@mcpumpkin: Yeah, unfortunately Teabaggers aren't the only ones who make embarrassing protest signs (although I personally think theirs are the best).
The worst one I've seen was when Sect. of Defense Robert Gates was speaking at my friend's graduation and there were people outside with signs telling Donald Rumsfeld to go home. Come ON, people.
@bluebears: I knew he wasn't go to be as left as I wanted him to be, but I didn't think he would back-peddle THAT much. I'm actually kind of shocked that I got that hopeful, it's pretty against my stark realist nature.
@labeled: Seconded. I feel like even though Obama is in a really tough position, that's no excuse for continuing on the exact (EXACT) same path as Bush.
@labeled: What did you expect? "Change" covers a lot of ground.
I thought I was electing a thoughtful, precise man who would do his damndest to try to stand up for what I believe in. So far, I've gotten exactly what I bargained for.
Making the right decisions for the country is far different than making the right decisions to get elected. There's no magic wand that's going to clear all the fuckups out of Congress, and with the powers granted to the Presidency (which are shockingly lacking), I'd say he's done a hell of a lot in under a year.
@PrisonBreakShaker: me too! I didn't even vote for a presidential candidate in 2004 because I was so disgusted with the Dems in general and Kerry. I feel like I'm pretty cynical but I really thought he was sincere (or at least as sincere as a politician ever can be) so I'm just sort of crushed by all the backpedaling. Like you say, obvs I knew he'd have to compromise etc..but come on!
@JessickerFletcher: I wouldn't call it the exact same path. Not at all. Until Obama starts wars of his own, uses fearmongering to bully the public into buying into his plan, and lies about his motivations, he's nowhere near Bush territory, even if some of his decisions are disappointing.
@AndPreciousLittleofThat: I don't feel like he's tried his damndest to push for the public option. As early as like, June the White House was already pulling back on that.
@labeled: Yes! So annoying. Although my email program diverts the emails from Biden into my spam folder, but not the ones from Obama. Seems about right.
@bluebears: I kind of wish he would give up on trying to compromise, even. It's not a compromise if The Other Side doesn't give up anything and is absolutely hellbent on being contrary.
@bluebears: But isn't the hard part of being President having to balance off multiple competing concerns? I'd love to see a public health option too, but I don't expect (or want) him to fight tooth and nail for a public option if it means not passing a healthcare bill.
Look, I'm not putting on my Team Obama jumpsuit and trying to defend every single decision he's made. But if you look at the traditional authority granted to the President, he's exercised that authority pretty aggressively. He's done more to revitalize science in the federal government than anyone in the last decade (yeah, I know, I know), for starters. He's made progress on a TON of fronts.
I'm not gonna start complaining just because I'm not getting what I expected WHEN I expected it.
@AndPreciousLittleofThat: While I feel like Obama has accomplished a lot, I'd like to add that he has yet to make CHANGE in the areas I feel most strongly about (Iraq, Afghanistan, civil rights, the economy, and the environment).
I'd also like to add that the Executive Branch has a lot more power than you would think (granted the right would become even more crazy if he exercised those powers).
More than anything, I find that Congress (more specifically the Republican minority who continues to filibuster and halt all legislation to a standstill) is the biggest disappointment in our government.
@PrisonBreakShaker: He didn't back peddle that much. Quote from first presidential debate:
Q: Do you think more troops -- more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?
OBAMA: Yes, I think we need more troops. I've been saying that for over a year now.
And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible, because it's been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better.
We had the highest fatalities among U.S. troops this past year than at any time since 2002. And we are seeing a major offensive taking place -- al Qaeda and Taliban crossing the border and attacking our troops in a brazen fashion. They are feeling emboldened.
And we cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don't have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan.
So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan.
And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front -- that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.
So here's what we have to do comprehensively, though. It's not just more troops.
We have to press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people. And I've said this to President Karzai.
No. 2, we've got to deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded over the last several years.
No. 3, we've got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we've been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.
And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe.
@bluebears: I'm pretty content dumping most of that on congress. DADT too. (Army integration, as I understand it, didn't have the statutory backing that DADT did, but was rather based on regulations that were under the scope of Truman's powers. Rejecting a statute on disingenuous "national security" grounds is pretty radical.)
Most problems with passing legislation these days could be assuaged by shuttering the remarkably undemocratic, plutocratic senate. States have their own governments. That's enough.
@JessickerFletcher: I'd definitely agree with you about Congress. Isn't the average approval rate something like 12%? Yeesh.
From what I've read, the main powers of the Executive branch are in signing bills from Congress, the "Commander in Chief" thing (which definitely covers a lot of ground), the obligation of the "State of the Union" speech yearly, and basic stuff like court/ambassador nominations and commissioning of officers. Are there other big ones I'm missing?
@AndPreciousLittleofThat: yes but my point was I didn't (and still don't) see him doing a lot of pushing on the issue. I guess we just disagree in that I believe that a health care bill without a real public option is borderline meaningless since all it will achieve is the insurance providers jacking up the rates on everyone to pay for the new regulations (which they are already doing) and the public having no other option but to pay the high rates, which lands us exactly back at square one.
@BearDownCBears: True. I guess though, I just feel like he's the "leader" of the Democratic party (true or not) and he has an obligation to whip them into shape or at least be more...I don't know, chastising of them for falling down on the job. I do agree that they share the blame (if not more so)
@JessickerFletcher: That's part of what's stuck in my craw, though. Is it more important to fulfill campaign promises or to placate members of the Right who, let's face it, will never be happy outside of a theocracy? Actually repealing DADT would require legislation, true, but I believe (and I may be wrong) Obama could quash that tomfoolery right now with an executive order. Frankly, I think it's immoral for him to sacrifice LGBT servicemembers' livelihoods on that front. (I hazard to guess you'd agree, but feel free to put me in my place.)
Totes agree on the Republican'ts and the turncoat Democrats, though. Congress is the pits lately.
@bluebears: Yeah, costs are going to go up because of regulations, but that's because insurance will get better. And most people who will be in dire straits will get some pretty sweet subsidies.
@AndPreciousLittleofThat: First, don't forget the power to veto (Bush sure loved that one) - it's a pretty important one (although I assume you just included in signing bills into law; plus, with the Democratic majority, the likelihood of Republicans passing a bill and then getting a majority to override a veto is practically infinitesimal). Also there are some lesser known executive powers that have grown in popularity over the past few decades. There's the power of an executive order (some argue that Obama could use that for repealing DADT) - it's also important to note that only two executive orders have ever been overturned. Another major one (I honestly can't remember the name) is that the president can attach a note to a bill he signs into law basically saying that he won't enforce a small part of it (very rare but pretty important).
Other than that I'd just remember appointment (Supreme Court, Cabinet, Ambassadors, etc.), pardoning, and convening Congress (such as emergency sessions).
@Puddlefish: It's just an overall poopy situation. Even though the Republicans completely ENRAGE me, the Democrats of the Congress weren't much better a few years ago. Politics in our nation have become so polarized it's absurd really. Almost no one can agree on anything anymore (it's actually pretty disgusting). That said, the founding fathers set up Congress in order for the passage of legislation to take long amounts of time and I'd agree with that.
I mentioned it above but Obama definitely has the power to issue an executive order and end DADT (although he probably won't because 1. That would enrage the bigoted Right and 2. He thinks he has more important things to do - ugh civil rights, or the lack thereof, in this country really, really frustrates me).
@Puddlefish: An executive order can't override legislation. EO's can augment statutes or just fill in gaps where no such laws exist. I suppose he could sign an EO saying he wouldn't enforce the statute, but the Supreme Court would probably jump on him for that.
@labeled: Yeah, it's like, I knew Obama wasn't going to be this huge progressive, but I always vote Dem even when they let me down (which is a lot) because the Republicans are too god damn insane. And the whole "he's not Bush!" honeymoon is coming to an end.
I really struggle with this because while I do believe that politics is the "art of the possible" and compromise is necessary, it's when the compromise is on, like, REALLY bare-bones no-brainers (like health care) that I really start to question how much it's possible to give on core progressive issues without throwing your hands up and saying fuck it, I quit this bitch.
That said, although the bailouts pissed me off (which was Bush), smarter people than I say that they are reluctantly necessary; and I don't know if withdrawing all troops from Iraq/Afghanistan would be better than sending in more troops. Obama has to clean up a ginormo mess and I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, as I don't see any malicious intent there as I did with the Bush administration.
In short (heh), after enough of choosing the lesser of two evils, it kind of starts to wear on your soul. And as both a staunch progressive and realist, it's exceptionally harsh.
I mean, while it's certainly awesome to have a president who doesn't make me cringe or lie about my nationality... it would be nice to have a Liberal.
@BabyJane: Yeah, I drafted the screenplay. It involved Daniel Day-Lewis trying to get an Oil and Gas Lease for the minerals under his nursing home. Strangely it was rejected.
"Do you like irishsticks?"
"Yeah, I like irishsticks."
"Do you like to put irishsticks in your mouth?"
"Yeah, I suppose do."
"What are you, a gael fish?"
I must say I'm a little disappointed with the responses here. Whatever your views on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, according to international law none of this is "open to interpretation." Mitzpe Shalem is an illegal settlement. It doesn't matter whether it's a kibbutz or non-religious, it was built in the Occupied Territories in 1977, and the Geneva Conventions expressly prohibit a country from settling any territory it took over during a war. Same with taking minerals, mud, etc from the Dead Sea - also against the Geneva Convention to exploit the natural resources of an occupied territory. And, to add insult to injury, there are no Palestinians employed and all profits go to Israelis. I, for one, will never buy any Ahava products - there are other things that "smell good" or make my skin soft that do not perpetuate the occupation of the Palestine. If you're interested, there's a website called "Who Profits" (www.whoprofits.org) run by an Israeli group, that lists Israeli and international companies profiting from the occupation. Motorola is a specifically bad example.
And if you think boycotts are useless, you should ask South Africans.
Hey, they are in front of my pharmacy. They better be nice to all the great employees there who take great care of me and make sure I don't die of drug interactions.
@CherriSpryte: Yes. And somehow, seeing their window posted on Jezebel reminds me that I promised I would bring them wedding pictures....it really is like a neighborhood pharmacy.
To explain a bit: the demonstration was part of CODEPINK’s new campaign, Stolen Beauty, a boycott of the Israeli cosmetics company Ahava, which illegally harvests the minerals for its products from the Dead Sea of the Occupied Territory of the Palestinian West Bank. It’s the fifth of four similar demonstrations of the past few months, in Las Vegas, NYC’s Central Park, Santa Monica and Tel Aviv (check out photos and news reports at the campaign site, www.stolenbeauty.org). The campaign is a part of the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement to create economic pressure on Israel (and the U.S.) to end its occupation and apartheid of Palestine. Our goal to inspire people to boycott the company, draw attention to Israel’s illegal occupation demand its end.
The purpose of wearing bikinis is two-fold: one, to play on the fact that Ahava harvests minerals from the Dead Sea, a super popular beach destination, and women use the products on their skin all over their bodies; two, to symbolize the fact that our exposure, and uncovering, represents what we’re trying to do to Ahava — to expose and uncover the dirty truth of their illegal practices.
So I am now ordering a product that I would have never heard of if it weren't for their protest against it. Great reviews are great reviews, I thank them for letting me know.
I love Ahava products. And if they're made in the Palestinian territory, then one can assume they employ Palestinians, which can only be a good thing given how abysmal the unemployment is on the West Bank.
@BeckySharper: It's an Israeli company employing Israelis in an "illegal" West Bank settlement. Whether or not it's actually illegal or whether Palestinian resources are actually being stolen is, of course, up for interpretation.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
The worst one I've seen was when Sect. of Defense Robert Gates was speaking at my friend's graduation and there were people outside with signs telling Donald Rumsfeld to go home. Come ON, people.
12/08/09
12/08/09
I voted for change. Not just a change, but CHANGE.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
I thought I was electing a thoughtful, precise man who would do his damndest to try to stand up for what I believe in. So far, I've gotten exactly what I bargained for.
Making the right decisions for the country is far different than making the right decisions to get elected. There's no magic wand that's going to clear all the fuckups out of Congress, and with the powers granted to the Presidency (which are shockingly lacking), I'd say he's done a hell of a lot in under a year.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
Look, I'm not putting on my Team Obama jumpsuit and trying to defend every single decision he's made. But if you look at the traditional authority granted to the President, he's exercised that authority pretty aggressively. He's done more to revitalize science in the federal government than anyone in the last decade (yeah, I know, I know), for starters. He's made progress on a TON of fronts.
I'm not gonna start complaining just because I'm not getting what I expected WHEN I expected it.
12/08/09
12/08/09
I'd also like to add that the Executive Branch has a lot more power than you would think (granted the right would become even more crazy if he exercised those powers).
More than anything, I find that Congress (more specifically the Republican minority who continues to filibuster and halt all legislation to a standstill) is the biggest disappointment in our government.
12/08/09
Q: Do you think more troops -- more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?
OBAMA: Yes, I think we need more troops. I've been saying that for over a year now.
And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible, because it's been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better.
We had the highest fatalities among U.S. troops this past year than at any time since 2002. And we are seeing a major offensive taking place -- al Qaeda and Taliban crossing the border and attacking our troops in a brazen fashion. They are feeling emboldened.
And we cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don't have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan.
So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan.
And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front -- that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.
So here's what we have to do comprehensively, though. It's not just more troops.
We have to press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people. And I've said this to President Karzai.
No. 2, we've got to deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded over the last several years.
No. 3, we've got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we've been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.
And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe.
12/08/09
But you can't expect people won't disagree with your complaints.
12/08/09
Most problems with passing legislation these days could be assuaged by shuttering the remarkably undemocratic, plutocratic senate. States have their own governments. That's enough.
12/08/09
From what I've read, the main powers of the Executive branch are in signing bills from Congress, the "Commander in Chief" thing (which definitely covers a lot of ground), the obligation of the "State of the Union" speech yearly, and basic stuff like court/ambassador nominations and commissioning of officers. Are there other big ones I'm missing?
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
Totes agree on the Republican'ts and the turncoat Democrats, though. Congress is the pits lately.
12/08/09
[www.slate.com]
This lack of cost control, though, is a diaper-filler.
12/08/09
Other than that I'd just remember appointment (Supreme Court, Cabinet, Ambassadors, etc.), pardoning, and convening Congress (such as emergency sessions).
12/08/09
I mentioned it above but Obama definitely has the power to issue an executive order and end DADT (although he probably won't because 1. That would enrage the bigoted Right and 2. He thinks he has more important things to do - ugh civil rights, or the lack thereof, in this country really, really frustrates me).
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
[www.law.georgetown.edu]
It either has to be revoked by congress or struck down in court.
12/08/09
I really struggle with this because while I do believe that politics is the "art of the possible" and compromise is necessary, it's when the compromise is on, like, REALLY bare-bones no-brainers (like health care) that I really start to question how much it's possible to give on core progressive issues without throwing your hands up and saying fuck it, I quit this bitch.
That said, although the bailouts pissed me off (which was Bush), smarter people than I say that they are reluctantly necessary; and I don't know if withdrawing all troops from Iraq/Afghanistan would be better than sending in more troops. Obama has to clean up a ginormo mess and I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, as I don't see any malicious intent there as I did with the Bush administration.
In short (heh), after enough of choosing the lesser of two evils, it kind of starts to wear on your soul. And as both a staunch progressive and realist, it's exceptionally harsh.
I mean, while it's certainly awesome to have a president who doesn't make me cringe or lie about my nationality... it would be nice to have a Liberal.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
"Yeah, I like irishsticks."
"Do you like to put irishsticks in your mouth?"
"Yeah, I suppose do."
"What are you, a gael fish?"
12/02/09
12/02/09
07/30/09
And if you think boycotts are useless, you should ask South Africans.
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
The purpose of wearing bikinis is two-fold: one, to play on the fact that Ahava harvests minerals from the Dead Sea, a super popular beach destination, and women use the products on their skin all over their bodies; two, to symbolize the fact that our exposure, and uncovering, represents what we’re trying to do to Ahava — to expose and uncover the dirty truth of their illegal practices.
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
http://www.alternet.org/action/141483/