"President Obama Has Earned Our Disapproval" The Atlantic, Nov 2014

[RiverLover]

President Obama Has Earned Our Disapproval

..."Among Democrats, who vary in their assessments of Obama, there is still broad agreement that he's better, warts and all, than Bush was, and better than John McCain or Mitt Romney would've been. Fair enough.

This isn't an indictment of Obama voters. Nor is Obama without accomplishments.

But here's what I find alarming: Confronted with a president who

1) spied on every American;
2) covered up torture;
3) continued a War on Drugs ruinous to minorities and whole foreign nations;
4) killed hundreds of innocents in drone strikes;
5) waged war illegally and killed an American citizen without due process (while suppressing the legal reasoning used to do so);
6) let high-ranking national-security officials break the law with impunity; and
7) persecuted whistleblowers

-confronted with all of those transgressions, more than four in 10 Americans still approve of the job Obama is doing. And most of them are loyal Democrats. Partisanship and tribalism are overriding the moral compass of too many liberals, who ought to be furious with Obama. National-security policies he unilaterally pursued will be harming the U.S., its moral standing, and its most vulnerable citizens for years if not decades to come, especially since Democrats are poised to make civil illibertarian Hillary Clinton their party's next leader.

To see it all with open eyes is to disapprove."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/why-president-obama-hasnt-earned-our-approval/382265/

What do you guys think about this assessment? I'm thinking he makes some very valid points.

[truebluegreen]

1. Agree completely.

And consider it a real tragedy.

[arely staircase]

2. anyone who says my "tribalism" has overcome my "moral compass" has pretty much lost my attention

Fuck this guy. His assessment sucks. You asked.

[RiverLover]

3. No prob. Appreciate your honesty!!

Not a laughing matter, but I giggled a little when I read your post. Don't agree, but I like your style!!

[arely staircase]

4. thanks

glad you took no personal offense. none was intended.

[billhicks76]

33. Really? Can You Be Any More Disingenuous?

"Fuck this guy"? I bet someone like you would've flagged a comment like that...I have no doubt actually. His assessment is spot on.

[pkdu]

51. Ahem......" fuck this guy" is aimed at the journo , not the poster...hence no " Flag" option. Nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

101. +1 eom.

[AnalystInParadise]

131. What a freaking surprise

WOW.....

[1StrongBlackMan]

136. What are you talking about? eom.

[freshwest]

21. +1.

[stevenleser]

41. No, he and I disagree with the assessment. We have no reason to be ashamed. Nt

[L0oniX]

44. LMFAO

[L0oniX]

43. You should delete that before the jury seats.

BTW I agree with you.

[sabrina 1]

98. Me too!

I'm guessing a lot of people do.

[sabrina 1]

37. It doesn't bother me because it doesn't apply to me. If someone I love is doing something wrong

in my family or among my friends, I will not ignore it or deny it. To do that is not to be a good friend, not to care about that person. I will tell them what I think and try to stop them from engaging the wrong doing before they ruin their lives.

I feel the same way about MY PARTY. When it's on the wrong track, unlike those Bush supporters we used to criticize so harshly for ignoring, excusing, denying their party's wrong doing, I have no intention of trying to excuse it, explain it away or deny it.

We have only two viable parties, THIS one is OURS, we have nowhere else to go. It badly needs fixing and ignoring that is going ensure it will destroy itself in terms of keeping the trust of its voters. That has already happened. To fix that means facing FACTS. I cannot for the life of me understand ANYONE trying to excuse letting War Criminals off the hook, excusing torturers by 'explaining' why they did it, among other things. These things are just plain wrong and you cannot explain them away. So I don't even try.

The good thing about being consistent is that you never have to wiggle and squirm and explain or deny the facts.

What I opposed under Bush I still oppose. But I have noticed a disturbing trend among some people, suddenly unnecessary war can be 'explained' or 'torture' isn't as bad as we once claimed etc. That seems to be because of 'team spirit' to use a different analogy and definitely a loss of the moral compass.

[truth2power]

80. "moral compass" is a critical issue..

If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic candidate for President, I will be expected to throw my "moral compass" out the window and vote for her, according to the perceived wisdom of this site. I would like someone to explain why I should do something that I consider morally wrong (without resorting to the 'lesser evil' argument, please).

I knew what Barak Obama was about, back in early 2008. I said so, to a number of people. Nevertheless, I eventually got onboard and voted for him. Twice.

Never again.

