And now we have signing statements...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-issues-signing-statement-on-106b-war-bill-2009-06-26.html

The Obama administration announced in the statement it would disregard provisions of the legislation that, among other things, would compel the Obama administration to pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require the Treasury department to report to Congress on the activities of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

This is an affront to our co-equal branches of government as much as it is an assault on middle classes around the world.

I got another book that is sickeningly evocative of the last few months: Democracy's Prisoner by Ernest Freeberg. It depicts the naive astonishment by American socialists and the left that their hero, the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, would not only refuse to pardon and release from prison Eugene Debs -- who was convicted of violating the outrageous anti-sedition laws passed in the midst of WWI hysteria- but also would personally foster a period of the worst repression that this country has ever seen. As with today, many of the progressives kidded themselves that Wilson was under the evil influence of other members of his adminstration: like he couldn't overrule his own Post Master general, who was busy censoring nearly every left wing publication out of business! It fell to the justly maligned Warren Harding to finally pardon Debs, who would otherwise have died in jail. If I sent this book to Obama, do you think he'd understand the gesture?

One last related point: Ever since Obama reversed himself on the question of whether to suppress the torture photos, I've been searching for an Obama supporter who (a) defends his decision to suppress those photos but also (b) criticized him when, two weeks earlier, he announced that he would release those photos. I haven't found such a person yet, but I'm still looking.

This got a laugh, keep on reminding people what it means to have intellectual consistency.

The Obama impression of Bush

On the progress of the Lieberman/Graham "Suppression of Evidence of War Crimes Act"? I understand it passed the Senate by acclamation.

By the way, Robert Reich should begin a new career as stand-up comic, or at least the person who wrote the headline: "The Public Has to Force Obama to Do the Right Thing" should. Silly me, taking the time to cast my vote for one of the six Democrats who had promised to clean out the stables and restore the constitution, and so naively assuming that this is what I needed to do to accomplish it. And sure enough, this is catching on. Today I called 9-11, but the nice officer said "If you want me to come investigate the break-in at your house, you're going to have to force me to do it."

It's simple, Mr. Greenwald, you know that.

The powerful do not give up their power. The presidency has become immensely powerful, more so, I should think, than the designers of our government could even possibly conceive. No man, or woman, is going to step into the Oval Office and give up any of that power, no matter how odious its application might be.

It's Obama's bad luck that his predecessor's use of the new, improved presidential powers involved such blatantly un-American (and anti-American) incidents such as the Abu Ghraib abuse, but then nobody said wielding power would be easy on the conscience.

One can only fantasize, of course, about the president issuing fiats that, oh, I don't know, repeal DOMA, void the blanket amnesty granted to telecom companies that violated their customer's privacy rights, or...gosh, having a real doozy here...holding Congress responsible for letting the executive branch get so obscenely powerful in the first place.

...

Ever since Obama reversed himself on the question of whether to suppress the torture photos, I've been searching for an Obama supporter who (a) defends his decision to suppress those photos but also (b) criticized him when, two weeks earlier, he announced that he would release those photos. I haven't found such a person yet, but I'm still looking.

will be something along the lines of

"You're such a dick!"

plea is a bit of a strawman. It is perfectly consistent to defend Obama's decision while not criticising the earlier decision to release them. As many people of apparent good faith (I'm talking about commentators to blog sites here, not necessarily pundits who by definition take a black or white tack to issues) have said, we might have made a different decision but we can understand the decision made. So long as it does not go beyond the legal powers of the Executive branch, I can't quite see the objection. Certainly, it is O's right to appeal a Court decision - as it is any other person's right in the US.

Also, there is a nice little self-manipulation going on here by relying on so-called right wingers to make the argument for you, Glenn. Perhaps there might be an ulterior motive to those dudes claiming that O has adopted Bush's policies wholesale?

I would also have liked a fair update to this and to yesterday's article with the comment from O spokesman (he was named so not an anonymous source) saying there was no draft executive order. Also, perhaps a link to articles such as this one http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/27/cleaning-guantanamo/ in which the commentary is far more nuanced than most other commentary.

"The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" by Naomi Wolf and "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein near the end of the Bush administration. After the election of Obama, I thought, whew, THAT was close.

Time to dust them off and have a re-read.

And note, please, that the right wing authoritarians are almost all singing the Emperor's praises every time he "punches a Hippie" as Digby and others would say by defending, extending or utilizing some of the novel Imperial powers of the Presidency discovered during the Bush Regime or every time he backs away from some silly campagin promise or other.

We've all noticed how Obama seems far more interested in placating the Right every time he gets a chance, so there are many opportunities for Hippie punching by the Obama White House.

Since the "Left" (quote/unquote) doesn't fight back effectively, one can assume this will go on indefinitely.

And Glenn, the correct term is the "Hard Left." This seems to be gaining general currency now that it is the exclusive FOX "news" designation for people like you or me or many of those who dispute the merits of the authoritarian/autocratic vision of the Presidency so very popular at Court on the Potomac these days.

Just remember that. "Hard Left."

Bueno.