Then, after you've spent 100 hours perusing them and come back with nothing, I would also be able to say: "If you can't see it, I give up."

It's a cheap, transparent wingnut tactic, and I don't fall for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #99)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 07:37 PM

107. Well, there it is.

 

I'm a wingnut. It was only a matter of time.

Honestly, I don't get what you can't see.

Who do you think proposed the CDBG 7.5% cuts? They are in Obama's FY2012 budget.

Who do you think proposed the indefinite detention of prisoners and people acquitted at Gitmo? Well, it came right from Obama's lips in the video...my guess is him.

It's all there, plain and simple, but, ok, I'm a wingnut, a shill, a troll and whatever other name you want to call me. Ok, fine. How about we just walk away because I don't know what else to tell you and you can't, for whatever reason, see it.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #107)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 08:59 PM

111. I didn't call you a wingnut, and you know it.

 

But you are using a tactic I see them use every time they want to defend a belief for which there exists no support.

I understand that you have to over-react in order to excuse yourself. I wish you wouldn't. You seemed so otherwise capable of rational discourse.

You have chosen to believe that which you cannot support. There's a saying from Thomas Paine that applies here:

“Attempting to debate with a person who has
abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead.”


At whatever point you can demonstrate that Obama wanted the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA, please feel free to PM me. I would certainly be disappointed in him to find such a thing out... in reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #111)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:09 PM

120. Yeah, I think you did.

 

A=B, B=C, A=C

Indefinite detention and detention of acquitted individuals: he proposed it; he made a speech about it right there in front of the national archives (and I attached the video). He even signed a law (the NDAA) that granted that power. I'm sorry, his actions speak louder than his words. Given his speech, which I continue to allude to and his actions, I don't know what other conclusion other than that he's for it.

Cutting the CDBG: it was his FY2012 budget where it came from. He mentioned it in the 2011 State of the Union.

Asserting the right to kill Americans without trial. He did it. He ordered it.

Are you honestly saying that you don't think his FY2012 budget was his budget? Are you honestly saying that he ordered the killing of American citizens without trial but didn't agree with it?

Are you honestly saying that where says in his speech that his for holding indefinitely or holding people whom a court has acquitted he didn't really agree with it?

If that's the case, then we should just wish each other peace, love and joy and go quietly about our ways because we are not going to convince each other of anything nor are we going to understand each other's perspective. If that's the case, it's a draw and we walk away...no hard feelings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #120)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 02:59 PM

123. Fish Swim. Yet swimming doesn't make you a fish.

 

Nor does using a wingnut tactic make you a wingnut.
You've applied the wrong logical rule.

There is no 'draw'.

You're going to believe something you have no evidence for. You can't quote him or point to the part of the video where he states it's his idea. You choose to live with a fantasy, and there isn't much I can do to change that. So I figure we're done here.

What I am going to do, anytime I see you or anyone else state something that is not true about Obama or has no rational basis in reality on this site, is intervene and ask for something that demonstrates the validity of that assertion.

Then, after the GE begins in earnest, I don't have to hear bullshit reasons why people 'can't vote for Obama'.

Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #123)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 04:12 PM

126. It is not my problem...

 

That you can't read where HE PROPOSED IN HIS BUDGET cutting the CDBG.

That you are not able to understand where HE PROPOSED INDEFINITE DETENTION and DETENTION OF ACQUITTED PERSONS IN HIS SPEECH.

That HE ORDERED THE HIT ON AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WITHOUT TRIAL.

So, go on believing that his words are not his words; that his actions are not his actions. I get it. I get it that you are angry. So, let me just say it this way. The Administration's FY2012 that proposed a 7.5% cut in the CDBG was not his budget. That speech where he talked about dressing up indefinite detention in some sort of concocted legal framework/star chamber were not really his words because, I don't know, he didn't write the speech? I get it that he signed the NDAA with its cute provisions that allow the government to indefinitely detain American citizens captured on US Soil, but he didn't really believe in that, even though he said he'd veto it and then didn't, but then issued a "signing statement" that he wouldn't do it, cross his heart hope to die, stick a needle in his eye. So, I get it.

While we're at it, he never said this in a speech in 2007 in Spartanburg, SC where he said this:

Understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain, when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I'll walk on that picket line with you, as president of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that someone's standing in their corner



I get it. He never said that. Finally, he never said he would "Allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S." and then reneged.

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_be075510-e4d3-11de-9691-001cc4c002e0.html

So...my bad. I'm right, you're wrong. Obama is against indefinite detention, but he felt compelled to sign the NDAA and propose detaining acquitted people. He proposed cuts to the CDBG in FY2012 because he felt he had to. He didn't want to do any of it. I get it. So, there you have it. You're right. I'm wrong. None of it ever happened because he never said, signed or proposed it.

And good on ya for the being THE enforcer, imprimatur and nihil obstat for DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #126)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 06:22 PM

131. That doesn't work on me.

 

I challenge BS. Period. Trying to paint that as some kind of character flaw is a bit sad in light of how allowing bullshit to spread is exactly why the nation is the mess it is today. The people who should be ashamed are the ones who spread the bullshit or allow it to propagate. We should all hold one another to higher standards, especially considering that wingnuts are anathema to standards.

