Putting the cart before the horse
Comments(16)
Asking a pocket-locked population if they approve of President-elect Obama’s transition transactions is popping the question a little too soon in my mind, although 79 percent approve of him so far.
While I don’t think the public’s marriage to Obama will end in divorce (mainly because the most recent husband was so bad), I do think the honeymoon period should wait until after the ceremony.
We haven’t seen him withdraw troops from Iraq, we haven’t seen him put more troops into Afghanistan, we haven’t seen him improve the health care system and we haven’t seen him make college more affordable.
Yet, Americans are reacting to Obama’s job so far as if they just got front row tickets to a Jonas Brothers concert.
I think it’s because we are all assuming he will be competent, responsible, uncorrupted and decisive. Basically, we’re assuming he won’t be Bush. But we need to expect more and hope for more, all which remains future tense.
I, for one, am not going to be satisfied with a Clinton Secretary of State until it’s proven that she is willing to sit down with foreign leaders regardless of the appauling rhetoric they showcase. I want Clinton to sit down and talk to her counterpart in Iran, with Obama eventually sitting down with Ahmadinijad and discussing the need to rid the world of nuclear weaponry.
I want to see if Obama nominates Gore as his Secretary of Energy, and I want to see Obama implement his energy-oriented public works policies.
Obviously the public’s approval raiting of our president-elect has been based on his economic plans, goals and expectations. I’m no economist, but reading liberal economist/columnist opinion like that of Paul Krugman I would approve of Obama so far also.
But I want to see the versatility. I want to see the attention to wordly issues. I want to see Obama veto legislation which seeks to weaponize space. I want to see Obama increase taxes on those who are more fortunate (and don’t tell me that they work hard for their money, because that implies that those who earn less income did not or do not work as hard. Save that argument for when you’re talking to the GM factory workers who fear job loss while their company’s CEO begs for Congress to let him keep his bonus).
There are a lot of issues that matter to a lot of different people, and it wasn’t too long ago that national security was the only headline as ignorance-is-bliss told the story of the economy. Just last week, India admitted that it’s national security wasn’t up to par, admitting some guilt in not preparing for the terrorist attacks which killed 171 people and injured 239 more.
Remember when Bush failed to react to intelligence reports which detailed al Qaeda members learning to fly airplanes shortly before 9/11?
Obama’s success will come when he safeguards our country and helps safeguard the world, admitting and learning from mistakes.
And that success will not come in December 2008, but it will hopefully begin in January 2009.
Very well said.
“I think it’s because we are all assuming he will be competent, responsible, uncorrupted and decisive. Basically, we’re assuming he won’t be Bush.”
Oh, he’s been decisive. He’ll keep Gates at defense. He won’t rescind the Bush tax cuts. He won’t withdraw from Iraq. He won’t close Gitmo. He’s religiously opposed to gay marriage and supports the continuation of warrantless wiretapping of terrorist phone calls.
It’s Bush’s third term!
Of course, what it shows is that being president comes with a whole lot of reality that running for president doesn’t include. Whether you like his policies or not, Bush DID safeguard this country splendidly following 9/11. Obama isn’t about to start getting rid of those policies anytime soon. Were we to be attacked in the wake of that he would be drawn and quartered.
I’m no economist, but reading liberal economist/columnist opinion like that of Paul Krugman…
Well, that explains everything. Krugman long ago stopped pretending to be anything other than a partisan hack.
…don’t tell me that they work hard for their money, because that implies that those who earn less income did not or do not work as hard.
Nothing easier than combating an argument no one is making. The argument is not that rich people work harder, but that they support more. They provide the jobs and pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country. In fact, they – not the government – is what keeps the machine of America rolling along. We should thank them, not find new and better ways to screw them.
Don’t worry. Obama is going to make your progressive utopia come true. He just won’t do it until his second term, when it won’t cost him his re-election.
Whether you like his policies or not, Bush DID safeguard this country splendidly following 9/11.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin
Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, arguably the two most influential founding fathers, were humanists!
Okay Bill, let’s drop all of the so-called “essential liberties” (what exactly did YOU have to give up?) that have been stripped of the American people (can you name any?) and we’ll put you in charge of explaining to the families of dead Americans that terrorists ability to discuss plots in international phone calls was too important a “liberty” to erode for the protection of life.
How absolutely pathetic.
Against the historical record Bush is a boy scout in a country with a long history of temporarily suspending rights in order to preserve the whole. FDR imprisoned an entire minority. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, threw dissenters in jail for just that, and blew off the Supreme Court.
FDR and Lincoln are recorded by history as two of our greatest presidents. Care to differ?
The federal government’s chief and most important role is to protect the security of this nation, including your right to whine and moan about the measures taken safe on the sidelines.