[TshaiRedhair]

56. You are wrong

I understand tribalism

[alarimer]

5. It's very telling that if Bush was doing these, all of us would be up in arms.

Instead, there are a fair number of Obama apologists here, who apparently approve of all that. But only when their guy does it. And they don't recognize the hypocrisy in themselves.

[840high]

24. +1

[billhicks76]

38. They Are Blind To The Fact

That Obama works hand in hand with the Bush Cabal as does Hillary. Nevermind that crazy whacko House Rethuglicans hate Obama (they are racist fear baiters) because they simply aren't in on the scam and are used to create division so average people in this country don't unite. They are real and truly hateful but they don't operate at the Executive level...they are pawns. Obama support many of our seemingly noncontroversial safe issues but none that would threaten his life if he opposed the military/ surveillance/massincarceration complex. Im really surprised some Democrats are as gullible and foolish as Dittoheads and Bushites. Its shameful. We have our own fools I guess.I hope al these fools appreciate Jeb Bush because he's their next President because they refuse to stand up against anything serious. People need to memorize that list and congratulate the author. The disparagers with no wisdom on this thread can go disappear forever as far as Im concerned.

[Skittles]

62. the hypocrisy displayed by many DUers is utterly DISGUSTING

no doubt they'll get over it when Obama is no longer president

[NanceGreggs]

70. Can you kindly provide ...

... the evidence for being able to definitively say how anyone would react to anything that never happened?

The "if Bush did ___, everyone would react differently" BS is the oldest, most dilapidated strawman that has ever been hauled out of a decay-ridden barn by those who have nothing of substance to contribute to the conversation.

Give it a fuckin' rest already. It's old, it's cliche-ridden, and it has absolutely nothing to do with reality. But that's par for the course around here these days, isn't it?

[LondonReign2]

96. Items 1, 2 and 5

Spying on Americans, torture and waged war illegally; Bush did those as well and the condemnation here was nearly universal.

[NanceGreggs]

142. Yes, yes, of course.

Obama and Dubya - not a hair's breadth of difference between the two.

According to the OP, Obama has spied on every American. Given the size of the population, no wonder the man has aged during his time in office.

Aren't you afraid he's spying on you right now, and will send you to one of those re-education camps that FEMA secretly runs?

[LondonReign2]

163. You asked for, and I provided, examples

where Bush did these very same things and the reaction was quite different from those that now give Obama a pass for these actions. In response you fly into a hyperbolic rant of reductio ad absurdum topped off by a massive strawman. It's like watching a once championship boxer stumble around the ring punch drunk.

[NanceGreggs]

165. Look, it's simple.

You honestly believe that Obama is "spying on Americans, tortures, and waged war illegally."

Nothing I can say will change your mind. I think everyone has a right to live in their own "reality". I wouldn't think of interfering with your right to do so.

[AnalystInParadise]

133. Glad you approve of torture

spying on Americans and other horrible actions committed by the Obama administration....True colors and all that.

[NanceGreggs]

140. Despite your user name ...

... you're not a very competent analyst of anything, are you?

But telling perfect strangers on a message board that they approve of torture, etc., is certainly in keeping with DU these days. You've at least found the right website for that kind of nonsense.

[AnalystInParadise]

147. You can respond however you want

I am not the one backing torturers and civil rights violators, so I will sleep just fine at night.

[NanceGreggs]

150. Like I said ...

... you've definitely found the right website - where anyone can accuse anyone else of anything at all. No facts needed, and no salesman will call.

[arely staircase]

148. hear hear nt

[LittleBlue]

130. This is what it all comes down to right here

Which is why it's getting harder and harder to take seriously.

[KingCharlemagne]

6. When reports emerged earlier this year that the CIA had spied upon the

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence tasked with investigating the CIA and its role in torture, and when it subsequently emerged that President Obama had held no one in the intelligence establishment accountable -- no one fired or even demoted -- we witnessed Obama presiding over a constitutional coup d'etat. That is some seriously scary shit, folks, and only the most willfully blind can fail to see or acknowledge it.