So understand that trying to stick a label like 'self-appointed enforcer' on me reflects more on your aversion to higher standards than it does on my character.

If you want to know where this began to devolve, it happened the moment you abandoned standards of discourse and employed a wingnut tactic. Throwing someone a link and telling them to do the work of backing up your claim is a tactic I will not tolerate. No one should.

I asked about indefinite detentions and the CDBG cuts. You have still failed to provide a single quote, instance, or time marker showing that those were his proposals and his orders. That is apparently too high of a standard to ask you to meet. Instead you have done nothing but claim to be paraphrasing what he's said.

The only point that stands to reason is the execution of an American on foreign soil. That sounds like something that would have to be cleared through the executive. There were obviously reasons for doing so, that doesn't make it right. That one single transgression, if in fact true, is not enough for me to throw the election to a Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich. We're not merely talking 'greater of two evils' here, we're talking 'greater by orders of magnitude.

Again: So long as people are claiming they will not support the Democratic candidate on a Democratic site for reasons they cannot back up, I will challenge them. Everything you believe that is based in reality and sound reason will be a belief we will share. Everything you believe that is based on conjecture, hearsay, or desire is fantasy.

As for 'anger', that would be you engaging in projection, "FedUp".



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #131)

Sun Feb 12, 2012, 07:14 PM

142. I finally got it.

 

You're engaging in satire. You had me going for a while. That's good. I bow before the King of Satire. That's cool. Oh, wait...maybe it's opposite day. So, when he proposed that cut in his FY2012 budget that was really a 7.5% increase. Satire, opposite day these are great. Cool. It's like Orwellian, or maybe it's not, or maybe it is, depending upon the day it is. So..a 7.5% decrease could be a 7.5% increase depending upon which day it is. Or...depending upon which day it is, it was not his FY2012 proposed budget, it was the "Anti-President's" FY 2012 Budget....kind of like the Bizarro Budget. The cool thing is this: I can tell my Dad to call his GOP congressman and tell him it's a cut on non-opposite day and then after the congress passes this cut...or a bigger one...and the President signs it that the cut was not a cut at all, but, on opposite day, the bigger cut was actually a bigger increase. I get it...and to think you had me going about that. Next time, I can't for you to use your powers to make water into wine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #142)

Mon Feb 13, 2012, 01:09 AM

143. Cute. But fail.

 

Nice attempt to find a way to bail, but you still haven't provided a single thing to support your desire. Like I said: 'Let's have the quote' where he made such a 'proposal'. Hell, I'll even take an anecdote or second-hand account from someone in his administration. I'm trying to make this easy for you.

Are you going to keep embarrassing yourself, or provide what I requested without the wingnut tactics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #143)

Mon Feb 13, 2012, 12:04 PM

145. You're funny.

 

All these insults and satire. Methinks you doth protest too much. It's not my fault you look at Obama's FY2012 and see the 7.5% proposed cut in the CDBG and want to attribute it to someone else. That's cool. My prior post stands. You don't want to look at reality. That's fine. All I can conclude is that, as I previously said, a cut is not really a cut or the president's budget is not really the president's budget. That's fine. I've placed the facts, the quotations, the actions right in front of your face. If you choose not to see them, to put your hands over your eyes and your ears, that's your problem. But really, to say that the president's proposal to cut 7.5% from the CDBG is not his though it's in his budget, is beyond me. When he lays out, with his words, the indefinite detention of prisoners in a speech at the National Archives, and you refuse to see hear it, I can't help you. So, there I said it. I can't help you. I have nothing to conclude other than that you are engaging in a satirical rant never really intending to discuss this seriously. So, I'm done. Go ahead...say I'm using "wingnut" tactics and running away and "walking away because I'm defeated" or whatever. If it makes you feel better, fine. So, I'm saying you're right, but I didn't really say that, or did I? Maybe I did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #145)

Mon Feb 13, 2012, 12:45 PM

146. No insults, just factual observation.

 

No 'victory' or 'defeat'. Just an attempt to bring something into focus.

You believe something for which no support exists. You simply choose to believe that you know Obama's intentions, yet you cannot point to anything that backs up such a belief.

Does it not bother you that fundamentalists do the same thing? They choose to believe much for which no support exists. It bothers me to see that same behavior coming from supposed progressives, yet here it is, right in front of me.

To truly believe that every single thing a President signs contains only provisions that the President wants displays an astounding level of political naïvete as well. If that is truly all you have to go on, I have another question:

"Do you actually believe that Presidents never propose or sign anything that contains provisions they are personally opposed to?"



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #145)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 06:39 PM

147. Since you're apparently not going to answer the question, I'll explain to the readers why.

 

You can't answer the question because a 'yes' answer would indicate that you are very politically naïve when it comes to the bills and proposals that a president signs. Since you are aware that presidents often sign bills that contain provisions they do not like or want because there is otherwise much that is needed, you can't honestly say 'yes'.

You can't answer the question with a 'no' either, because that would be an admission that the very thin premise you are trying to use to justify your belief is, in fact, false.

You know very well that his merely signing a bill does not indicate that he is in favor of everything in it, but since you have no other indications for your desire-based belief, it's the only thing you can come up with.

