Kieth Olbermann and Mother Jones take on President Obama

[oladub]

President Obama is outdoing President Bush. As a Senator, he voted for Patriot Act II and pardoned telecom executives for illegal wiretapping. He said that he didn't feel good about the latter at the time and suggested that the problems with the wiretapping bill could be taken care of later.

President Obama has now stepped up to the plate and addressed wiretapping. He decided to expand wiretapping beyond the scope of anything Bush had tried to get away with. This has Kieth Olberman upset. It isn't the change that he had hoped for.

"Obama Moves To Legalize Warrantless Wiretapping!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jSUHVUgJFc

Last week, the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial about the need for cyber security making claims that Russian and Chinese derived bugs were now in our power grid and could be activated at any time. Perhaps so but Mother Jones Magazine claims that the bill that just happens to be ready when the WSJ article was released also includes provisions that would give presidents great control over the internet..

"Should Obama Control the Internet?" A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ntrol-internet

[Johnlodge]

CHANGE you can believe in!

[Sstashmoo]

I believe it.

Really starting to question this guy..

[Sstashmoo]

Fly,

It isn't just that, you are right however.

There are a few other issues the Obama administration is not attacking as fast as we need. Trade?

[ccbatson]

"Starting to question this guy"? 5 months too late...don't forget come 2012...don't worry, the misery we will be sharing as a result of Obama's communist agenda will be unforgettable.

[d.mcc]

"Starting to question this guy"? 5 months too late...don't forget come 2012...don't worry, the misery we will be sharing as a result of Obama's communist agenda will be unforgettable.

If what you say comes to fruition, then glorious leader will have no trouble in 2012!

[oldredfordette]

I salute the future, comrades!

[ccbatson]

Better to laugh than cry I suppose. I am not worried, 4 years of this stuff, and even the staunchest liberals will not be able to remain in denial.

[ccbatson]

Your "facts" 1, 2, and 3 [[of 4 items) confirm socialist tendencies and policies.

Who doesn't have a clue?

[ccbatson]

"National health care" what does the word national refer to?

Also, you realize that pundit is a complimentary term, don't you?

Regarding capitalism...the US was, maybe still is, and definitely needs to be the most capitalistic [[and free) nation in the world. That is what makes the country exceptional and desirable as a "land of opportunity".

[ccbatson]

My post #275, 3rd segment, second phrase...asked and answered.

The time you should not waste is the time it takes to read before reacting.

[ccbatson]

All right, I will clarify for those having trouble...YES THE US IS THE MOST CAPITALISTIC NATION IN THE WORLD.

[firstandten]

Well, there is one of his policies I don't support.

You know, you're allowed to do that, right? You can disagree with certain policies and still support his general administration.

We're not like republicans where you have to support every one of the president's policies, or you "hate America, love terrorists, and embolden our enemies, then are viciously attacked"

That is a very thoughtful post. One doesn't need to or should be in lockstep with all of Obama's policies. I am convince that there is a reason for some of the policies that I may question. And I support him and feel that after everything has been said and done after his eight years he will be on the short list as one of the best presidents this country has ever had.

I am of the belief that if we actually knew how bad some of the issues he faces actually are you could understand some of the moves he made.

For example people wonder why he has folks like Geithner and Summers advising him rather than Krugman on the economy. I do believe that once he saw just how bad things were, he needed people on the inside who knew the players and understood how to figure out exactly what was wrong and he had to do it quick. Who's better than the people responsible for the mess. That is the pragmatism in Obama. As long as people on this board see him as a left-wing ideolog you will miss the way he is trying to govern. The right wing talk show hosts [[who appeal to the lowest common demonimator) can keep throwing the "S" word around and swear Obama is going to take your AK 47 away from you but again you miss the point.

The situation with Obama's DOJ position on wiretapping is troubling. But for what Obama is trying to do in terms of dealing with the economy, housing, jobs, health care among other things only one thing can derail all of this and I don't mean the crazed house and senate republicans. Or the tea throwing, violence inciting right wing talk show hosts. I mean another 9-11 style attack will put everything back to square one. So while Obama is talking cooperation to the Muslim world, getting rid of Gitmo, speaking to its people and its leaders hoping to gain favor, he is ramping up Afghanistan and dealing with the wiretapping. knowing no matter what he does there are probably some creditable plots that need to be stopped.

