The Post Election Thread

[dondoboy]

I watched that kid on Huckabee last night. He seems exceptionally bright and articulate. And even though he mostly just regurgitated the usual talking points, at least he did so with more flair and personality than, say, Bobby Jindal.

I'm pointing out how the conservative agenda in this country is being extolled by a kid and a nut. And someone is alright with that.

[Beltmann]

I'm pointing out how the conservative agenda in this country is being extolled by a kid and a nut. And someone is alright with that.

I'm alright with a kid of 14 being politically interested. Do I wish he was on my (our) side instead? Sure. But at least he's involved, and he seems genuinely intelligent. Hopefully, as he ages, he'll see through the talking points and find a more sophisticated voice.

[dondoboy]

I'm alright with a kid of 14 being politically interested. Do I wish he was on my (our) side instead? Sure. But at least he's involved, and he seems genuinely intelligent. Hopefully, as he ages, he'll see through the talking points and find a more sophisticated voice.

Alright, he was just on the news and said his "...job is to promote Conservatism over the airwaves." That sounds like someone familiar. The whole thing kinda turns my stomach. He was wearing an anti IRS t-shirt. How can a 14 year old understand the intricacies of the United States tax code?

[Good Old Neon]

Is he preaching traditional, respectable conservatism, or that new brand that

[Beltmann]

Alright, he was just on the news and said his "...job is to promote Conservatism over the airwaves." That sounds like someone familiar. The whole thing kinda turns my stomach. He was wearing an anti IRS t-shirt. How can a 14 year old understand the intricacies of the United States tax code?

I don't see how any of what you said counters anything that I said. I also don't see where we disagree, except that I'm choosing to focus on how he's more politically engaged than the average 14-year-old, while you are choosing to focus on how he's not as sophisticated as a 50-year-old policy wonk. But of course his politics aren't nuanced--he's fourteen!

 

This kid is no different than any other kid regurgitating what he's heard--from his parents, from the pundits, from his youth pastor--except that he seems more articulate and comprehending than most. What, exactly, is so terribly awful about that? Since I deal with high school honors kids on a daily basis, I recognize that this kid is a cut above the average teenage thinker--even though I (strongly) disagree with his political opinions, I'm still glad he has a keen interest in being politically engaged, and I'm optimistic that foundation will someday develop into more nuanced opinions.

 

I could be wrong, but something tells me you wouldn't have this hang-up if the kid sounded like Olbermann rather than Limbaugh.

[dondoboy]

I don't see how any of what you said counters anything that I said. I also don't see where we disagree, except that I'm choosing to focus on how he's more politically engaged than the average 14-year-old, while you are choosing to focus on how he's not as sophisticated as a 50-year-old policy wonk. But of course his politics aren't nuanced--he's fourteen!

 

This kid is no different than any other kid regurgitating what he's heard--from his parents, from the pundits, from his youth pastor--except that he seems more articulate and comprehending than most. What, exactly, is so terribly awful about that? Since I deal with high school honors kids on a daily basis, I recognize that this kid is a cut above the average teenage thinker--even though I (strongly) disagree with his political opinions, I'm still glad he has a keen interest in being politically engaged, and I'm optimistic that foundation will someday develop into more nuanced opinions.

 

I could be wrong, but something tells me you wouldn't have this hang-up if the kid sounded like Olbermann rather than Limbaugh.

Oh, I never thought we were disagreeing. And while I admit I might laugh about it if he sounded like Olbermann, my initial post and more my point was to show how strangely the Republican party has swerved. Limbaugh and a fourteen year old kid. Its pretty funny stuff.

[Beltmann]

Oh, I never thought we were disagreeing. And while I admit I might laugh about it if he sounded like Olbermann, my initial post and more my point was to show how strangely the Republican party has swerved. Limbaugh and a fourteen year old kid. Its pretty funny stuff.

Well, for a party that has steadily veered from William F. Buckley to George W. Bush to Sarah Palin to Joe the Plumber, I guess it was only a matter of time before they rallied behind a child!

[calvino]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279/page/1

 

This weeks Newsweek cover story on el Rushbo. Intellectual Conservative v. "What ever the kind Rush is" Conservative.

 

The writer David Frum is gonna catch flack from all sides with the below.