I learned long ago to distinguish between beliefs based on desire and those based on reality. It's an important part of developing a mature world-view. It's one of the reasons we so roundly reject the opinions of wingnuts and fundies. Given that Obama stated clearly that he opposed the detention provision in the NDAA, and that you cannot provide any support showing that Obama wants to cut such programs in the CDBG, your 'belief' that Obama is some kind of 'cruel' person is, in a nutshell, "bullshit".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #147)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 01:03 AM

148. No.

 

You're not worth it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #148)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 01:50 AM

149. That's a pretty typical tactic. It doesn't work on me either.

 

The real problem with someone who refuses to do introspection isn't that they think someone else 'isn't worth it'.

You simply don't think you are worth it. Otherwise you would choose to grow rather than run away from your own transparency. Try to understand this: this isn't about me 'being right' or you 'being wrong', this is about whether you wish to be someone who bases their beliefs on desire, or reality.

Tell us, in your own words, why you can't answer the question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #149)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:05 AM

150. You go with that.

 

Oh, Jesus. Will you get a load of yourself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #150)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:23 AM

151. I know you're looking for a way out.

 


You can't answer the question, but you continue to reply. Why don't you explain why you can't answer the question?

You can't do that either, and by now it's blatantly obvious why. So just leave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #151)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 12:40 PM

152. I think it's fun to watch your obsession with me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #152)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 01:54 PM

153. Oh, it's nothing so personal.

 

My 'obsession' is with the forces of self-delusion and anti-reason. I simply don't let people who base their beliefs on desire rather than reality off the hook. That you can't seem to walk away only indicates you're struggling with the fact that you've been pegged as just such a person but can't make any kind of case to demonstrate otherwise. I've given you every opportunity, yet you can't produce quotes, point to footage, or produce any material reason for your belief that Obama 'wants' these terrible things. Instead, you've produced the incredible premise that 'everything in a bill a president signs, the president personally wants'... which is bullshit right on the face of it.

I'm doing this because I enjoy cutting through bullshit. It's a hobby I began in earnest when dealing with wingnuts who routinely spout bullshit. I like the exercise of getting to a particular truth of someone's character. If a person is mature, they will acknowledge the sound reason and facts they've been confronted with and decide to 'adapt' their worldview. It is something I myself do quite often as I am bound by reason, although I make no claim to perfection. If a person is not mature, they will resort to derision, ridicule, or evasion rather than adjust their views to the reality.

As you have done quite repeatedly here. So please, if you can't grow, just leave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #89)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 06:49 AM

98. What do you mean "Huh?"?

 

There is no need to substitute rudeness for substance here. If there is one DUer that understands condescension, it's most certainly myself. There is no place for that, even in such a small dose, in this exchange.

The question that I asked was very straightforward. I've examined each and every one of your links and not a single one provides any evidence that it was Obama that wanted any of the above. I get the notion that 'The Buck Stops Here', and I'm not necessarily letting him off the hook for what happens in his administration, but my point upthread is that he doesn't have full control over his administration... for now.

In fact, I said exactly this:

(Consider that) Obama was not lying when he said he was not in favor of the very points you are also opposed to. Consider that to do some real good in the face of what is arguably the most ardent and unreasonable opposition any president since Lincoln has ever faced, Obama had to make compromises that he was unequivocally opposed to.

Consider that the reality is more frightening and potentially more dire than "Obama did it because HE wanted it", but "Obama did it because there was no alternative".



In not one single link that you have provided is there any indication of any kind that I am wrong here. In fact, there is this interesting excerpt:

The policy, if adopted, would apply to future terrorism captures, and is reportedly still being debated within the administration with some officials voicing objections.
*Emphasis mine.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-officials-drafting-secret-indefinite-detention-policy

What you have provided in stead is evidence that the administration was torn. Since Obama actually and unequivocally stated:

“I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/02/president-obama-signed-the-national-defense-authorization-act-now-what/

... it stands to reason that my suggestion that Obama is opposed to the very same points you are is correct.

Apparently, he's on your side in all of this, and you do not seem to have evidence to the contrary. It would seem that your 'belief' that Obama is the bad guy is composed more of desire than reality.

You and Obama seem to agree on the detention issue. You both have stated an aversion to it. Are you still possessed of the belief that he does not agree with you?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #98)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 12:21 PM

101. Here.

 

One more time.

Indefinite detention: his proposal in the speech at the national archives.

Detention of acquitted individuals: his proposal.

CDBG cuts: his proposal in his 2012 budget.

Killing American citizens without trial: his administration and on his order.

Regarding the NDAA: if he really had been against it, he would have vetoed it (as he said he would). The so-called "signing statement" is nothing but toilet paper masquerading as principle, or something. Given the fact that he ordered the killing of American citizens and that he proposed holding people acquitted, what benefit should I give him of any doubt that he wouldn't exercise the unconstitutional power to detain Americans picked up on American soil?

And, please, don't lecture me on condescension, etc. That horse left the barn a long time ago with you riding it.

