Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

Arlen Specter, Joe Lieberman etc

right they funnel money here and there they operate as structures in the system but policy-wise they're not very important

Arlen Specter, Joe Lieberman etc

uh yeah...exactly?

but policy-wise they're not very important

Party discipline, particularly in the Senate, is a major player in policy.

party discipline exists as a strategic tool and not because the republican or democratic parties actually believe anything

shirts vs skins

"parties don't matter" /= "parties don't actually believe anything"
not that you could make the latter case with the GOP anyway

Dan, what's important about reelecting Obama in a sentence, seriously? I could buy the "less short-term pain" argument if I didn't believe both parties are leading us to precisely the same destination.

- I believe the majority of the jobs policies Obama wants to put into place make sense. I also believe that the economy is making tentative steps towards a good rebound and I don't think any of the Republican candidates have ideas that would nurture it.

- I believe that Obama has done much more good than harm with his foreign policy. I do not see any of the Republican candidates continuing to garner as much international goodwill from the western world or using the military with anything approaching the precision and sensitivity that Obama has exercised.

- I believe the social policies enacted during this administration, particularly the passing of a universal healthcare bill and the burgeoning expansion of gay rights, will be actively blocked by a Republican executive branch. I also believe the immigration issues will become much, much worse and the war against women will be accelerated.

- I don't think any of the Republican candidates give two shits about education.

- I don't think putting centrist judges who lean left on the Supreme Court is a bad thing; in fact, I think it is a very good thing.

The erosion of privacy in this country, the rise of indefinite detention and the codification of "money=law" are things I am unhappy about. My unhappiness with these things does not supersede my overall satisfaction with the agenda Obama has laid out, even if many of his successes are further to the right than I want them to be.

Given the list of people who are likely to be the next President and the platforms they are running on, I think you are a fucking idiot if you actively want Obama to lose. And that's the charitable line of thought.

parties don't matter in a sense that 'creating a new party' doesn't change anything in the long-run, tho the transition period would be fun. it takes over for the gop or dems and it would just turn into them. the interest groups, voters and basic political structures are the same. 'democrat' is just a word, it means nothing, but guess what, same is true w/ 'green party'.

no, if you really want change you need to think about what's wrong w/ the constitution not what's wrong w/ the party system.

also what's wrong w/ the american people and american culture

using the military with anything approaching the precision and sensitivity that Obama has exercised.

Yeah, this is the only point where we are galaxies apart. But I am cautious about not conflating the platforms people run on with what's going to happen, so I see Actual Romney and Actual Obama as being much closer than their personas.

I do not actively want Obama to lose, or win.

what's important about reelecting Obama in a sentence

Must say my first thought was: Elena Kagan vs. Joseph Alito & John Roberts. And yes, morbs, I know Kagan's record.

btw I appreciate the thoughtful response DJP, it's more than I'm used to hearing. I understand your judgments (I think) whatever different conclusions we draw.

i saw an interesting statement from daniel larison, criticizing the dimwit 'americans elect' outfit:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/01/31/the-bad-joke-that-is-americans-elect/

The extraordinary thing about the obliviousness of professional “centrists” is that they are dedicated to organizing a third-party alternative with no apparent awareness that every remotely successful third-party alternative began as a more radical version of one of the two established parties. Perot’s challenge was a bit different, but even Perot appealed to the constituencies ignored by Bush and Clinton by making their issues his own, especially popular discontent over NAFTA. By contrast, Americans Elect is an organization dedicated to the proposition that Thomas Friedman has his finger on the pulse of America.

i guess i'd never thought of that before. i mean, it's only happened a couple times in two centuries but it's something to think about.

arguably the southern realignment from the 60s to the 80s is sort of like getting two new parties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States#Fifth_Party_System

i'd honestly argue we're in the "sixth party system" now

thanks Morbs; contrary to appearances to prefer to converse rather than snipe!

also I can't type

to prefer I do prefer

I was putting together a long post, but I generally agree with what DJP said. I mean, holy shit, for all of Obama's post-partisan enthusiasms and centrism, he has effectively been the most leftist president in my lifetime. I am very critical of Obama on many issues, especially around erosion of constitutional limits on the executive branch and some weak negotiating, but there are a lot of things I'm genuinely happy about. I support Obama for a second term, and I see no actuall candidates that are better.

