New new election thread

[bjorn_skurj]

Should Obama be elected, I think he's going to be able to maybe get away with one truly liberal initiative, and he will have to decide whether that's health care reform or energy policy. If the Saudis do ramp up production to torpedo alternative energy again, that might make his decision simpler.

[Good Old Neon]

i don't really know or care what the 'carl rove definition' of centrist means, it's not my definition and i don't think it's obama's either. i'll also submit that part of what makes me uncomfortable w/ calling myself a 'liberal' anymore is how the definition seems to have moved decidedly to the left. i think there are equal amount of contributors on both sides that want nothing to do w/ anything resembling a common ground. extremism (and elitism for that matter) abounds on both 'right' and 'left' that really does strike me as out of touch.

 

Do you regard Obama

[Good Old Neon]

Should Obama be elected, I think he's going to be able to maybe get away with one truly liberal initiative, and he will have to decide whether that's health care reform or energy policy. If the Saudis do ramp up production to torpedo alternative energy again, that might make his decision simpler.

 

And that

[fatheadfred]

And that

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

i don't really know or care what the 'carl rove definition' of centrist means, it's not my definition and i don't think it's obama's either. i'll also submit that part of what makes me uncomfortable w/ calling myself a 'liberal' anymore is how the definition seems to have moved decidedly to the left. i think there are equal amount of contributors on both sides that want nothing to do w/ anything resembling a common ground. extremism (and elitism for that matter) abounds on both 'right' and 'left' that really does strike me as out of touch.

I don't think this is a case of a political pendulum that it has to follow the affirmative action school. The problem with the left is it can't agree on anything, as Congress has demonstrated over the last year and a half. With no unity of direction or view if it is a pendulum, the political momentum would be sucked up into a black hole.

 

While it's hard to talk to "conversatives" about the current administration and the direction for the next four years, I suspect that most would like to distance themselves from the current debacle. So in that sense, the country has already move to the left. I think I hear ELE in that he seems to be saying there's no reason to punish the right in order to get the U.S. on the right directon. There needs to be a critical mass of people who are negotiating the course out of reasonable interest for the common good, not with the ultimate goal being a "win" for the left (whatever it may be) or the right (what it was and what it may be now).

[Good Old Neon]

I am guessing that more health giant and old technology (coal/oil) energy lobbies are paid to the GOP and, therefore, they continue to drag their feet on both issues, thus making them a ripe issue for Dems.

 

My guess as well - meaning, it

[EL the Famous]

Do you regard Obama

[Winston Legthigh]

i don't see how letting everybody sue the fuck out of the phone companies for doing what the law of the land told them to do...good, bad or ugly...really accomplishes.

 

i have nothing to hide, so it's goign to take a backburner. you can call that daft, but that's my reality.

 

Agreed. Well put.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

They did not do what the law of the land told them to do. They did what the executive branch told them to do. The executive branch is not the law of the land.

 

It was not an ambiguous point of law, either.

[Sir Stewart]

has obama actually said that he endorses illegal wiretapping? even if that is a yes, looking at my other priorities and the alternative...i have nothing to hide, so it's goign to take a backburner. you can call that daft, but that's my reality.

[MrRain422]

They did not do what the law of the land told them to do. They did what the executive branch told them to do. The executive branch is not the law of the land.

 

It was not an ambiguous point of law, either.

 

And some of the telecoms did not participate. Because they knew it was illegal.

[MattZ]

It was not an ambiguous point of law, either.

 

 

And some of the telecoms did not participate. Because they knew it was illegal.

 

Exactly. And there is an issue of precedent here too. It's not just about suing after the fact for something that can't be fixed. It's about communicating to companies that they should think twice before doing something like this in the future.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Also, it was not a vote to sue or not to sue. It was to protect or not to protect. Why do they deserve of special protection?

[EL the Famous]

There needs to be a critical mass of people who are negotiating the course out of reasonable interest for the common good, not with the ultimate goal being a "win" for the left (whatever it may be) or the right (what it was and what it may be now).

 

completely correct...and that is what we have going on now.

 

My guess as well - meaning, it

[MrRain422]

Also, there are 70 members of the Senate who have not been briefed on the program in question. So they didn't even know what it was that they were immunizing them for.

[Good Old Neon]

i'm not really that up in arms over the FISA thing, to be frank. i think it was wrong for the administration to illegally authorize the phone companies to wiretap and do feel the phone companies themsleves should have pushed back. that said, i don't see how letting everybody sue the fuck out of the phone companies for doing what the law of the land told them to do...good, bad or ugly...really accomplishes.

 

i guess it just depends on your view of what that vote means...even your description above makes it sound like it's less about the actual ramifications to the entire american public and more about giving/taking away something from bush.

 

has obama actually said that he endorses illegal wiretapping? even if that is a yes, looking at my other priorities and the alternative...i have nothing to hide, so it's goign to take a backburner. you can call that daft, but that's my reality.

 

You might not have anything to hide, but the telecoms and the current administration certainly may. The fact of the matter is, they broke the law

[Good Old Neon]

completely correct...and that is what we have going on now.

 

 

 

i find what strikes me as melodrama in that statement as part of the the problem...if one really wants to claim ownership of this country, they'll look out for their own interests and the interests of their communities within it versus expecting the government to do it all for them.

 

 

Doing what, exactly for them? Setting responsible energy policy and reforming the health care system? Even if we were to switch to full on socialized medicine, we'd be doing so with our money, tax money, collectively, no one would be doing anything for us other than implementing and running the program.

[EL the Famous]

Also, it was not a vote to sue or not to sue. It was to protect or not to protect. Why should they be deserving of special protection?

 

sorry, 'law of the land' was a complete misnomer and i get all of the other points by those dissapointed in the result.

 

what i'm still missing is how opening them up for litigation really affects anything enough for me to see this as a hugely dissapointing issue. i'm not saying i agree w/ it, i just don't see this as a 'sky is falling' vote that would put me off obama or call him bush II.

[bjorn_skurj]

And that

[EL the Famous]

Doing what, exactly for them? Setting responsible energy policy and reforming the health care system? Even if we were to switch to full on socialized medicine, we'd be doing so with our money, tax money, collectively, no one would be doing anything for us other than implementing and running the program.

 

a solid energy policy and some health care reform is great...i don't feel that a fully socialized approach for everyone is right or even feasible, but we've argued that before.

 

let me flip this, as i wasn't the one who said our entire government no longer takes any our interests into any consideration...while i agree that there is a lot they could be doing better, exactly what aren't they providing YOU right now that is deterring you from being able to provide a decent life for your family? is your quality of life REALLY that bad?

 

and if somebody pipes in w/ 'fuck everybody else', let me head that off. i'm saying empowerment is a two way street...government should never be expected to provide for you, it should be expected to empower you to provide for yourself. i think there a deficiencies on both sides of the fence. i'll worry about FISA after i don't have to worry about our grocery and gas bill.

[MattZ]

sorry, 'law of the land' was a complete misnomer and i get all of the other points by those dissapointed in the result.

 

what i'm still missing is how opening them up for litigation really affects anything enough for me to see this as a hugely dissapointing issue. i'm not saying i agree w/ it, i just don't see this as a 'sky is falling' vote that would put me off obama or call him bush II.

 

It doesn't put me off obama or make me call him bush II. But it does disappoint me greatly. As Jorge said, the telecom companies should have their day in court. They can argue that they did what the executive branch told them as a defense. If that sways a jury, they should get off. Otherwise, they should face the consequences of their actions. Just like you and/or me if we broke the law.

 

You often call for people to take responsibility for their actions. Shouldn't the same be expected of the telecom companies? And wouldn't immunizing them set the precedent that they don't have to? That can't be good.

[JUDE]

Doing what, exactly for them? Setting responsible energy policy and reforming the health care system? Even if we were to switch to full on socialized medicine, we'd be doing so with our money, tax money, collectively, no one would be doing anything for us other than implementing and running the program.

 

So why go through the whole collection process, why not let me set aside money for my own health care and reduce my taxes by the same? Why send 27% of my income to DC and then maybe, send some back as a Health Care Benefit?

 

I've yet have anyone convince me that a Federally mandated and administered program is even remotely close to being as efficient as a localized system.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

and if somebody pipes in w/ 'fuck everybody else', let me head that off. i'm saying empowerment is a two way street...government should never be expected to provide for you, it should be expected to empower you to provide for yourself. i think there a deficiencies on both sides of the fence. i'll worry about FISA after i don't have to worry about our grocery and gas bill.

Then I am probably very liberal then, because I think the government -- or at least a democratic government -- should protect the least and the last and the lost without unfairly impuning on the privileges of those who can take care of themselves. That means reasonable protection for health, security and defense from those who exploit for their own gains. On the other hand, those who are provided for should be beholden to the government for the protection of that care -- in the scope of being gainfully employed or at least productive commensurate with the care they're given. Very idealistic, obviously, but it was either high school civics or Frank Capra that burned those ideals into my head -- and given a productive society, those aren't bad traits to ascribe to.

[MattZ]

i'll worry about FISA after i don't have to worry about our grocery and gas bill.

 

I see your point and I understand, and frankly, agree with much of it. But I just don't see the issues as mutually exclusive. I am worried about my grocery and gas bill and the FISA bill. To be completely honest, in that order.

[EL the Famous]

You often call for people to take responsibility for their actions. Shouldn't the same be expected of the telecom companies? And wouldn't immunizing them set the precedent that they don't have to? That can't be good.

 

you're right, but i guess what i'm still missing is how the people that would be suing said phone companies were affected enough for me to be clamoring that protection from litigation is doing something other than proving a point they were wrong. the precedent point is a good one though, but again that just takes me back to my statement that, personally, i have nothing to say worth wiretapping me for. a little shallow, sure...but i have to pick my battles.

 

again, not arguing that what happened wasn't illegal, wrong or something that they shouldn't be held accountable for...i'm just trying to boil it down to what really makes this more of an issue than the others i find more concerning and how this should affect my view as obama as the best candidate representative of my 'centrist views', that's all.