As a matter of fact Obama and I don't agree. I don't agree with indefinitely detaining citizens without trial. I don't agree with killing citizens accused of crimes without trial. I don't agree with cutting vital programs for the poor...that work so well...like the community development block grant. I don't agree with detaining people acquitted. I don't agree with detaining people without charge.

Finally, as to my "aversion" to indefinite detention, I don't have an "aversion" to it. It's unconstitutional. We should never do it. He's for it. He said he was. He signed a law that had it in there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=46348

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #101)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 09:04 PM

112. It always fascinates me when someone becomes condescending,

 

then when I point it out they resort to projection.

Still no quotes from Obama or anything demonstrating he wanted what he stated very clearly he did not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #112)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 12:46 PM

118. Oh...now I get it. Satire.

 

So, the speech that he gave at the national archives was not his words.

The budget he proposed was not his budget.

The actions that he took were not his actions.

You had me going there for a minute. That's pretty good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #112)

Sat Feb 11, 2012, 01:04 PM

137. omg.

project much?



fascinating little exchange there indeed, not as if people cannot read for themselves.


War is Peace!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inna (Reply #137)

Sat Feb 11, 2012, 03:15 PM

138. I don't pretend to be something I'm not.

 

If people don't like being condescended to, they shouldn't employ wingnut tactics in a discussion. Make no mistake about it, if I'm 'talking down' to you, you've earned it.

So, did you bother to grasp the point of the discussion, or are you just here to feel superior to someone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #138)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 03:12 PM

154. I imagine many people sincerely believe they have...

I imagine many people sincerely believe they have the depth of wisdom to confirm that one or another has "earned" vulgar behavior... I'd guess that more often than not, it allows a person to feel "superior to someone."

On the other hand, I imagine that those who actually posses wisdom and insight, avoid condescending remarks, as they are, by definition, most unwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #154)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 04:53 PM

156. Such wise condescension.

 

Truly a fascinating example.

When people behave like children, I talk to them like children. When people behave like adults, I speak to them as adults. I'd let you in on a little secret too, but I'm certain that in your great wisdom and superiority you have it all figured out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #89)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 07:43 PM

134. Thank you for all thesse links.

I don't get Current TV and I really miss seeing Turley on KO's show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #32)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 01:46 AM

97. The NDAA codified what was already decided. By supreme law of the land (not the president).

Oh, and "indefinite" is the wrong word.

War prisoners can go home when hostilities cease.

That is a defined end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #97)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 11:58 AM

100. They aren't "war prisoners."

 

They aren't even prisoners of war. There is no war. There is only endless death, destruction and mayhem so that capitalists can rape and pillage....oh, never mind. Go read the Geneva Conventions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #100)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 03:47 AM

116. ...and "there is no spoon".

I think we're done with this branch.

Over 100,000 dead, and it's not war?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #100)

Sat Feb 11, 2012, 12:45 PM

136. you're 100% correct, and this was a brilliant and noteworthy series of posts -


and... people routinely get banned from here for less.

the only reason i'm mentioning this is that... i want to read more of your posts, i'd hate to see you gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #100)

Sat Feb 11, 2012, 03:38 PM

139. +100 for this response. Thanks for sharing your awareness....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #139)

Mon Feb 13, 2012, 01:26 AM

144. 'Awareness' of that which he cannot support

 

is not so much 'awareness' as 'desire to believe'.

It's sad to see DUers reduced to emotion-based beliefs. But since so many here want to believe that Obama is evil, his voice will be joined.

Right up until the GE, where people who can't explain their undermining will be gone. I look forward to that.

Now say something ridiculous like "You just don't like legitimate criticism of Obama!" or some other foolishness. If his undermining of Obama were 'legitimate', then he could provide something to back it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #97)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 07:45 PM

135. There was a time when the Constitution was the Supreme Law of the Land.

Now the supreme law of the land seems to be "Be afraid. Be very very afraid. And if you refuse to be afraid of those things we in power tell you to fear, then you are a terrorist yourself. And you can be locked up indefinitely, without any charges against you, Forever."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:26 PM

10. Also, now the neanderathal Repubs will say "Look how evil


Superpac's are!"

And maybe the conversation will move toward eliminating them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrat_patriot (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:44 PM

19. good thought

you have something there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrat_patriot (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:56 PM

26. I'd like to think so, but republicans aren't known for being reasonable.

Likely, they'll just throw a hissy fit (like they do about the corporate media by painting it as big liberal media) and cast themselves as the victim and try to get us to agree to unreasonable concessions that make it easier for them and harder for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrat_patriot (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 10:36 PM

66. Good point

If both parties are damaged by super pacs, they may start to rethink it. We can hope!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrat_patriot (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 07:22 PM

87. Unfortunately, it won't work that way.

 

They'll just spend more money to convince more people that the REAL problem is the 'liberal' superpacs for engaging in unethical practices.

Remember that wingnuts don't care if their 'side' is doing anything unethical. They're sports fans, as far as they're concerned the fact that an accusation comes from the 'other side' makes it false. They don't use reason or critical thought. It'll just become another game of us vs them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:09 PM

29. BINGO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:12 PM

31. Yep it's that simple n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:37 PM

46. exactly, too bad Russ didn't have the same eye on victory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:20 PM

2. Why won't he run against Walker? What are his plans? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:27 PM

43. He's supposed to have been Law Professor-ing and ...

... founding/running Progressives United.