[ccbatson]

Figure out what was wrong? Easy...Socialism=Obama...uh oh, we have a major problem here.

[oladub]

If expanding wiretapping and expanding control over the internet wasnt enough, Obama's legal team now wants to limit defendants' rights.

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer – Apr 24
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 23 year-old decision that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, the latest stance that has disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups. http://tinyurl.com/casmkn

Bush redux: "This is like déjÃ[ vu all over again." -Yogi Berra

[firstandten]

The Obama administration has argued for the end of the Michigan v Jackson ruling that requires police to provide an attorney for a suspect once one has been requested.
No, that’s not what the ruling says, and that’s not what the Justice Department is requesting in its brief. The Obama administration has not argued that the police should not provide lawyers to criminal suspects, or anything like it.
Michigan v. Jackson covers what happens after the defendant gets to court — namely, the following situation:
Defendant is arraigned in court and asserts his right to counsel. Police then approach him and advise him of his Miranda rights. He waives them. They advise him that he has a right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. He waives it. He then voluntarily provides a confession to the crime. [[You can even assume that the confession is recorded, so that we know all these waivers were properly obtained, and there was no coercion involved.)
A court will still suppress that voluntary confession., because of Michigan v. Jackson, which says that any confession resulting from interrogation initiated by the police must be suppressed if the right to counsel has been asserted by the defendant at his arraignment.
The Justice Department is simply arguing that a defendant should be able to waive these rights and give a voluntary confession that won’t be suppressed.

One of the reasons for DOJ wants clarity is because there has been some confusion on this issue in one of the lower courts.

You still may not like it but this is no grand plan by Obama to take away your rights


The thing to understand about Obama is that he leans to the left, but he is a not what you call a progressive.

In his speeches he will paint a picture of how the world should be from his point of view .

But he operates and governs in a world as it really is.

He has certain core values like being against torture but sees bringing the Bush crime family to justice not necessary part of his report card to the american people. He's sees the time, political capital expended and the national division over this situation taking away from what the people will judge him on. Fixing the economy, creating jobs, dealing with health care etc.

He knows an 9-11 type attack will blow up his domestic agenda, so he is going to do whatever he needs to do legally to make sure that won't happen. Thats why were still in Afghanistan

Now if the Bush torture memos bubble up to such an extent that the people insist that he prosecutes them he will, otherwise its an second term [[if he gets it) agenda item.

[rb336]

Figure out what was wrong? Easy...Socialism=Obama...uh oh, we have a major problem here.

can you just stop that baseless, stupid shit bats?

[Flanders]

Figure out what was wrong? Easy...Socialism=Obama...uh oh, we have a major problem here.

Yeah, the problem is that objectivists like you do not want to see those on the lower rungs of society obtaining seats in the game of socialist musical chairs. Those seats belong to the movers and shakers, even if the "moving" is jobs out of the country and the "shaking" is harvesting billions from government money trees.

[oladub]

Originally posted by firstandten; You still may not like it but this is no grand plan by Obama to take away your rights

The thing to understand about Obama is that he leans to the left, but he is a not what you call a progressive.

In his speeches he will paint a picture of how the world should be from his point of view .

But he operates and governs in a world as it really is.
/B]

That was Cheney's position too.

Obama already is taking away some of our rights as exhibited in the OP. Anyone who voted for Obama because they thought he would be better than Bush regarding personal rights must be disappointed or going through mental gymnastics to justify Obama's Bush like ways. Of course, one can always still believe that he is fixing the economy and Afghanistan. If I understand you, the reason President Obama is expanding the war in Afghanistan is to protect his domestic agenda of billing our grandchildren for things he wants to give us.

The Associated Press article above [[ http://tinyurl.com/casmkn ) Presents both sides of the administration's attempt to to take away defendent's rights. As you point out, the President is not being a Progressive on this issue.as exemplified by the following.

Stephen B. Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said the administration's position "is disappointing, no question."
Bight said that poor defendants' constitutional right to a lawyer, spelled out by the high court in 1965, has been neglected in recent years. "I would hope that this administration would be doing things to shore up the right to counsel for poor people accused of crimes," said Bright, whose group joined with the Brennan Center and other rights organizations in a court filing opposing the administration's position.[/

Bush redux: "This is like déjÃ[ vu all over again." -Yogi Berra

[ccbatson]

Everyone starts on a "lower rung"....myself included. Socialism keeps them there and ventures to bring individuals down into the same quagmire. Once that happens, there is no incentive for an individual to try to get out, is there?

