Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
Either way, though it's constructive to express views on his high-level appointments, it makes sense to wait to see what Obama himself actually does as President before assessing whether his commitments are illusory. -GlennGreenwald
Although I agree with this statement, I can sympathize with the Lucy and the football syndrome from which many of us suffer. We're flinching before there's even an indication of an impending blow ... or, are we?
Chris Bowers of Open Left was on Hardball last night to speak to Matthews' assertion that some on the Left are feeling "betrayed" by Obama's National Security choices. I think Chris, as Jane Hamsher has, did a nice job of deflecting the betrayal meme while still advancing a concern about the ideological positions of the individuals Obama is selecting.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10223
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28003726#28003726
About one minute in to the discussion with Matthews, Bowers makes, what I think is, a reasonable observation. If Obama has selected individuals who are to the Right of him on National Security, or to the Right of his "vision," then it is going to be hard for Obama to see his "vision" (whatever it is; I'm still not completely sure) enacted. His vision must be carried out by others. A sprawling bureaucracy requires that Obama delegate; he won't be able to micromanage the activities his appointments will oversee. Bowers argues that if you want to govern from the Left then you need people managing the departments of Defense and State, who are on the left. It's presumed that Bowers sees Clinton, Gates, and Jones to the ideological Right of Obama on National Security.
It may be true, that none of these individuals are to Obama's Right in this area. That Gates, Clinton, and Jones actually reflect Obama's ideological stance accurately. Or, it could be true that Obama has selected these individuals for their competence, knowing that they are to the Right of his intended National Security position, but expects them to effect his more Leftward agenda without having to do close oversight. Either way, I can sympathize with the concerns people express. Because, either way, it's possible - if not likely - that the best Obama can do is to effect a nice, stable, moderate-Right administration. The Left, in any real sense of the word, may see little of their own reflection in an Obama presidency.
Personally, I think this moderate-Right position is the best that we can do. It is a second best option. However, the angst expressed by those genuinely on the ideological Left, who worked hard to get Obama elected, and believed he could/would govern from the Left, seems warranted to me. Would govern from the Left was always a Hope™. Now, the concern might reasonably be that Obama is closing off the Hope™ that he could govern from the Left.
Glenn - this arguments has aspects of "its OK, everyone does it".
DC culture recalls the story of Diogenes - who wandered into the marketplace at noon with a lighted lantern - looking for a "human being" (honest man).
So it's more or less a given that anyone you pardon is guilty and convicted of something.
From the wiki definition of presidential pardon:
A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime.
Make the pardonee walk a gauntlet of being beat with pantyhose filled with oranges?
The most useful suggestion for pantyhose I've ever seen. Might be better applied, however, to UT trolls who pipe up without understanding the basic issues being discussed, let alone Glenn's actual topic.
The President -- any President -- has plenary pardon powers. "Procedure" is all well and good, but guess what? The President can pardon anyone for anything at any time regardless of procedure, and nobody can do a g-d thing about it.
Che Pasa,
The citizen - any citizen - has plenary criticizing powers. The citizen can criticize anyone for anything at any time regardless of procedure, and nobody can do a g-d thing about it.
Just because you have a legal (or even a moral) right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Thus, we can criticize our leaders not only for violating the law, but also for using their powers in ways that go against the interests of the public and against core democratic values, like equal treatment under the law.
Good stuff. And you're a better man than I, the sleaze has already turned me so far off, Obama would have to turn a bread factory into a fish market.
This, however:
"But -- as the Holder nomination perfectly illustrates -- one thing that has become quite tiresome, and irrational in the extreme, are those people who, on the one hand, insist that criticisms of Obama based on his appointments are premature and unfair, but on the other hand, are falling all over themselves with praise for Obama based on his supposedly ingenuous appointments."
I think you'd better have a talk with Joan Walsh.
Well, I think Obama's appointments do tell us a little bit Obama but I think they tell us what we already knew. Obama is a very careful, don't-rock-the-boat, establishment centrist with perhaps mildly liberal leanings but with no ideological predilections strong enough that he would take any political chances fighting for them.
In the midst of the wideranging praise for Bob Gates am I the only one who worries that he was implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal that set one of the templates for unitary executive assertions of executive power as well as providing training ground for traitorous scum like Elliot Abrams and John Poindexter (not to mention Gates himself)?
Its just another piece in the as yet admitedly very incomplete jigsaw puzzle that consistently suggests that Obama will do nothing to counteract the dangerous precedents of the Bush Administration.
Maybe Obama will surprise me, but I doubt it.
With the codification of the Unitary Executive by the Democrats in congress, the cabinet and congress itself have been rendered moot. They do not matter. They have no power. They are simply window dressing for the president to stay safely and securly above the law and rule as he wishes. So it really does not matter who is in congress or the cabinet. Obama can and will use the Unitary Executive power given him by congress to rule completely unaided by any other aspect of the government or by the people. In the U.S., the president is king and we are all but pawns in his games of politics and personal wealth accumulation. All we can do now is try and survive. Good luck to us.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