Perhaps he'll get back into public service, when it's not as smelly as it is now. I know I wouldn't have the stomach for all the ass-kissing and behind-closed-doors bullshit meddlings that being a Senator/Governor etc requires nowadays ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:23 PM

5. principle is great and all

but at some point, once the rules have been officially changed, as they have, you can't unilaterally disarm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:50 PM

23. Super (pac) DITTO!

...ya gotta love it.

The GOPathetic, FuxNews and even Dems/Libs/Progressives are HOWLING about this.

Andddd, exactly what would those howlers like Prez O to do? How would he compete?

...idiots.

And Russ...get your butt out there and run. Then work for change. Stop howling...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:24 PM

6. I love Russ and miss him dearly, but I think he's a bit naive on this subject...

...and he shouldn't be. He faced untold millions from the KKKoch Brothers during his reelection bid. He, of all people, should know and understand that when faced with the Citizens United decision, Obama and the Democratic Party HAVE NO CHOICE!!

How does Russ think that the Democrats will win?

They are forced to play this game. And yes, the message may get lost in all the muck and mire of this election, but again, they have absolutely no choice in the matter.

The Democrats won't be able to compete with Citizens United money from the Right unless they organize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:39 PM

17. Citizens United

Although I liked the old system, the citizens united decision will be around a long time. The old system did have a downside too, as that system created a culture of negative ads (swift boats), as the 527's could not run positive ads for who they supported. It would be foolish for the Democrats not to organize superpacs when the right has heavily embraced the concept. The people are still the ones who vote, and it is up to the people to vote for their own interests.

Just like 1/3rd of the population of this country embraces the policies that keep the 1% in power, there are some liberal donors from the 1% that support the 99%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:26 PM

8. We need to negotiate a truce, not unilaterally disarm.

And he should know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:26 PM

11. Sorry Russ, you are on your own on this one.

We have no choice. Our democracy is threatened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:28 PM

12. Sorry, Russ. Suggesting Obama unilaterally disarm is absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:29 PM

13. Yes. Gun to a gun-fight.

Plus: my hopes are that this will be such an unprecedented deluge of campaign ads that Americans will become universally disgusted by it.

Then, once there's waaaaay too much of it all, progress on overturning it can begin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:36 PM

15. I like Russ more than I like Obama but he's not right here....

I'm glad for once to see him not insist on bringing a plate of cookies to a gun fight.

Especially given all the ways that he's been pro big money and subjected his policies to the influence of to and appointed people favorable to big money's influence in politics, it would be stupid for him to all of a sudden take a stand on THIS. It wouldn't carry any weight given his past actions and it would insure a Republican victory.

Not the place to make a stand and draw the line in the sand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:39 PM

16. Sorry Russ, I disagree. BHO has to win another four years to give us a chance...

... to overturn Citizens United. Spurning money won't help get him re-elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:44 PM

20. How dare President Obama use the law created by the McCain-Feingold bill, complains Feingold! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:46 PM

21. Feingold

He should remember the fil The Untouchables.Sean Conney said to Kevin Costner.They bring a Knife you bring a gun.They put one of yours In the hospital you put one of theirs In the morgue.That Is the Chicago way.

That Is what Is needed here.He Isn't running.Obama has to play this fight by the rules that are set up by The Supreme Court.Our goal
has to be beating Romney.And hopefully help Democrats running for Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:54 PM

25. I agree with Russ. And he's also soooooo wrong on this one.

As much as many Obama policies piss me off, and as much as I hate him making this move, he has to. He'd be a damn fool not to. There are times that I think Obama policies have, indeed, been moral failings. This isn't one of them -- I can hate it 'til I'm blue in the face, this is a practical necessity thanks to our perverse SCOTUS ruling. This must be addressed, but Obama shooting himself and his election possibilities in the proverbial foot ain't the way to do it. Sorry, Russ, this is just plain naive. I could have supported it if you'd simply acknowledged that it's a pity he has to join in on this and Russ hopes he and the Dems will forcefully oppose this after Obama's re-election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Reply #25)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:03 PM

27. When does it end? The same arguments were made when special interest money started flooding

campaigns in the 90s. "We have to play the game or we will lose any chance of ever winning." I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. The republicans had near total power for 6 years and abused the hell out of it and yet, they regained the house in 2010, when they should have no credibility at all. Most voters know the system is corrupt and they aren't going "well, at least the Dems aren't quite as rotten as the republicans." They're just staying away from the voting booth out of disgust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groovedaddy (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:35 PM

34. On the other side, if we don't win, it sets the stage for stacking the deck.

With our form of government, it allows for additional roadblocks to reforming the system (like stacking the court with Alito/Roberts/Scalia).