[firstandten]

That was Cheney's position too.

Obama already is taking away some of our rights as exhibited in the OP. Anyone who voted for Obama because they thought he would be better than Bush regarding personal rights must be disappointed or going through mental gymnastics to justify Obama's Bush like ways. Of course, one can always still believe that he is fixing the economy and Afghanistan. If I understand you, the reason President Obama is expanding the war in Afghanistan is to protect his domestic agenda of billing our grandchildren for things he wants to give us.

The Associated Press article above [[ http://tinyurl.com/casmkn ) Presents both sides of the administration's attempt to to take away defendent's rights. As you point out, the President is not being a Progressive on this issue.as exemplified by the following.



Bush redux: "This is like déjÃ[ vu all over again." -Yogi Berra

I know that I probably can't convince you that Obama is not Bush lite but here's an article about his possible motivations. The reason I find this plausable is because for what I have read and studied about him, his beliefs, and his campaign he is a brilliant politican, who wants whats best for america, who ran a disciplined race and was always two steps ahead of his opponent be it Hillary or McCain. I've said numerous times that he plays chess while his opponents plays checkers. Of course he makes gaffes and mistakes, but he once said in an interview about decision making " If I get the time to figure out all the angles I can usually get it right"

With Obama, I think you should always look beyond the obvious.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The...90415-463.html

[rb336]

Everyone starts on a "lower rung"....myself included. Socialism keeps them there and ventures to bring individuals down into the same quagmire. Once that happens, there is no incentive for an individual to try to get out, is there?

Really bats? Bloomberg's kids start out at a lower rung? Kennedy's? the Fords? the Bush's? do you really believe that simplistic drivel?

[ccbatson]

Yes, really. Taking an objectivist perspective where the measure of worth is productivity, only those that are, or have been productive will be on a "higher rung". As infants don't produce in this sense, all humans go from zero [[lowest rung) to something more [[if they apply themselves towards being productive).

[Detroitej72]

Yes, really. Taking an objectivist perspective where the measure of worth is productivity, only those that are, or have been productive will be on a "higher rung". As infants don't produce in this sense, all humans go from zero [[lowest rung) to something more [[if they apply themselves towards being productive).

Not quite. There is no way someone born into a rich and affluant family starts in the same position in life as somebody like myself, born of working parents.

Let's use Bush as an example. Where exactly was he productive? He got into Yale because of the special point system awarded to him because his father and grandfather were alumni from there. Its called the legacy clause. That is the same as the racial preference clauses that he worked so hard to eliminate. He conviniently forgot that he himself benifited from the same kind of "favored treatment" that he claims to be against.

Now, as far as being productive in business, well, anyone can be handed a job with your father's partners and keep a chair warm without ever really doing much work. I've seen this at many companies that I've worked for.

So I guess this destroys your simple logic.

[oladub]

Firstandten, While the author thinks that President Obama is duplicitous, I disagree. Senator Obama honestly laid out a number of un-progressive agenda items while campaigning. Why his supporters didn't pick up on this stuff, or care, I don't know. Dwelling on rainbows and unicorns is probably more fun. Maybe they wanted to believe as the Obama website encouraged them to do. There must be a psychological term for this aside from 'Stockholm Syndrome'.

I don't think that President Obama supporters will protest either. They will change their own positions sooner than they will protest. Witness the new found fascination progressives have with Obama's Afghani surge. Patty Hurst was not exceptional.


If I were going to “look beyond the obvious� with Obama, as the author suggests, I would be wondering if he isn't hellbent on demolishing the dollar our country's economic framework so our country can never go back to what it was. Maybe Obama actually believes that all the spending he is doing will have only positive consequences but I too think that Obama is too smart not to realize what consequences will derive for his actions. So like the author, I have to wonder about discordant notes.


In Dr. Zhivago, the question is asked about why did the revolutionaries have to kill every last member of the royal family. It seemed unfair and excessive. The answer was so that there would not be any going back.