 

But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership? Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s. He plays an important role in our coalition, and of course he and his supporters have to be treated with respect. But he cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise

[Good Old Neon]

Excerpted from today

[cryptique]

Franken wins. Again. Can we seat the poor guy already?

 

Minn. court: Franken had most votes

 

Coleman to appeal decision as U.S. Senate race drags on

 

_{NBC News and news services}

_{updated 10:05 p.m. ET, Mon., April 13, 2009}

 

ST. PAUL, Minn. - A Minnesota court confirmed Monday that Democrat Al Franken won the most votes in his 2008 Senate race against Republican Norm Coleman, who had already announced plans to appeal the decision.

 

Coleman has 10 days to appeal to the state Supreme Court. Once the petition is filed, it could further delay the seating of Minnesota's second senator for weeks.

 

After a statewide recount and seven-week trial, Franken stands 312 votes ahead. He gained more votes from the election challenge than Coleman, the candidate who brought the legal action.

 

The state law under which Coleman sued required three judges to determine who got the most votes and is therefore entitled to an election certificate, which is now on hold pending an appeal.

 

"The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that the November 4, 2008, election was conducted fairly, impartially and accurately," the judges wrote. "There is no evidence of a systematic problem of disenfranchisement in the state's election system, including in its absentee-balloting procedures."

 

In its order, the judicial panel dismissed two attempts by Coleman to subtract votes from Franken over allegations of mishandled ballots in Minneapolis.

 

The judges also rejected Coleman's argument that a state board improperly made up for a packet of ballots lost between the election. His lawyers conceded that the ballots' disappearance rendered them invalid and that Coleman was entitled to review all ballots as part of the recount.

 

"I am honored and humbled by this close victory, and I'm looking forward to getting to work as soon as possible," Franken said in a statement Monday night.

 

"The campaign for this Senate seat has been long and expensive. But the fight ahead, the fight to rebuild our economy and repair our broken health care system and restore our standing in the world

[Good Old Neon]

Glenn Greenwald:

 

Obama and habeas corpus -- then and now

 

excerpt:

 

I'm not searching for ways to criticize Obama. I wish I could be writing paeans celebrating the restoration of the Constitution and the rule of law. But these actions -- these contradictions between what he said and what he is doing, the embrace of the very powers that caused so much anger towards Bush/Cheney -- are so blatant, so transparent, so extreme, that the only way to avoid noticing them is to purposely shut your eyes as tightly as possible and resolve that you don't want to see it, or that you're so convinced of his intrinsic Goodness that you'll just believe that even when it seems like he's doing bad things, he must really be doing them for the Good. If there was any unanimous progressive consensus over the last eight years, it was that the President does not have the power to kidnap people, ship them far away, and then imprison them indefinitely in a cage without due process. Has that progressive consensus changed as of January 20, 2009? I think we're going to find out.

 

full post - http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...gram/index.html

 

I

[Tweedling]

Maybe Obama sees that this job isn't as easy as he once thought it would be. Hmmmmm?

[John Smith]

Things are almost always more black and white while running a campaign. They have to be so you can give the voters a clear choice. However once you have your position that black and white had better be tossed out the window and you better think and be more rational in your decision making process. Of course right now people are expecting Obama to act on everything he promised and act now. I would rather that they take their time and put a little analysis and thoughtfullness into the decision making process and come to the correct decision rather than making rash changes and find out later they were the wrong choices. Rashness has not worked well for this country.

[Sir Stewart]

Maybe Obama sees that this job isn't as easy as he once thought it would be. Hmmmmm?

 

Oh that's right, I forgot about all those campaign posters that read "THIS SHIT WILL BE E-Z!"

[MattZ]

That Greenwald article ruined my morning. The constitution and these court rulings are black and white. To me, this has nothing to do with how hard the job is when you get there, or not being rash, or dealing with a difficult situation in a reasonable and nuanced way. Those are all rationalizations that comfort a terrible reality.

 

And if Bush was president, we'd be (still) calling for his head on this.