The republicans know how to play that game and I would not give them the opportunity to corrupt the system so thoroughly that the only recourse to fix the problems would be something very near to dismantling the union and rebuilding it from scratch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #34)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:34 PM

45. "corrupt the system so thoroughly" - I think we're already there. I'm not sure that we have to

dismantle the whole shebang. Besides, a third party/independent movement could easily be the result of what's happening now. Far too many people do not trust either party. I do hear what you're saying about stacking the courts but the repubs had it for 6 years any way. If the Dems had forsook special interest money a few years before 2000, it probably would have been the same result electorally then, but the Dems would have far more credibility now. It amazes me that the republican primaries are having such low turnouts with all the Obama hating that's going on over there. People are fed up with this mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groovedaddy (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 03:23 PM

155. That, I believe is a wonderful point.

"The same arguments were made when special interest money started flooding..."
That, I believe is a most wonderful point.

Rather than continue the monied PAC race, we should also be identifying ways to remove the undue influence money, and replace it once again with the influence of merely voting. Too many will rationalize engaging in an unethical act by stating that the other side does it too; if the cheap and tired bumper-sticker philosophy of "bringing a knife to a gunfight" is the best argument for a thing, than it would appear the direct implication is that gunfights are bad...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:08 PM

28. Sorry, Russ, I see it as simply recognizing the law and the current playing field,

unfortunate as that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:11 PM

30. Why is it we only hear what Feingold has to say when he bashes Obama?

Presumably, Feingold has equally strong points to make against the GOPers -- particularly those in his own state of WI -- but even a liberal news source like huffpost ignores him until he he disagrees with Obama.

Granted, Russ was one of the namesakes of the McCain-Feingold bill, but as I recall, a good bit of that was ruled unconstitutional. So that kind of make his "druthers" on the issue of campaign finance a moot point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneQPublic (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:42 PM

37. I rather suspect it has to do with our corporate media.

Huffpost is presumably "liberal media", but not exactly a stalwart ally in that respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneQPublic (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:46 PM

38. Russ isn't bashing Obama. He's disagreeing with him. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:31 PM

33. President Obama

can't afford to make Feingold's mistake. He lost because he was outspent.

Same with Alan Grayson, who makes no secret of that fact. Most people also acknowledge this.

Feingold is asking that the President allow Republicans to have a legal advantage. That's ludicrous.

The President is still pushing for changing the rules.

The President opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action—by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending.

http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/we-will-not-play-by-two-sets-of-rules

Campaign finance reform is still an issue. I should add, the DISCLOSE Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, giving Republicans a unusual ally. It's going to be up to public pressure and Democrats to get this done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:39 PM

36. Is Feingold Inconveniently Right?

 

Oh well, I guess the means justifies the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:46 PM

39. They're both right!!Russ is right that it will lead to a legalized Abramoff system & the President's

team is right that it is necessary in order to compete in the elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:52 PM

40. The Conservatives are freaking out!

The conservatives are very afraid of this change. They seem to be going crazy.
Just say that you think President Obama is aiming to raise 200 million with his super PAC and the conservatives go nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:13 PM

41. yeah, arm one group with guns and the other groups says "we'll use sticks"...ah..no Russ..nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:24 PM

42. Quelle surprise!

Isn't this the same candidate who pledged in 2007 to forgo private funding in the general election? Then in 2008 broke his campaign promise and opted out of receiving public financing in his battle against McCain.

Same modus operandi , different election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #42)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:30 PM

44. It's

Isn't this the same candidate who pledged in 2007 to forgo private funding in the general election? Then in 2008 broke his campaign promise and opted out of receiving public financing in his battle against McCain.

...not the same thing.

<...>

This step is being compared by many to the decision by Obama in 2008 to reject public funds (and the spending limits accompanying them) after promising to play within that system. I don’t see it. For one thing, while Obama and other Democrats have deplored the Supreme Court decision that enabled Super PACs, I haven’t heard him make any specific promise that he would perpetually oppose the creation of one by Democrats. Moreover, in 2008, John McCain was in a position to attack Obama’s “flip-flop” on public financing because he was accepting public funds himself. No Republican candidate is in a position to exhibit innocence with respect to Super PACs.

Sure, GOPers will cry “hypocrisy,” while some goo-goo folks will cluck disapprovingly. And the content of Super PAC ads and other activities on both sides could well become an occasional campaign issue. But the minimal political cost of this fairly obvious decision can’t come close to matching the potential benefit of leveling the playing field. Super PACs have already become a huge factor in this presidential race. Wishing them away won’t do a bit of good, and until such time as the composition of the Supreme Court changes, they will remain an unfortunate but immovable part of the political landscape.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_02/fire_with_fire035245.php


In fact, Democrats are glad McCain lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #44)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:41 PM

47. Of course Democrats are glad that McCain lost.

That doesn't make Obama any less hypocritical now and back in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:07 PM

48. If the D super pacs can out-raise the R super pacs, the Rs will go running to the SCOTUS

post-election to get Citizens United overturned ASAP.

And they'll get it overturned with the current partisan majority on the SCOTUS (R).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:12 PM

49. Russ, you lost a long time senate seat in a blue state

 

Maybe you should focus on what exactly went wrong with you on that. The Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue, and for now superPACs are the name of the game.

I'm interested in Obama winning and doing so without arm tied behind his back rather than submitting to your purity tests.

I do understand where Feingd is coming from and respect his positions. He was a great senator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:17 PM

51. A winner does what a loser won't and President Obama is a winner

 

when you have 2 Koch brothers and 3 other people saying they themselves are going to donate $500 million to defeat Obama, well, you gotta have equal sides.