What a wonderful country we live in where someone can sit on their keester and wax theoretical about the founding fathers, criticizing the people who put themselves on the front lines of reality to protect those civil liberties for future generations.
Why should you do any heavy lifting? You’ve got Google.
Civil liberties are in the eye of the beholder. This we know after the minority protested the smoking ban. This we know when the minority protest the anti-gay marriage legislation in this country. Now, which of those issues was more important to you? We give attention to the issues that matter to us. But I would caution that saying someone is “sitting on their keester and waxing theoretical” is a lazy conversation filter. I’ve heard that before here on these blogs, no doubt. Let Bill wax theoretical or hypothetical or whatever and however else he wants to wax. Anyone seen Frost/Nixon yet? I love that Nixon quote, “When the president does it, it is not illegal.” It’s so horrible, so true, so theoretical.
“Civil liberties are in the eye of the beholder.”
A more scarily ignorant remark I haven’t heard in some time. And one that fails to address the issue to boot. Talk about your “lazy conversation filters.”
So what of it? Is it ever the right thing to infringe on civil liberties in order they be protected for the long haul?
Was Lincoln throwing dissenters in jail during the civil war, suspension of our most basic rights, and arrogance to the Supreme Court worth it to see that slavery was ended? (A simple yes or no will do.)
Was FDR’s internment of Japanese citizens worth it to protect American coastlines from spying and attack in the wake of Pearl Harbor? (Again, yes or no.)
Had the north lost the civil war, an entire minority would have remained enslaved for who knows how much longer. Had FDR risked the coastlines of America to attack, WWII could have been lost, untold American civilian lives as well, and Hitler’s reign of terror would have proceeded unabated.
Let’s too not forget that FDR, attacked by Japan, promptly declared war on Germany.
Nixon’s quote is absolutely true, whether or not it is “horrible” is what is in the eye of the beholder. And as I have shown, it is far more than a theoretical exercise. Some of our greatest presidents have put the quote into very real practice.
Interestingly enough, Franklin’s quote applies equally well to the aforementioned smoking ban, which I highly doubt Bill opposed based on the forefathers notion of liberty. Franklin, by the way and having not known him personally, would likely have had a stroke had it been put to him that America should not take common sense protective measures to protect its existence from terrorism.
Likewise, I don’t see any lamentation here that Obama is not about to undo any of Bush’s measures (which make him a pussycat compared to past presidents).
Rather than the eye of the beholder, civil liberties appear to be defined by who is in office, and to what degree the blog or comment author is friendly with that person’s party.
The federal government’s primary job is to protect America from foreign attack. Civil liberties are as worthless as the paper they are written on if they do not come with a physical place in which to enjoy them.
Since we appear to be enjoying the referencing of quotes, here’s one for ya from Judge Richard Posner, who said civil liberties are “not a suicide pact.” If we, as a nation, are so rigid we cannot balance civil liberties against the nation’s survival, then the treasured reality will be killed off by a theory that has no bearing in the real world.
The issue is you thinking that waterboarding protects civil liberties. And if that’s not part of your generalist argument, please detail. And yes, we can all agree, you have NO IDEA and not even an EDUCATED GUESS of what Franklin would think about this day and age. Oh the atrocity of a smoking ban!? Where is justice!? Who would deny that civil liberty just for a little temporary safety!? Oh God, where are you now when we need you the most!? Haha.
Waterboarding? Who mentioned waterboarding? Since you did though, waterboarding probably has saved people’s civil liberties. You know, American people who are actually protected by our laws whose lives (the greatest civil liberty of all) were saved by the intel gathered using such a measure. Are you really that dim? Or just that certain OTHER PEOPLE should give their lives for your theories?
I still feel pretty safe that all this talk about terrorists civil rights at the expense of American citizens would make Ben Franklin puke, but feel free to correct me if you think you can.
“Oh the atrocity of a smoking ban!? Where is justice!? Who would deny that civil liberty just for a little temporary safety!? Oh God, where are you now when we need you the most!? Haha.”
Oh, that’s good. Franklin’s quote absolutely would apply to the smoking ban (which you brought up by the way)just as much, or more, as it would to national security. That’s the problem with “The Rant.” It’s irrational. It simply can’t apply the same set of standards and logic to varying issues. Standards and logic change from issue to issue based on the author’s emotional response to each one.
And then the author has the audacity to “haha” people who do have the capacity for reasoned, not emotional, argument. I have teenage daughters who are better suited for debate.
Sorry, but clearly the problem is one person thinking their argument is “reasoned” and the other person’s argument is “irrationally” “emotional” aka wrong.
There is no “set of standards” as defined by my appropriate example. You think waterboarding was appropriate to defend our “civil liberties,” yet you are opposed to the smoking ban which protects the greatest civil liberty — life. But there must be a set of standards there that you are consistently using.
So then, by virtue of this twisted argument, you support waterboarding because it protects the same civil liberty as the smoking ban? You’re right! This is really easy when one speaks in only the vaguest, emotional, generalities.
People don’t choose to get blown up in a suicide bomb or a 9/11. They don’t choose to get thrown off a cruise ship because they are Jewish. They don’t choose to be slaughtered in the street because they made a movie critical of Islam’s treatment of women. They do choose to go into a restaurant or bar that allows smoking. They don’t have to do it (unlike having to go to work, or go outside at all) but they do.
How is it you are incapable of seeing this simple, crucial, and dare I say logical, distinction?
Unlike terrorism, which rears its ugly head whenever it feels like it and is entirely indiscriminate and without empathy, people who are concerned about second hand smoke can avoid it anytime they feel like it. It’s done right out in the open. They can choose not to go to the bar, or find establishments that don’t allow smoking (believe it or not, plenty such places existed before the ban). Some establishments even put out helpful signs that say “no smoking.”
You see, people weigh the reasonable risk against the chance at some entertainment and good food,and they make a conscious decision.
That’s where the rational, reasoned part comes in. Unless, that is, you are suggesting that being blown to smithereens by a terrorist is a reasonable risk that employed people, or non agoraphobics assume when they leave the house.
Is that what you are suggesting? At least than I could see your point. It is a point that stretches the bounds of credibility, but at least I could see it.
Or, maybe you just think we could solve this whole mess by putting out “no terrorism” signs.
The point remains the same, Smokestack, there is no such thing as a “set of standards” by which we compare “civil liberties.” I think I made it clear that I do not support waterboarding, but I do support the smoking ban. If you want to cry about it and claim that my opinion is too “emotion” based, fine, that’s your CHOICE. I’ve always argued that we more often than not make those choices after we have in some way had experiences with the issue. I’ve had roomates who worked as bartenders and couldn’t stand working in a smoke-filled bar but they needed the money for college. Maybe you would argue they should be working somewhere else if they don’t want to be around smokers.
I don’t think we’re going to see eye to eye on these issues, because frankly you’re being argumentative. Employ your own logic, I will utilize mine.
I enjoy reading the opinions of everyone on here.
If you want to cry about it and claim that my opinion is too “emotion” based, fine, that’s your CHOICE.
Nice. Point out something simple and obvious (that you should have been able to figure out for yourself) and get accused by crying. Project much?
I don’t think we’re going to see eye to eye on these issues, because frankly you’re being argumentative.
Arguing? In a blog comment thread? That never happens.
I find it humorous that every time you get painted into a corner you develop a righteous attitude about your blog. If you really believed there was no call for arguing in a comment thread, you wouldn’t be so quick to comment in your own threads. Instead, you would simply let others have their say unfettered. No, you argue on a regular basis. It is only when you are losing the argument that you suddenly want to take the high road.
Employ your own logic, I will utilize mine.
If only. You don’t have “logic.” You have Matt’s view of the world. Logic is a thread intended to run through all things. You seem to change the very foundations of your “logic” whenever the mood strikes. And yes, it is highly based on emotion, which explains your oft repeated confusions about the concepts of civil liberties. When you base decisions on emotion, it is easy to believe that civil liberties are based on whatever people feel they are.
Believe it or not, there is a very strict, time tested, set of guidelines for what qualifies as a civil liberty, and nowhere in there is anything about how Matt, or I, feel about it. In fact, the system for determining such things is designed to keep emotion out of the equation all together.
Which, based on yours, and others, emotional system for decision making, seems like a very good thing to me.
I hope this is all a big joke because looking at the time stamps on this blog, and these comments, Obama was not even president yet… I am not taking sides, just pointing out a FACT.
And just to weigh in on opinion (facts can be boring), I think it is the spineless move NOT to question whether our civil liberties are being infringed upon too much. People forget that there should be no government and people as separate entities. You cannot expect others to protect you, and bail your butt out all the time. Take some personal responsibility.
This is for Matt. I always find it funny that you liberals always have to defend your positions by insulting any one that does not agree with your point of view. As well as the fact that you and your liberal pals always know seem to figure out and let the rest of us know just how excactly the rest of us should live our lives and what we should believe in.
Dave, I believe I made it clear that Obama was not yet president when I wrote this post. Maybe you’ll have to read it again. As for us liberals, we defend our positions in different ways at different times, however that is no different than a conservative. To suggest that I, personally, or any other liberal-minded individual, “always” defends positions by insulting anyone that does not agree with said positions is an outrageously inappropriate claim. I’ve learned not to expect much civil discourse on politics, because there are too few people capable of arguing a point without attacking an individual. I wish that were not the case, but it’s the unfortunate truth.