That it fell to war hawk and NSA cheerleader Dianne Feinstein to sound the alarm is merely the crowning irony. Clapper and Brennan should have been fired the same day the news broke. In the absence of that, Obama signals he does not really believe in separation of powers or coequal branches of government, that we have instead moved to full-scale imperium.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. At least Watergate was perpetrated by Nixon's personal cabal, not the aparatus of the state. nt

[KingCharlemagne]

13. One of the principal charges laid to Nixon, though, was that he used the CIA

to obstruct the FBI's Watergate investigation(s). In that case it was two executive branch agencies at loggerheads (one on Nixon's orders). This time around, the very principle of separation of powers has been neutered and that is some very scary constitutional shit. I grant you, this CIA spying scandal seems to me as serious or more serious than Watergate. The only reason the Republicans haven't made hay over it is they want Republican presidents to enjoy the same imperial reach.

As should be expected, Charlie Pierce of Esquire completely eviscerates the Obama Administration's position:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/obama-cia-john-brennan-031414

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. "The only reason the Republicans haven't made hay over it is...

...they want Republican presidents to enjoy the same imperial reach.

And I'm scared shitless you're 100% absolutely correct. Yet, we did it to ourselves for a short term gain without considering the long term consequence.

[KingCharlemagne]

15. I've voted Dem in every election since 1980 (including this past Tuesday), but

the principle of separation of powers transcends party and partisan advantage. I really think historians will look back at this as a very black mark on the Obama presidency. I cannot overstate enough its seriousness.

[billhicks76]

42. Exactly....And Read The Nation Article.

Obama ha been stalling the redaction of the Senate Torture Report because he knew Republicans would take the Senate and then he and his appointees friends would be safe and our only avenue to knowing what happened would be a Congressional member who lost reading the report on the House floor before January. Don't listen to the war machine cheerleaders on this site unless you actually know who they are.

[Nay]

7. Did the Atlantic write the same stuff about Bush when he did the

same things? If not, they're being disingenuous.

This is not to say all those actions are OK because Obama is doing them. They aren't. I hated this shit when Bush did it, and I'm horrified that a Democrat is continuing the shit.

[KingCharlemagne]

8. The Atlantic is a weird bird, too sane to hew to the NeoCon line religiously but

using it often enough that she occupies about the same place in my pantheon nowadays as the New York Times. I don't read The Atlantic religiously, but I get the feeling that she stayed largely silent about Bush's abuses of power.

FWIW, it's not 'disingenuous' so much as it is 'hypocritical.'

[RiverLover]

9. Many. Here's my favorite~ "Classify This"

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/09/classify-this/306114/

[RiverLover]

10. Here are 20 more articles under "The George Bush Years"

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/01/the-george-w-bush-years/307192/

LOADS of Bush bashing. (as it should be)

[Nay]

11. Then I give them a pass. They're consistent!

[Doctor_J]

25. as are the liberals at du. unlike the fan club

[L0oniX]

46. Many did not dare speak up at that time. People were getting booted off of tv for speaking truth.

[bigwillq]

16. K and R

[kwassa]

17. The article title is misleading; this is simply the individual opinion of this author.

Conor Friedersdorf.

Do I agree with it? Not very much. It is as slanted and distorted evaluation of the Obama presidency as anything that I have read on the far right.

I expect better from The Atlantic, much better.

[Cha]

20. Mahalo kwassa.. Please check out my post if you care to. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5804353

[Cha]

18. "Holder's Legacy: Steering Away From the Drug War" and It's not all bad.. but, I understand there

are those who are invested in the failures of the Obama Admin.. I'm just not buying what they're pushing.

Holder's accomplishments include:

-- Calling on policymakers at all levels to find ways to reduce the number of people behind bars.

-- Supporting efforts in Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission to reduce punitive sentencing.

-- Supporting policies that made the sentences of thousands of prisoners shorter and fairer

-- Changing how the Justice Department charges people to reduce the application of draconian mandatory minimum sentencing.

-- Establishing guidance allowing states to legalize and regulate marijuana with less federal interference.

-- Establishing guidance to make it easier for banks to deal with state-legalized marijuana businesses.

-- Promoting efforts to re-integrate formerly incarcerated individuals into society and eliminate barriers to successful re-entry.

-- Working to end the "school-to-prison pipeline", including working with the Departments of Education to scale back "zero tolerance" school discipline policies.

-- Advocating for the restoration of voting rights for the formerly incarcerated.

-- Urging federal law enforcement agencies to identify, train and equip personnel who may interact with a victim of a heroin overdose with the overdose-reversal drug naloxone.

MOre
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-piper/eric-holder-resignation-drug-war_b_5883950.html

"Federal prison population drops by roughly 4,800"

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal prison population has dropped in the last year by roughly 4,800, the first time in several decades that the inmate count has gone down, according to the Justice Department.