Like the sign in the movie said "A winner does what a loser won't", and President Obama is a winner.

Don't like super pacs? Then the SCOTUS needs to be changed. THE RIGHTWING SCOTUS that Bush and Reagan gave us.

Having a republican president will mean decades more of rightwing SCOTUS.

We need President Obama to win in 2012 and the democrat to win in 2016 and 2020 and the court will be at (most likely) 7 to 2 or 8 to 1 democrat(ic).
And corporate citizen will be forever history.

But only if Obama wins reelection.

as to Russ...well, didn't he open his own lobby group? Hasn't he whined and whined
AFTER HE LOST and he is not g0ing to run in his state now (reminding me of Bill Bradley who did the same a few years ago

Like the lotto ad says "You gotta be in it to win it" and not a couch potato whining on the sidelines.

Sorry Russ, but you are wrong here.

One super negative ad destroyed Newt and that was financed by the super pacs on the right.

President Obama is looking like a sure winner, we cannot get it snatched away and having Rove snicker in the background after the Repubs come back.

Once reelection is done, then the rules will be easier to switch back(espeically if the Dems hold the senate and re-take the house as it looks possible they will).

(btw Russ- why back years ago, didn't you make the Feingold/McCain law without big holes(loopholes any two year old saw coming?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:37 PM

53. I can hope Super PACs will be just as bad, just as painful to the Republicans and they will also


want to do away with Citizens United.

Newt Gingrich certainly didn't like the crushing attack from Romney's Super Pac in Iowa or Florida.

Until Citizens United is reversed, Obama must play by the new rules or get swept aside.

I only hope Obama has enough Super Pac money to at least keep the playing field level.

I guess I'm naive about the Republicans. Last I heard, the Republicans wanted to do away with spending limits to political parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:40 PM

54. The President has to do what he has to do to survive until WE get strong enough to make

him (AND Congress, btw) do what we want them/him to do.

Anyone who recognizes the degree and depth of corruption in the system *A*N*D* says President Obama should ignore it is either being dishonest or just doesn't REALLY understand how completely and thoroughly ALL but the 1% are OWNED.

"Lesser of two evils"??? HELL yes!!! That's the way it *A*L*W*A*Y*S* has been/is, so the REAL questions are ONLY about HOW MUCH LESSER and anyone who tells you differently is either ignorant or lying, so ask yourself WHY MIGHT THEY BE DOING THAT. Hmmmmmm????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 06:43 PM

59. I love Russ Feingold, but he's wrong here.

In an ideal world, he'd be right. This world, especially in Washington, is far from ideal, though.

The rules of the game have changed. They suck and are terrible, but the only way to reverse them is to make sure Obama is re-elected and he gets a liberal Congress, and eventually, a liberal Supreme Court. He'd get crushed without super PAC money. R-Money then wins, and Citizens United is the rule for a generation.

It's time for Democrats to fight fire with fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boxman15 (Reply #59)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 02:25 AM

70. why would Obama want a liberal Congress? He's not a liberal.

 

I think he would prefer a center-right Blue Dog dominated Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to provis99 (Reply #70)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 07:14 PM

132. That is WHO the White House campaigned for in the 2010 Democratic Primaries.

Especially revealing was the Arkansas Democratic Primary 2010
where the White House went All In to support virulently Anti-LABOR/Anti-HealthCare Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln
against a popular Pro-LABOR/Pro-HealthCare challenger, Democratic Lt Governor Bill Halter
who had the endorsement of LABOR and the Grass Roots.
The White House even sent the Old Blue Dog, Bill Clinton, back to Arkansas to rescue Lincoln's failing campaign.

Arkansas wasn't alone.
This situation was mirrored in other states with the White House and the Party Establishment endorsing and funding Blue Dogs in Democratic Primaries.
In Pennsylvania, the White House even managed to insert a Republican, Arlen Specter, into the race for a previously Democratic seat. With plenty of help & funds from the White House and conservative Party Establishment, Specter managed to win the Democratic Primary against a legitimate Democrat.




You will know them by their WORKS,
and by whom they support in Democratic Primaries.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:21 PM

60. The only way to defeat SuperPacs is to show that they do not give the GOP an edge.

If SuperPacs 1) destroy Romney by forcing him to campaign forever against well funded primary challengers and 2) give the incumbent, Obama lots of money to spend ripping Romney using the primary as ammo and 3) allow banking and insurance to shut Big Oil out of the GOP primary then the SCOTUS will reverse itself the next chance it gets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #60)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 10:21 PM

65. i think the unions will be a big force in this election cycle

my wife is the political chair of her local and from what she`s getting from her leadership is this election cycle is do or die for the unions in this country.

we need a 50 state wisconsin style movement....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:32 PM

61. Russ Feingold is right on this topic....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #61)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 09:30 PM

90. He is the only one who lives by his own principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 10:13 PM

64. because of citizens united the unions can do the same as corporations...

citizens united was a great victory for the labor unions. the biggest disadvantage is the amount the unions can raise from their members but we have advantages that corporations do not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:01 PM

77. As long as he pushes to eliminate the system in future elections, Obama is right.

He has no choice but to use the same legal options that the GOP uses if he wants to win.

