2 Thoughts On Palin Speech; Congressman Calls Obama "Uppity" (kind of)

[Teller]

I agree, but you can't throw all the bums out... unfortunately. So, you have to choose the bummiest of them. In four years, I'll want the Democrats to sacrificed at the alter of good or bad intentions on the way to hell. The GOP have earned, yes earned, the lionshare of my disdain and grumpitude for this go around.

All respect, that's pretty weak buddy.

Afterall, it was the senate that had the ULTIMATE power to take away those keys you talked about. And if they had, I'd likely be voting for Obama. Seriously.

I'm not blaming the dems for NSA or mail-opening. Not at all. That was the sole fault of a corrupt, greedy and power hungry administration.

I AM disgusted by the fact that a Gitmo detainees rights are worth more to the democrats who were the check/balance than mine.

[DjTj]

And those people who signed off on telco immunity, and the new FISA bill which was almost verbatim what the administration wanted?

"Those people" includes every Republican in the Senate who voted, and a minority of Democrats (including, inexplicably, Obama opposing his own Party).

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00168

How bout those who controlled the senate, but did little to investigate, and almost immediately took impeachment off the table? What of them?

It would have been a political stunt (just like the last time) ... maybe we need more political stunts, but the Democrats decided it wouldn't help them politically.

How bout that same house and senate that made Gitmo a years-long story, but wouldn't lift a finger to ensure that I'm not being spied on?

I don't know who these people are that you're saying wouldn't lift a finger. A majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the FISA bill. Almost every single Republican voted for it.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml

Where exactly are you trying to assign blame here?

P.S. They haven't shut down Gitmo either, so I'm not sure why you think that was a bigger priority for the Democrats.

[Redskins Diehard]

Karl Rove doesn't think so.

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ka...ions_PRICELESS

Does Karl Rove's opinion carry much weight with you?

[Burgold]

All respect, that's pretty weak buddy.

Afterall, it was the senate that had the ULTIMATE power to take away those keys you talked about. And if they had, I'd likely be voting for Obama. Seriously.

I'm not blaming the dems for NSA or mail-opening. Not at all. That was the sole fault of a corrupt, greedy and power hungry administration.

I AM disgusted by the fact that a Gitmo detainees rights are worth more to the democrats who were the check/balance than mine.

Being completely blunt about it, I was disgusted that the Dems caved on this. It was a huge betrayal of trust. They needed to impose a check on the President. In hockey terms, a check hard enough to send him through the glass. They failed us and worse, they did so to take an "election issue" away. It was cowardly and wrong.

The Dems had a chance to correct a wrong and they wimped out. They could have at least put up a fight and lost due to veto or Republican stonewalling, but they showed an immense lack of .... gumption.

[Redskins Diehard]

"Those people" includes every Republican in the Senate who voted, and a minority of Democrats (including, inexplicably, Obama opposing his own Party).

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00168

That's classic. "John McCain agreed with George Bush 90% of the time...I only agreed with him 40% of the time, including the part that "tramples" the Constitution".

[Monte51Coleman]

Does Karl Rove's opinion carry much weight with you?

No.

But it does to the righties unless they've abandoned him like they have their Messiah, GWB. After all, he was their wizard pulling the strings behind the curtain.

[MEANDWARF]

Does Karl Rove's opinion carry much weight with you?

Yeah more than yours.

[Teller]

"Those people" includes every Republican in the Senate who voted, and a minority of Democrats (including, inexplicably, Obama opposing his own Party).

And every one of them should hang their heads over that vote. Shameful. Absolutely shameful, all of them.

It would have been a political stunt (just like the last time) ... maybe we need more political stunts, but the Democrats decided it wouldn't help them politically.

There's a big difference between impeaching someone over MY Fourth Amendment rights, and impeaching over a BJ. One might have been a political stunt, the other would have been a demonstration of BALLS, courage, and support for the people and their Constitution. To do THAT during an election year, like I said, would've in all likelihood won my vote.

I don't know who these people are that you're saying wouldn't lift a finger. A majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the FISA bill. Almost every single Republican voted for it.

Shame on each of them as well, Tj. This is not a partisan attack on my part. (Though I can see why it came across that way. I was refering to the democrat-controlled congress taking impeachment off the table, not saying all the democrats in congress failed us.) But who sets the agenda?

Where exactly are you trying to assign blame here?

To anyone who actively illegally spied on American citizens, or anyone who was complicit in allowing the administration to get away with it.

P.S. They haven't shut down Gitmo either, so I'm not sure why you think that was a bigger priority for the Democrats.

It hasn't been shut down, but procedures have significantly changed. Meanwhile, as far as I can tell, the administration basically handed congress two bills and said "here's how we want to cover our ass on NSA." And congress said, "Okeedoke."

I worry about the precedent this sets with other Geneva-signatory nations too. Can we expect our POWs to be tried in their courts? Bad. Very bad.

[Teller]

Being completely blunt about it, I was disgusted that the Dems caved on this. It was a huge betrayal of trust. They needed to impose a check on the President. In hockey terms, a check hard enough to send him through the glass. They failed us and worse, they did so to take an "election issue" away. It was cowardly and wrong.

The Dems had a chance to correct a wrong and they wimped out. They could have at least put up a fight and lost due to veto or Republican stonewalling, but they showed an immense lack of .... gumption.

I agree completely.

Again, I wasn't trying to deflect blame. This administration disappointed me more than I can fully express. But IMO, truly trying to change the "culture of corruption" would have played right into Obama's campaign rhetoric, and he'd have had hard evidence to back it up.