"In a speech Tuesday in New York City, Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department expects to end the current budget year next week with a prison population of roughly 215,000 inmates. It would be the first time since 1980 that the federal prison population has declined during the course of a fiscal year.

snip//

In August 2013, for instance, he announced a major shift in sentencing policy, instructing federal prosecutors to stop charging many nonviolent drug defendants with offenses that carry mandatory minimum sentences. More recently, the Justice Department has encouraged a broader swath of the prison population to apply for clemency, and has supported reductions in sentencing guideline ranges for drug criminals that could apply to tens of thousands of inmates.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6a62f3a9cf80460e99f5c4eb85dfee65/federal-prison-population-drops-nearly-5000

Eric Holder Takes Another “Historic Step” Toward Ending The Drug War, Advocates Say

For the first time, advocates of ending mandatory sentences for drug criminals say, Holder was attacking a central tenet of those who fight to preserve the lengthy mandatory sentences. Supporters say mandatory-minimum sentences help induce drug offenders into cooperating with prosecutors and, the theory goes, lead to the nabbing more drug offenders.

The speech was a big deal, said Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

Price’s spokesperson, Mike Riggs, was more direct.

“It’s pretty damn historic,” he said

MOre..
http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/eric-holder-drug-sentences#

All that on the list sounds like a page out of the greenwald-snowden playbook. Conveniently overlooking all the Good that has manifested these last 6 years.

[Comrade Grumpy]

27. Yeah, Obama and Holder deserve probably a "B" on drug war issues.

They also got out of the way of marijuana legalization, instead of trying to use federal power to suppress it.

I would have given them an "A" if not for the medical marijuana crackdowns and prosecutions.

The national security state/civil liberties stuff, though, not good.

[arely staircase]

99. I would give them a b+ maybe a- on the drug war

Every other president since Nixon I would give an f. Maybe a D- to Carter and Clinton.

[kwassa]

30. Each point made in the OP can be refuted as well as you do on the Holder legacy ....

I frankly haven't the energy.

This writer at Atlantic is a fool, in my humble opinion.

[Spazito]

143. Excellent post, Cha...

which will be, no doubt, ignored by those who should inform themselves.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. I tend to agree.

The fact that gas is cheaper isn't a mitigating factor, really - it just reflects the market price for morals.

In this case, about $50/month.

[mwrguy]

22. Fuck the Atlantic

This guy is full of shit.

[still_one]

103. It is a complete distortion

[OilemFirchen]

23. I'm thinking that...

the propensity for some to turn to right-wing hacks and/or David Horowitz-style "leftists" in order to regurgitate this never-evolving quasi-hipster hymnal of deductive fallacies and irrelevancies is grating as fuck.

Thank you for asking.

[Cha]

29. +1!!

[OilemFirchen]

31. Mahola Cha!

[Cha]

34. Hey, Sweetie.. It's Mahalo! During the campaign I was always writing.. "Dakato" as in South Dakota!

Aloha OilemFirchen

[OilemFirchen]

39. It's my Ohio accent.

Or, in the inimitable words of Leo Kottke: "Boy, I blew that."

[Number23]

64. Have I told you this week that I love you?

[OilemFirchen]

83. Finally!

[treestar]

85. +1

great description!

[SidDithers]

144. Exactly...

Friedersdorf is a Paulite Libertarian.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/okay-progressives-whats-your-alternative-to-ron-paul/251188/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/pretending-that-ron-paul-doesnt-matter-wont-make-him-go-away/250035

He's on record defending Ron Paul over the whole racist newsletter issue, that came up during the 2012 Campaign
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/grappling-with-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250206/2/

Why anyone's bringing the frothing spewage of such a libertarian asshat to DU, is beyond me.

Sid

[bhikkhu]

26. Valid, but I can't imagine a viable candidate who would have done otherwise

Much of that comes with the territory (sadly).

To not do #1, he would have had to shut down the NSA, and a certain amount of the CIA and the FBI. I don't think that could be done from the executive branch.

To not do #2, he would have had to have published the records, pictures and video of the bush era torture practices. While I would have welcomed that, there are pros and cons. He did sign an executive order in his first week clearly ending the practices, and probably there was some rationalization that that was sufficient, and a "least harm" approach (though clearly not a "maximum justice" approach).

#3 is a matter of enforcing existing law. I don't know how he could do otherwise - its kind of the job. The administration did move towards a hands-off policy of marijuana enforcement where state laws had been passed that conflicted with federal laws.

