When Obama stops supporting gun control, helps repeal or rewrite the PATRIOT Act, or repeals the new FISA law then this picture will be accurate. Until he does one of those things, this is simply wishful thinking.
Yes, it's wishful thinking. I think that's what the cartoonist wants Obama to work on first.
However, it certainly seems likely that Obama will indeed repair a lot of the damage done by Bush/Cheney. I think a lot of people are expecting this. Don't you agree?
No. Due to my belief that the Democratic Party won't give the power away that Bush established. If they truly opposed the things that Bush was proposing, they would have put up a fight when the legislation was proposed. Instead, they rolled over and let it pass.
I seem to recall a few vetos along the way. I also would expect that the Dems would want to avoid being seen as weak on national defense (as unfair as that accusation would have been) if they voted against something that sounds like you're protecting America (e.g. Terrorist Surveilance Program which in reality is infinitely abusable domestic spying with no oversight to protect the privacy of American citizens) especially if they could not override the inevitable veto and as they neared a very important election.
I expect things like the Patriot act to be tweeked and the Domestic Spying program to receive some oversight. I guess we'll see what happens.
Bush had a nice layer of dust on his veto pen most of the time. I think he might have used it twice in the past four years.
I also would expect that the Dems would want to avoid being seen as weak on national defense (as unfair as that accusation would have been) if they voted against something that sounds like you're protecting America (e.g. Terrorist Surveilance Program which in reality is infinitely abusable domestic spying with no oversight to protect the privacy of American citizens) especially if they could not override the inevitable veto and as they neared a very important election.
Entirely possible.
I expect things like the Patriot act to be tweeked and the Domestic Spying program to receive some oversight.
That, right there, is the problem. People *expect* that to happen, but it's highly likely that it won't. That's where the Dems can get themselves into real trouble.
Bush Vetoes: First 6 years = 1 Last 18 months = 11
Lookey here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#George_W._Bush)
He vetoed things like stem cell research and expanding SCHIP (health insurance for poor kids). By the way, Pelosi said the SCHIP expansion is one of the first things they'll address.
He also vetoed a bill to improve oversight of the intelligence community and outlaw waterboarding that was passed by the Dem-controlled legislature. THIS is why we expect the constitution to be mended at least a little.
I expect things like the Patriot act to be tweeked and the Domestic Spying program to receive some oversight. I guess we'll see what happens.
Oversight by whom, though? If the oversight is given to the public (unlikely, since we aren't a direct democracy), wouldn't that defeat the purpose of spying on it if the government trusts it that much? If it goes to the government, who will get that responsibilty and how can we say with any certainty that they won't abuse it? How can we be sure the President or Congress won't abuse it? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
What we need in public office are people willing to say that these things are wrong on priciple before they become the accepted norm. Such people are nonexistant in both major parties.
By whom? The FISA court. (Secret court where judges who are not beholden to the President can make sure rights are not being violated) That's who should be doing it now. We already have a law in place to cover this.
Now, a couple of years ago there was a struggle to pass a law to re-authorize the "terrorist surveilance program." The Dems were pushing to enforce FISA, but Bush and the Repubs blocked it (I don't think it ever went far enough to get vetoed.) What they finally passed also gave retroactive immunity to the telecom companies. Surprisingly, Obama voted in favor of this bill. Mainly because, while he was against giving immunity, the bill allowed for the complete investigation of what really happened with the surveilance program (investigation is ongoing). While I was against the immunity thing, I appreciated Obamas demonstration of his pragmatism and his willingness to compromise to achieve the best overall result.
The current Democratic Congress has a slim margin of majority, so the Republicans have stymied a lot of the things that they've tried to do over the past two years. The Dems gained more ground in both the House and the Senate in this election, but I agree that people can hold their breath until they're blue in the face and these things won't ever happen.
Um...something about an oath to protect and defend somethingorother....
Oh, yea, and the fact that Bush's complete disregard for that document (or in Bush's words "just a Goddamn piece of paper") is a big factor in what got the electorate pissed off enough to get off its collective ass and vote for Obama and the Democrats in 2006 and last Tuesday.
No, the electorate gave the White House to some guy in another party because that's what they do. There has only been one time post-term limits when a party held the White House for 3 terms in a row. The American people just like to switch out every 8 years, unless a guy really sucks (Carter).
And incumbent parties usually help the process along because second terms are usually pretty useless.
Perhaps there is some sort of group mentality reflex thing going on, but I for one (who voted for Reagan, Bush Sr, & Dole) voted pretty much exclusively for Democrats from 2004 on, mainly because I wanted to power out of Republican hands and due mostly to the abuse of the constitution and power in general that I observed. And I'm not alone among the people I know. It also moved me to contribute to a political campaign for the first time in my life. So, whether it's the biggest factor or not, it is certainly a factor.
Now we'll wait and see if I get satisfaction or if I traded one devil for another.
"And incumbent parties usually help the process along because second terms are usually pretty useless."
look at the spanish guy that the president of one of the south american countrys mouthed off too. the guy (whos name ive forgoten, god dame it!) was given appslute power, gave it up, got it given back by a coup, and declined, defusing the coup
THAT is classyness, and that is a poltion giveing up the power given him
sometimes, morailty trumps the white hall urge to creat an empire.