I hope he pushes hard to change it before the next presidential election though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #77)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 08:52 PM

109. He has not shown any inclination in that direction.

Robert Reich speaks the truth:

Robert Reich: The Sad Spectacle of Obama's Super Pac
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002286937


....The sad truth is Obama has never really occupied the high ground on campaign finance. He refused public financing in 2008. Once president, he didn’t go to bat for a system of public financing that would have made it possible for candidates to raise enough money from small donors and matching public funds they wouldn’t need to rely on a few billionaires pumping unlimited sums into super PACS. He hasn’t even fought for public disclosure of super PAC donations.

And now he’s made a total mockery of the Court’s naïve belief that super PACs would remain separate from individual campaigns ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 01:17 PM

79. I really like Russ

but I think he is completely wrong on this, you don't take a knife to
a gun fight, that's all I'm saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 05:21 PM

80. I understand Russ, and support him.

You can't Beat Them by becoming Them.
The "Centrist" Democrats proved this when they opened the door to Corporate Money and CEO/Management in the late 80s and gave them a seat at the table in the "Big Tent".

John Edwards (warts and all) was 100% correct when he said, "If you give them a seat at the table,
they will eat all the food".

QED: The DLC

I thought that politicians and Political Parties had no control or coordination with SuperPacs.
Why does the White House even have to acknowledge this,
much less endorse it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #80)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 05:30 PM

106. The DLC is gone. Get the heck over it. You have to compete against the big Puke money. Get real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Reply #106)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 08:03 PM

108. The DLC is not "gone".

The DLC WON.
They are still here, and calling all of the shots.

The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85


The question I can't get answered on DU:
If SuperPACs operate independently,
and BY LAW have no connection with the politician they endorse what-so-ever,
WHY did President Obama endorse them and give them legitimacy
when he could have said nothing at all,
and retain the Moral High Ground without losing any of the cash benefits?


Welcome to the New Normal.
It is going to be difficult for our president to condemn SuperPACS
without looking like a hypocrite.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #108)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 08:55 PM

110. bvar22...

Cutting through the bullshit, as usual.

:thumbs up:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #108)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 05:31 PM

129. I will offer one

You said;If SuperPACs operate independently,
and BY LAW have no connection with the politician they endorse what-so-ever,
WHY did President Obama endorse them and give them legitimacy
when he could have said nothing at all,
and retain the Moral High Ground without losing any of the cash benefits?

Because , if he did not endorse it, that would suggest he was going to run a half arsed campaign, where people would serve him steak, but he wopuld not be involved with the killing, butchery and bloodshed, that is exactly the narrtive the right wants to spin, that Obnama is too weak to commit to violence. Laugh all you want, but FDR knew he had to dive into all the ugliness, and "welcome their hatred", not put on a halo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #108)

Sat Feb 11, 2012, 04:47 PM

140. I love that Paul Wellstone quote..... He sure had his finger on the pulse of where this race to the

superest super pacs were going to be taking the Democratic Party....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 05:29 PM

105. No it is SMART. Until we can reverse Citizens United, we need an even playing field. Feingold, you

LOST your last election, and it had a lot to do with financing. We have to be able to compete against the right wing onslaught of money, keep Obama, get a Supreme Court majority, and overturn that scandalous ruling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 09:25 PM

113. Russ Feingold's voice in the Senate is sorely missed

He was probably one of the more principled politicians I've seen. Being the sole vote against the Patriot Act took some real guts.

But the simple fact is...he lost. He was the incumbent for 18 years so that was a big loss and he lost to a relative unknown at that. Besides, I think it's now telling what a joke McCain-Feingold was to begin with. Sorry, but that was some real weak legislation that did nothing to correct the fundamental problems with the system. A bandage at best - for a wound that was septic.

This graphic is illustrative of how it was in the midterms and that's nothing compared to what it will be this time. The Democrats were outspent 2:1.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-11-04-money04_ST_N.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fujiyama (Reply #113)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 07:41 PM

133. Yeah, I miss Feingold also. Sad that he's lost.

I keep forgetting that he opposed the Patriot Act. And as you say, was the only Senator doing that.

People in the House of Representatives who voted against the Patriot Act ended up receiving death threats. Don't know if that happened to Russ, but the threats were disgusting.

It used to be understood that America was one place where dissent was valued - now we are all supposed to acquiesce to the Powers that Be, or be considered UnAmerican. Whatever has happened to our country?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:16 PM

122. This would have been so much more effective from the Senate floor. Oh, right. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 04:17 PM

127. I love Russ too and miss him

but on this I think we have to fight just as dirty as the reps because we know how immoral they are. Anything right now to keep Obama in office. I hope they will do something but don't see it happening before the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 05:33 PM

130. And what do we have now

"A legalized Abramoff system".

The only possible way to get a legal non Abramoff system is to get enough votes in the Senate and House to pass legislations.

Too bad Russ can only conduct phone interviews that will only be read by the left and completely ignored by everyone else.

I am sure that there is a moral in all of this but it escapes me at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread