New new election thread

[Tweedling]

I wonder what other campaign promises Obama will go back on before this is all over with?

[MattZ]

I wonder what other campaign promises Obama will go back on before this is all over with?

 

As a Dem, I am not at all disappointed or frustrated with Obama's "move to the center" (other than my disappointment with the specific policies -- e.g., FISA). He is a politician, and he is proving himself to be an amazing one. This is what politicians do. Frankly, I am more frustrated with my friends -- people who I consider to be really smart people -- who were somehow duped into believing that Obama would not be doing this. And who voted against HRC for these very reasons (e.g., triangulation, saying anything to get elected, etc.).

 

And hey Tweedling -- why are you so focused on what Obama has gone back on? It's a mere fraction of the stances the maverick Senator from Arizona has flipped on. In this race, I don't know how Republicans can even pretend to criticize Obama as a flip flopper. That whole Pot and Kettle thing.

[Good Old Neon]

As a Dem, I am not at all disappointed or frustrated with Obama's "move to the center" (other than my disappointment with the specific policies -- e.g., FISA). He is a politician, and he is proving himself to be an amazing one. This is what politicians do. Frankly, I am more frustrated with my friends -- people who I consider to be really smart people -- who were somehow duped into believing that Obama would not be doing this. And who voted against HRC for these very reasons (e.g., triangulation, saying anything to get elected, etc.).

 

Well, can you really blame your friends for wanting to believe Obama

[Tweedling]

I'm just a little surprised that. the "messiah" who talked so much about Change We Can Believe In is becoming exactly what he's stated he would not be.

 

I would love to hear about the flip flopping of McCain.(Not saying he hasn't)

Are they positions he's changed after becoming the nominee?

Were they flips to the left or to the right? (I prefer one over the other.)

[MattZ]

Well, can you really blame your friends for wanting to believe Obama

[mountain bed]

Glad to see both my old Senators in Michigan, and one Senator from here in Illinois (though not the one running for President) on that list.

I don't know if you saw it but Dodd gave another (shorter - 25 min.) speech Tuesday night on the Senate floor regarding FISA. There is no one who speaks with more eloquence, or passion, on this issue. Every time I hear him speak on this it makes the hair on my arm stand straight up - and makes me wish I had a Senator like Dodd.

[Good Old Neon]

Sure, I can. They are my friends and we blame each other all the time. But I do take issue with your point -- I don't think he's "simply another politician." He may be moving to the center, but I do think he is "change." I just don't think he's the change many of my friends insisted he'd be.

 

I don't buy it. I like Glen Greenwald, but I don't buy it. I think a Dem has to move to the center to win the presidency. President Clinton proved it. And I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. Kerry didn't win because of 100 reasons. To say he didn't win because he "moved to the center" ignores too many other factors that were at play.

 

Obama was the one who has insisted, all along, that he

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Sure, I can. They are my friends and we blame each other all the time. But I do take issue with your point -- I don't think he's "simply another politician." He may be moving to the center, but I do think he is "change." I just don't think he's the change many of my friends insisted he'd be.

 

I supported Clinton because, while change is most definitely needed, it's still the same system of government. We're where we're at because partisan politics has nuanced the shit out of it. With Clinton, IMHO you knew what you was getting, and it was someone who could work within the system (and less, as well for some of my partisan believes while she's at it).

 

My greatest fear is, regardless of whether Obama runs to the middle or over to Jesse to shut his mike off, is that it will be 76-80 all over again, and we'll have a brilliant man with the best of intentions becoming roadkill to the Washington grinder.

 

I can't take this as a totally negative or flip-flopping sign. He did what he had to do to get the party's nomination. Now he has to do what he needs to do to win the election.

 

But more importantly, whoever wins is going to have to take some sort of centrist view after nearly two decades of polarization.

 

I think the positive aspect of this election is that the opponents are two intelligent guys who have bent but not broken to partisanship. That's a great start regardless of who wins.

 

I don't buy it. I like Glen Greenwald, but I don't buy it. I think a Dem has to move to the center to win the presidency. President Clinton proved it. And I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. Kerry didn't win because of 100 reasons. To say he didn't win because he "moved to the center" ignores too many other factors that were at play.

 

I thought Kerry didn't win because of 57 reasons.

[MattZ]

Obama was the one who has insisted, all along, that he

[Good Old Neon]

He isn't perfect, but he is pretty darn good in my book. And I say that as one of the few initial Clinton supporters in these parts. Again, I never saw that much of a difference in substance between Obama and HRC. I think as Obama moves to the center that becomes even more clear. I do think, however, that Obama is raising the level of discourse in a way that Clinton never could (or never would) and I do think he brings a fresh perspective that could pay dividends.

 

I also bet that Clinton voted against FISA to subtley begin her 2012 run just in case. She begins building the case against Obama.

 

Fair enough, Matt - I always enjoy reading your posts.

 

As for the Clinton case building comment, I was thinking the very same thought upon learning she voted against passage.

[EL the Famous]

But more importantly, whoever wins is going to have to take some sort of centrist view after nearly two decades of polarization.

 

i could not agree more. maybe it's just me, but a move closer to/completely to the center is a HUGE change over the past two terms...i also think a more cenrist presidency is exactly what this country needs or at least, it's what i'd like to see relative to my current worldview.

 

I do think, however, that Obama is raising the level of discourse in a way that Clinton never could (or never would) and I do think he brings a fresh perspective that could pay dividends.

 

another reason i'm still extremely enthused about his candidacy.

[Good Old Neon]

Could someone please define, for me, what exactly a centrist presidency would look like?

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Could someone please define, for me, what exactly a centrist presidency would look like?

In my mind it's:

1. Someone who, while maintaining most partisan ideals, is not cemented to them

2. (or 1. Where he aligns or conflicts with partisan ideals, he comes upon it reasonably and pragmatically.

3. Someone who has a track record of reaching across the aisle, and not just window-dressing as a co-sponsor on popular bills.

4. A tough negotiator, though one who seeks consensus.

5. Fair minded in that all views must be heard but ultimately someone who can close a deal.

 

Maybe not "centrist" but someone I'd drink the Kool-aid for.

[Winston Legthigh]

Could someone please define, for me, what exactly a centrist presidency would look like?

 

Please refer to Goldilock's third option...

 

Clinton's term was pretty centrist, no? (If not a little left of the dial?) Not too liberal, not too conservative?

[MattZ]

I would love to hear about the flip flopping of McCain.

Were they flips to the left or to the right? (I prefer one over the other.)

 

Haha, at least you are honest.

He used to be opposed to the the Bush tax cuts (now he wants them permanent). In 1999 he opposed overturning Roe v Wade and he now supports overturning it. He was once a staunch opponent of torture and now splits hairs like a barber on that issue. Those are three biggies off the top of my head.

 

given his FISA capitulation, had he been in the senate, would he have truly voted against the AUMF? Given yesterday

[EL the Famous]

Could someone please define, for me, what exactly a centrist presidency would look like?

 

a thinner bill clinton w/ a tan and a sweet fade cut? seriously though, i do think clinton did a remarkable job and is the most immediate example that spings to mind. cousin tupelo's detailed response is pretty deadon as well.

 

there may be issues in someone's interpretation of 'the center'...maybe mine is a simple theory that aligning more to a central viewpoint is more reflective of the greater population than leaning to far towards the left or right.

[Good Old Neon]

Well, from where I

[EL the Famous]

Well, from where I

[Good Old Neon]

I submit that Obama was already in the center, and that his recent move to the

[Guest Jules]

I don't think Obama was "already in the center".

 

On any level.

[JUDE]

From my perspective, the S.S. Obama could lose a starboard engine and still not steer enough to the right for me.

 

To keep with the boat analogies.

[Good Old Neon]

I don't think Obama was "already in the center".

 

On any level.

 

Please, explain your point of view.

[Good Old Neon]

Well, speaking of the devil's own prick:

 

Rove ignores committee's subpoena, refuses to testify

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Karl Rove, President Bush's longtime political guru, refused to obey an order to testify before a House Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday.

 

Karl Rove's lawyers says he is immune from a congressional subpoena.

 

Rove's lawyer asserted that Rove was "immune" from the subpoena the committee had issued, arguing that the committee could not compel him to testify due to "executive privilege."

 

The panel is investigating allegations that Rove and his White House allies dismissed U.S. attorneys and prosecuted officials who they saw as political opponents.

 

The panel subpoenaed Rove in May after his lawyer, Robert Luskin, made clear the former White House deputy chief of staff would not appear voluntarily.

 

Luskin responded immediately that Rove still would not appear, prompting a threat of prosecution from the Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, and Rep. Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat who chairs the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law.

 

"A refusal to appear in violation of the subpoena could subject Mr. Rove to contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives," Conyers and Sanchez wrote.

 

Rove's lawyer cited a letter from the Justice Department saying Rove is "constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony." He said Rove is willing to submit to an "informal interview" or to answer written questions about the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, whose ouster Rove is accused of orchestrating.

 

"Threatening Mr. Rove with sanctions will not in any way expedite the resolution of the issue," Luskin wrote in a letter to the panel on Wednesday

[EL the Famous]

The problem with being centrist nowadays, is that the definition of center has moved decidedly to the right

[EL the Famous]

Well, speaking of the devil's own prick:

 

dude, why? rove's a dick, we've more than established that...NEW ELECTION THREAD.