You can't just bring out the rare examples of somebody refusing power (movie characters don't count, by the way) and claim that's a justification for concentrating power in one man. Look at ancient Rome. They had one Cincinnatus and 80+ emperors (twice that number if you count the Byzantine Empire). It is in human nature to seize power when they can. That's why George Washington knew we needed a Constitution in the first place. He stepped down, but he couldn't be sure that every president would. Obama certainly hasn't given any indication or made any promises about rolling back the breaches of our rights.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
what I want to know is
Date: 2008-11-06 04:05 pm (UTC)Re: what I want to know is
Date: 2008-11-06 06:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 04:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 04:28 pm (UTC)However, it certainly seems likely that Obama will indeed repair a lot of the damage done by Bush/Cheney. I think a lot of people are expecting this. Don't you agree?
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 05:17 pm (UTC)No. Due to my belief that the Democratic Party won't give the power away that Bush established. If they truly opposed the things that Bush was proposing, they would have put up a fight when the legislation was proposed. Instead, they rolled over and let it pass.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 06:25 pm (UTC)I expect things like the Patriot act to be tweeked and the Domestic Spying program to receive some oversight. I guess we'll see what happens.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 08:09 pm (UTC)Bush had a nice layer of dust on his veto pen most of the time. I think he might have used it twice in the past four years.
I also would expect that the Dems would want to avoid being seen as weak on national defense (as unfair as that accusation would have been) if they voted against something that sounds like you're protecting America (e.g. Terrorist Surveilance Program which in reality is infinitely abusable domestic spying with no oversight to protect the privacy of American citizens) especially if they could not override the inevitable veto and as they neared a very important election.
Entirely possible.
I expect things like the Patriot act to be tweeked and the Domestic Spying program to receive some oversight.
That, right there, is the problem. People *expect* that to happen, but it's highly likely that it won't. That's where the Dems can get themselves into real trouble.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 10:33 pm (UTC)Last 18 months = 11
Lookey here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#George_W._Bush)
He vetoed things like stem cell research and expanding SCHIP (health insurance for poor kids). By the way, Pelosi said the SCHIP expansion is one of the first things they'll address.
He also vetoed a bill to improve oversight of the intelligence community and outlaw waterboarding that was passed by the Dem-controlled legislature. THIS is why we expect the constitution to be mended at least a little.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 12:19 pm (UTC)It'll be interesting to see what happens.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 09:14 pm (UTC)Oversight by whom, though? If the oversight is given to the public (unlikely, since we aren't a direct democracy), wouldn't that defeat the purpose of spying on it if the government trusts it that much? If it goes to the government, who will get that responsibilty and how can we say with any certainty that they won't abuse it? How can we be sure the President or Congress won't abuse it? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
What we need in public office are people willing to say that these things are wrong on priciple before they become the accepted norm. Such people are nonexistant in both major parties.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 09:57 pm (UTC)sorry, i couldnt resist. the quote makes me think of the book
and surely the main tweek would be judical oversight?
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 10:42 pm (UTC)Now, a couple of years ago there was a struggle to pass a law to re-authorize the "terrorist surveilance program." The Dems were pushing to enforce FISA, but Bush and the Repubs blocked it (I don't think it ever went far enough to get vetoed.) What they finally passed also gave retroactive immunity to the telecom companies. Surprisingly, Obama voted in favor of this bill. Mainly because, while he was against giving immunity, the bill allowed for the complete investigation of what really happened with the surveilance program (investigation is ongoing). While I was against the immunity thing, I appreciated Obamas demonstration of his pragmatism and his willingness to compromise to achieve the best overall result.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 05:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 05:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 05:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 05:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 06:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 06:45 pm (UTC)Drive-by Boy makes another pass!
Date: 2008-11-06 07:08 pm (UTC)By the way, it's good to see you come around the block for another pass. Usually you drop your bag of feces then drive off.
Re: Drive-by Boy makes another pass!
Date: 2008-11-06 08:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 06:14 pm (UTC)Oh, yea, and the fact that Bush's complete disregard for that document (or in Bush's words "just a Goddamn piece of paper") is a big factor in what got the electorate pissed off enough to get off its collective ass and vote for Obama and the Democrats in 2006 and last Tuesday.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 06:21 pm (UTC)And incumbent parties usually help the process along because second terms are usually pretty useless.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 06:36 pm (UTC)Now we'll wait and see if I get satisfaction or if I traded one devil for another.
"And incumbent parties usually help the process along because second terms are usually pretty useless."
...and none more useless than the last 4 years.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-08 12:45 am (UTC)What was the context for this quote?
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 06:52 pm (UTC)He could govern much more effectively with the constitution in its present state.
But he might just put it back correctly anyway.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 10:06 pm (UTC)look at the spanish guy that the president of one of the south american countrys mouthed off too. the guy (whos name ive forgoten, god dame it!) was given appslute power, gave it up, got it given back by a coup, and declined, defusing the coup
THAT is classyness, and that is a poltion giveing up the power given him
sometimes, morailty trumps the white hall urge to creat an empire.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 10:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 05:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 05:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-09 07:08 pm (UTC)