Who's protecting and defending the Constitution? It sure as hell ain't GWB or our Congress.

[Monte51Coleman]

Did I miss something or has the GOP washed their hands clean of the Bush Administration?

Washed their hands so completely that they had Romney refer to them as if they were liberal democrats.

[DjTj]

And every one of them should hang their heads over that vote. Shameful. Absolutely shameful, all of them.

Alright, as long as you're not trying to play the partisan game here...

There's a big difference between impeaching someone over MY Fourth Amendment rights, and impeaching over a BJ. One might have been a political stunt, the other would have been a demonstration of BALLS, courage, and support for the people and their Constitution. To do THAT during an election year, like I said, would've in all likelihood won my vote.

From a legal standpoint, the BJ was actually a stronger case. He lied; that's perjury. The domestic spying was not so clear. The Sixth Circuit found that there was no violation of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court declined to review the decision:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html

An impeachment would have gone nowhere. Who would have testified? Where would the evidence come from? The ACLU had a hard enough time making its case in federal court, and Congress would not have fared much better. It would have been a joke, and they would have been skewered by the Republicans ... You say it would have won your vote, but I think it would have looked ridiculous, and after watching the effort go down in flames, you still wouldn't have voted for the Democrats. Also, I think you're in the distinct minority in really caring about this issue enough to affect your vote. Obama didn't mention spying in his speech. McCain didn't mention it in his speech. It's a non-issue and unfortunately, not enough people care about it right now.

Shame on each of them as well, Tj. This is not a partisan attack on my part. (Though I can see why it came across that way. I was refering to the democrat-controlled congress taking impeachment off the table, not saying all the democrats in congress failed us.) But who sets the agenda?

The Democrats couldn't have acted with their narrow majority and fierce opposition from the Republicans. Maybe they could have fallen on their swords and earned your vote, but it would have been completely futile, and it likely would have lost more votes than it gained.

To anyone who actively illegally spied on American citizens, or anyone who was complicit in allowing the administration to get away with it.

That's a pretty big list, and you and I are probably on it too. Sometimes it makes more sense to lay the blame at the feet of the people who are most responsible rather than trying to blame everyone. If it's everyone's fault, then it's no one's fault.

It hasn't been shut down, but procedures have significantly changed. Meanwhile, as far as I can tell, the administration basically handed congress two bills and said "here's how we want to cover our ass on NSA." And congress said, "Okeedoke."

The Gitmo issue stands in stark contrast with FISA issue because there have been three Supreme Court cases striking down the Bush plan ... Congress couldn't force those changes without the backing of the Court. At the same time, the Court rejected the major challenge to domestic spying. Regardless of your personal beliefs, the treatment of detainees was clearly in violation of the Constitution while there was no proof that Bush's spying program had done so.

Partly because of the failure of the Courts, I wouldn't characterize Congress's vote as "Okeedoke." Obama made a statement attempting to explain his vote, which may make paints a somewhat more sympathetic picture:

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I’m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...rospars/gGxsZF

I worry about the precedent this sets with other Geneva-signatory nations too. Can we expect our POWs to be tried in their courts? Bad. Very bad.

I'm not sure exactly what your fear is here, but the Geneva Convention does provide for trials in foreign courts. The problem is that Bush administration wasn't even willing to give them that:

Article 102

A prisoner of war can be validly sentenced only if the sentence has been pronounced by the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power, and if, furthermore, the provisions of the present Chapter have been observed.

Article 103

Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible. A prisoner of war shall not be confined while awaiting trial unless a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power would be so confined if he were accused of a similar offence, or if it is essential to do so in the interests of national security. In no circumstances shall this confinement exceed three months.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

If they signed the Geneva Convention and want to charge a POW with a crime, they do have to do it in their courts according to their procedures.

[JimboDaMan]

1) She said a mayor is like a community organizer except you HAVE RESPONSIBILITY.

Actually, what she said was "except you have actual responsibilities", stressing the final two words. Aside from how impressed she seems by the responsibilities of mayoring a town of 6,000, its clear she is implying that community organizers don't do any real work. At least it seemed clear to the crowd, who cheered and hooted raucously to that statement.

[Buford]

Actually, what she said was "except you have actual responsibilities", stressing the final two words. Aside from how impressed she seems by the responsibilities of mayoring a town of 6,000, its clear she is implying that community organizers don't do any real work. At least it seemed clear to the crowd, who cheered and hooted raucously to that statement.

That threw me off too.

I'd think a strong campaign ad would be profiling Community Organizers around the country and the work they've done. Get people to describe seeing up blood & food drivers, voter registered, Neighborhood watches, and all sorts of stuff. You wouldn't even need to blast Palin. Because if you did a series of those ads while she's blasting people who work in their community. That would be what you were looking for. Somebody putting down American's who are trying to act locally to help their Country.

Or get the timeline straight and compare Community Organizer vs. News Sportscaster where they've got not professional sports franchises.

[Elite81881]

These are two video's that will be on TV... Give em a look at and tell me how out of touch the Republicans are on their line of attack on community organizers....

[Redskins Diehard]

Actually, what she said was "except you have actual responsibilities", stressing the final two words. Aside from how impressed she seems by the responsibilities of mayoring a town of 6,000, its clear she is implying that community organizers don't do any real work. At least it seemed clear to the crowd, who cheered and hooted raucously to that statement.

Of course this is all in response to a claim that mayoring a town of 9,000 isn't real work. A claim that apparently you believe as well.