 

[jc4prez]

I

[John Smith]

I

[Good Old Neon]

Andrew Sullivan -

 

Obama's Moment Of Truth On Torture

 

The question before the president today is not whether to prosecute his predecessors for war crimes; it is simply whether to allow the memos that the Bush administration drew up describing in gruesome detail the torture techniques they authorized - or to cover them up. There are zero national security interests in keeping such information secret. The ICRC report has already detailed what was done to many high value detainees, and the methods are unequivocally war crimes, and known across the world. To directly attach such torture techniques to the specific decisions of the Bush administration merely provides accountability. No more; no less. It provides transparency.

 

If Obama, for some reason, decides to prevent us from seeing exactly what was done then he will achieve only one thing: he will tell the world that the US has indeed authorized and practised war crimes while simultaneously telling the world that America will not be accountable for it.

 

 

He will betray all of us who supported him to restore the rule of law. He will, in fact, merely confirm the worst fears of what was actually done while making himself an accomplice to protecting the war criminals who did it. And please don't even begin to spin us with the following:

 

"We want to maximize the amount of information available to the American people," said a senior administration official involved in the discussions, adding that such a policy has to be balanced so it "does not damage national security interests."

 

National security interests would only be damaged if the US were seen to be continuing the cover-up of war crimes begun by Bush and Cheney. If CIA staffers believe that covering up war crimes is integral to maintaining their morale, then we need new CIA staffers. This is not about persecuting the CIA. It is about maintaining basic political accountability for decisions and policies that were illegal, unconstitutional and immoral.

 

There is no compromise possible here, Mr president. Do the right thing.

[Beltmann]

On the subject of torture, Andrew Sullivan has been awesome--intellectually honest, persistent, soul-searching, inspiring--for a long time now. His commentary is essential. It also carries the weight of credibility, since he originally supported both Bush and the war.

[MattZ]

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this over the last couple of days and I think that part of the problem here stems from the fact that this country has done some pretty reprehensible things behind the scenes for a long time. And we (the people) were naive enough to believe that they weren't happening. I stand by what I said yesterday but I don't think this is simply a case of Obama going back on a campaign pledge by continuing Bush policies. As Sullivan says, the news is out already. The Red Cross has already let the cat out of the bag. I fear that Obama is trying to conceal something much bigger (whether that means things we've done for longer than anyone suspects, or things we've done that are worse than anyone suspects).

 

My only quibble with Sullivan's article is his dismissal of national security issues. I am not convinced that being accused of a cover up is worse for our national security than (perhaps) the things that have not been uncovered yet seeing the light of day.

 

This whole story, whether I am completely off base or right on the money, is simply devastating.

[Panther]

I never understood the whole issue over torture during the Bush adminastration , was it truly a shock to anyone , I djnno maybe thats a benefit of being canadian but the united states has averaged something like a war every ten years since world war two your goverment has allot of blood on its hands.

They dropped two A-bombs massacuring hundreads of thousands of people , they came out of that war the new supreme empire and they torture.

 

so thats like saying I killed you parents killed your siblings which wasnt so bad but then I tortured you grandfather for information at that pusshed it over the edge, I dunt know it seems like a political issue and nothing more in my eyes

[Tweedling]

I never understood the whole issue over torture during the Bush adminastration , was it truly a shock to anyone , I djnno maybe thats a benefit of being canadian but the united states has averaged something like a war every ten years since world war two your goverment has allot of blood on its hands.

They dropped two A-bombs massacuring hundreads of thousands of people , they came out of that war the new supreme empire and they torture.

 

so thats like saying I killed you parents killed your siblings which wasnt so bad but then I tortured you grandfather for information at that pusshed it over the edge, I dunt know it seems like a political issue and nothing more in my eyes

Canadian logic?

[John Smith]

A while back I had mentioned that people in Texas whom I knew felt that Texas could leave the union at any time they choose because they were an independent country before they joined. Of course I was pooh-poohed by people who never heard any such utterances. Yesterday Governor Perry said the following which is exactly what people were telling me when I lived in Texas in 83/84

[cryptique]

A dollar a day to make Norm go away.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

A while back I had mentioned that people in Texas whom I knew felt that Texas could leave the union at any time they choose because they were an independent country before they joined. Of course I was pooh-poohed by people who never heard any such utterances. Yesterday Governor Perry said the following which is exactly what people were telling me when I lived in Texas in 83/84