Also, I do believe in running candidates form the left in primary races, but only if I genuinely believe in the candidate and I want them to win the primary and the general. I've donated to blue dog challengers, but not because I think they're going to shift the incumbent to the left. I think that's some weird fantasy shit.

yeah I agree with DJP's summation of Obama's record to-date

despite the notable exclusion of any reference to climate change/energy policy

xp

i'd agree with Dan's list

my only caveat would be: i think there is a slim possibility that the paulist/tea party mood of the GOP might lead a republican administration to be harder in some material way on big financial firms, which might have positive effects following.

but that's too big mights. it's really more a look on a potential bright side should obama lose.

tbh I am not a presidential scholar and I was very young at the time, but given the treatment of history I have a hard time imagining Carter being to the right of Obama

the paulist/tea party mood of the GOP might lead a republican administration to be harder in some material way on big financial firms

romney? romney would be harder on financial firms? I mean...

I was going to say it can get tedious arguing with the good doctor but that would be a lie; I enjoy it to be honest. I not only agree w/Dan but I think everyone is kind of ingorning the fact that the POTUS is not only President of the Republic but the chief executive of the Federal Government and civil service and w/o a party whence to source job candidates, a third party President is going to have a terrible time just staffing their cabinet.

That's not necessarily an insuperable barrier to a Ron Paul, who'd be gutting the govmt anyway but Rosanne would probably spend a good deal of time just figuring out where the fuse boxes are.

his wife and ron paul's wife have become quite close, i hear

xp

djp otm

I wouldn't count pres romney out for being more centrist in policy w/ pretty much every single issue outside of that one, 'finance is good' seems to be the closest thing to a non-mormon belief than he has.

xp

even the mormon shit, who knows

yeah you're right about that

99% of pols are 'hard or soft' on issues depending on public pressure they receive. The MSM's message on political activity for Joe & Jane Doe is you vote (esp for president), then sit back and root for your guy til the next election. We'll see to what degree the OWS movement changes this.

Also, if a left/populist party ever managed 10-15% in a prez election, the Dems would. Shit. Themselves.

Obama's putative "precision" with drones just makes me think of Captain Haddock with the rocket launcher in Tintin.

I was thinking less about "Obama's" precision with drones and more the size and capabilities of the teams he sent to get bin Laden and the team that took out the Somali pirates

the paulist/tea party mood of the GOP might lead a republican administration to be harder in some material way on big financial firms

Nah, their states rights libertarianism will lead them to want to have less federal regulation over business. They just dislike the big federal government

a world where a far leftist populist party could get 10-15% support is a world where the dems would be much more left-wing.

'zackly. So, go Roseanne.

i have a grand theory obama's miseries w/r/t war, surveillance and the law are all based on domestic political fears, but i have no real proof, just a feeling.

like, cheney pulled all this shit because he was legit interested in eternal global dominance. obama is paranoid about anything going wrong on his watch while cheney is still looking and ultimately doesn't trust anyone to cut him a break or understand anything. so, more secrecy, more mercs, more drones, more special ops, more secret law, etc etc

a world where roseanne gets 10-15% support is a world with roseanne still on television

(by far leftist I assume you mean Ted Kennedy types) xxxp

ah, the deep-in-his-heart argument... could we swear an organ in?

a world where roseanne gets 10-15% support is a world with roseanne still on television

or a world where every state in the country is like MN circa 1998

xp to continue my lil' theory all the stuff about his post-american tranzi charater is bullshit too, if that were true he could have sold afghanistan to india and china and the whole world would be better off, but no, it's "ours" so "we" have to "finish it" or whatever, nobody else can be trusted

this isn't a "deep in his heart" argument! he doesn't trust anyone except himself and like four people from chicago! this is pretty clear!

goole, if you are right on your "Cheney's watching" argument, then why did Obama say in the 2008 campaign that "we're not a country that detains ppl without a trial"? was he that 'naive'?

or was he just lying? (easy answer)

I actually have no trouble believing there's classified information out there that you don't get to see until you are President that could change your mind about the usefulness of indefinite detention.

what's going on w/roseanne??

and that's an unrebuttable argument, so well played! xp

she is seeking the Presidential nomination of the Green Party

she's one of 2 finalists.

btw goole, by your theory, when Cheney said on TV last summer that he was glad O had "seen the light" on terror and detention, Obama turned to Bill Daley and heaved a sigh of relief?

well if DJP's argument is unknowable then neither is yours...

i think he naively underestimated how cheney-fied the CIA and military was and how hard their stance was on forgetting torture ever happened. my reading is that john brennan said, ok you can send people into pakistan or you can have a 'get right with god' moment on the darkside stuff, pick one.

i don't think holder really knew what kind of a shitshow a terror trial in new york would cause either.

I actually have no trouble believing there's classified information out there that you don't get to see until you are President that could change your mind about the usefulness of indefinite detention.

i don't doubt the 'usefulness' of indefinite detention, just its legality and morality.

legality follows usefulness, as it has throughout the history of man

the Geneva Conventions were not created because they were that useful