Is a not-so-grand bargain back?
Let’s hope not. Here’s why:
What is the GOP incentive to deal? First, getting the signature of a Democratic president on a bill reducing entitlements would be a victory for a generation’s worth of Republican candidates. Casting GOP politicians as Granny-bashers would be harder to do after a Democratic White House tweaks Medicare and Social Security. Second, even token reforms by Obama in 2013, opens the door to deeper entitlement changes in the future.
There is no reason to cut Social Security and Medicare. None. Neither contribute to the deficit, both have their own dedicated funding mechanisms, and with minor adjustments they can made solvent without benefit cuts for decades. The grand bargain ain’t that grand. It’s not grand at all.
Showing posts tagged Obama
![sandandglass:
Next level sass. Obama 2.0.
Source [x]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mch18gWjZf1qc8jh0o1_500.jpg)
The world knows better than the American FOX-KOCH-ROVE propagandized populace. They all hate Romney!
Funny how Kenya has the highest approval of Romney!!!
“
(Reblogged from diadoumenos)
Shortly before Mitt Romney’s much-hyped (and ultimately underwhelming) foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute, The New York Times reported that even Romney’s own advisors had no idea what the Republican nominee’s foreign policy would look like should he become Commander-in-Chief. His performance at the third and final presidential debate on Monday night at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida, must have confirmed their doubts.
On issue after issue, Romney disavowed the same positions that he and his neoconservative advisors have embraced throughout the campaign. While he successfully distanced himself from the deeply unpopular foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, he ultimately left voters with little notion of what he actually believes when it comes to international affairs.
Unlike the first two debates, Romney spent almost the entire night in Boca Raton agreeing with Obama. From the very first question — on Libya, the topic that Romney clumsily used in attempting to attack the president during the last debate — it was clear that he would not be playing offense. Although Romney repeatedly criticized the president’s supposed lack of leadership, he essentially endorsed the Obama administration’s policies on issue after issue.
No comparison. A real commander in chief vs. a chickenhawk draft dodger who has Bush-era neocons “advising” him on foreign policy.
This amuses me greatly.
/recovered Mormon
Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will
Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.
Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.
“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” said Thomas E. Donilon, his national security adviser. “His view is that he’s responsible for the position of the United States in the world.” He added, “He’s determined to keep the tether pretty short.”
Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record. His actions have often remained inscrutable, obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary and the president’s own deep reserve.
“
He has, in short, declared himself unfit to serve as head of Central Intelligence. You don’t even have to get to the morality question to understand that torture serves no purpose except to satiate sadism or revenge fantasies. As an interrogation tool it is useless, for the simple and unanswerable reason that people will tell you anything, true or not, to get you to stop. A civilian who does not understand this is merely foolish, uninformed, or stupid. A military man or a government official who doesn’t understand this is a positive menace to the endurance of the nation. Frankly, in the case of General Petraeus it suggests he has a non-military IQ of about 40.
What, General, makes you suppose that your ticking timebomb scenario suspect is going to tell you how to dismantle that nuke under the Empire State Building while you are waterboarding him? Why, if he was already suicidal or evil enough to be involved in some sort of terror plot to detonate a nuclear device, would he not also simply be smart enough to lie to get you stop the pain? Moreover, has it ever occurred to you, General, that he might be suicidal or evil enough, under that scenario, to give you explicit instructions on how to dismantle the device that actually turn out to really be instructions on how to detonate the device immediately?
My god, this is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. And it’s coming from a man that we’re going to put in charge of the CIA. You’re testifying to the Senate Intelligence Committee and giving them half-remembered plot outlines from 24 or Lethal Weapon or Fail Safe. Why not Saturday Night Live? Why not reserve the right to torture in case Superman was German during World War II, or if Al Qaeda gets Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak? Or if the country was flooded with woman suicide bombers who also were considering late-term abortions?
Mr. President, you have to withdraw David Petraeus’ nomination as CIA chief - he just made a fool of himself to a degree and in a manner from which there is no possible return. If confirmed, he will do the same to you. If you do not, you run the risk of what Vietnam did with the help of the late great George Carlin, to turn the phrase ‘military intelligence’ into an oxymoronic brand name. Only this time it will be for the CIA…where the ‘I’ for intelligence will be meant ironically because it’s Chief is so naive he thinks you can torture the truth out of a suicide bomber as his bomb is about to go off.
Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment on General Petraeus’ remarks in defense of torture
Glenn Greenwald: Could Obama Be Impeached for Waging War in Libya Without Approval of Congress?
vruz:
DemocracyNow.org
The New York Times recently broke the story that President Obama rejected the views of top administration lawyers when he decided he had the legal authority to continue U.S. military participation in the war in Libya without congressional authorization. Obama continues to face congressional opposition to the ongoing Libya attack.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner has called on the White House to further clarify the legal basis for the war in Libya or face a cutoff of war funds. Last week, a bipartisan group of lawmakers filed a lawsuit accusing President Obama of violating the War Powers Act of 1973.
To examine the legal dimensions of U.S. military intervention, we speak with Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional law attorney and political and legal blogger for Salon.com. “The idea that presidents can start wars on their own, without any congressional authorization, violates not just the law but the Constitution,” Greenwald said. “In theory, when the president violates the law and the Constitution, that’s an impeachable offense. At the same time, we’ve set a very low standard for our tolerance of rampant presidential law breaking.”
Clyburn protests McClatchy article on Obama and race
“In a letter to the editor of The State newspaper in Clyburn’s hometown of Columbia, S.C., the No. 3 House Democrat said an article published Thursday had sensationalized his perspectives on the ties between Obama’s race and his work as president.
“I have always abhorred the word ‘racism,’ ” Clyburn said in the letter. “I never use it. I believe it is a lethal term, and I am offended that my honest responses to a reporter’s clearly designed agenda would be distorted in such a manner.”
“You know, I’m 70 years old,” the article quoted Clyburn as saying. “And I can tell you; people don’t like to deal with it, but the fact of the matter is, the president’s problems are in large measure because of his skin color.”
Clyburn then described hateful mail, phone calls and faxes he receives as the highest-ranking African-American in Congress. He suggested that Obama receives similar materials.
In his letter, Clyburn correctly noted that his interview hadn’t been arranged to discuss the influence of Obama’s race as the first black president.”
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/26/114859/clyburn-protests-mcclatchy-article.html#ixzz1NdyOEJ1K
i don’t know what the right move is in afghanistan, and i know that this troop escalation is not a surprise or betrayal by obama. but this rachel maddow video explains what i find most troubling about all of this - the preservation of the ‘bush doctrine’ that argues that we must use military force not only when national security is threatened, but when it might be threatened.
“Hope Is Fading Fast”: A Devastating Take on The Iconic Obama Poster
I think I might have to get one of these.
(via @savagemike)