#4 is an objection to a method of modern war. I don't think the drone program has been effective, but I believe it was a choice between doing nothing, or unnecessarily committing troops, or trying to do something. On paper there is a compelling military argument for drone warfare, but it hasn't worked out so well in practice, apparently.

#5 Technically, military action against a foreign power is illegal without an act of congress, and congress has authorized only 11 actions since 1787. A list of actual wars and military interventions is here https://www.globalpolicy.org/us-military-expansion-and-intervention/26024.html . I didn't count them, but its certainly well over a hundred. Obama followed the same practices as every other president; not that that's a good thing, but "illegal" means nothing in context. And I think the side you are fighting on outweighs any other factor if you are fighting in a war. Al-Awlaki chose his side.

#6 I don't know what this refers to

#7 Snowden and Manning, I imagine. I'm again not for prosecution, but if you have protocols for classified information, its hard not to have punishment for releasing classified information. I wish Manning had been treated better from the beginning, and I'm fine with Snowden being allowed to leave.

[Maedhros]

35. Yes, it would take a President with political courage.

I think we should find and elect someone like that!

[stevenleser]

45. No, it would take someone with zero courage

Any idiot could do those things and rip the country to shreds. It's a lot harder to make the right decision that will invariably open up to criticism from people in the cheap seats.

[Scuba]

100. So we should tolerate government misdeeds to avoid problems. Got it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

107. Just as performing surgery in stages ...

is often the most prudent path, and not tolerating the disease, moving/backing away from misreads ...in a measured way, and/or supporting such a backing away, is not tolerating the misdeeds.

[Scuba]

111. Huh? So tolerating government misdeeds is actually not tolerating them? WTF?

[1StrongBlackMan]

119. That's not what I said ... Read it again ...

start with "moving/backing away from misreads ..."

Another analogy: When cutting down a tree, one can just go to cutting, and hope that it doesn't destroy one's house; or, one can make small, measured cuts in order that you can control where the tree falls. Both, will ultimately get the tree down; but after taking the former approach, one will likely have to rebuild one's house.

[Scuba]

123. If that's supposed to be a defense of the President, it's a pretty lame one.

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. Lame? Maybe ...

But it is the way that people, outside of keyboard warrior world, operate because they don't get to say, "Oops" (and push the re-set button for a new life), when they break stuff.

[Scuba]

128. Cool story, bro.

[1StrongBlackMan]

129. Yep ...

and it happens to be true!

[1StrongBlackMan]

104. +1 ...

with "cheap seats" being defined as those with absolutely zero accountability for their indignant typings.

[defacto7]

28. And then there's Mitt....

I wonder what he and his "deciders" would have done?

[Maedhros]

36. If Romney were elected and had done the exact same things,

at least we'd have half the country outraged about it, rather than all of the country shrugging and ignoring it.

[defacto7]

49. The shrugging and ignoring

is a choice of an individual. Neither Romney nor Obama could make that happen. What Romney and those who control him would have put into play makes any complaint about Obama pale in comparison. And although I have plenty of criticism for some of Obama's choices, I have much more criticism and disgust for those who have empowered the right though their "shrugging and ignoring" which was their personal choice by right.

[Maedhros]

57. I stand by my statement.

A continuation of Republican foreign policy by a Republican, instead of a Democrat, would have evoked wrath from the Party faithful. The Democrats are a Party driven only by their opposition.

[defacto7]

63. At least

you're standing by something.

[markpkessinger]

153. "He's better than{fill in the Republican}" . . .

. . . My, but that's setting the bar awfully low, don't you think?

[Ykcutnek]

40. Lol. Good thing assholes like this won't write the history books. nt

[stevenleser]

48. And look at some of the expressions of support from some folks. I said a few days ago

There are very few anti-Obama memes and screeds that lack high levels of support here.

Sad.

[redstateblues]

47. Who reads the Atlantic?

And why? I consider myself fairly well read and I have some educated liberal friends here in deep red TN and I never see it in anyone's house or hear anyone referring to it.

[OilemFirchen]

53. Better question:

Who would read - indeed who would cite - Looneytarian homophobe Conor Friedersdorf?

[Maedhros]

105. Looks like a large number of people read The Atlantic, probably because it's a quality publication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic

The Atlantic is an American magazine, founded in 1857 as The Atlantic Monthly in Boston, Massachusetts, now based in Washington, D.C. It was created as a literary and cultural commentary magazine and quickly achieved a national reputation as a high-quality review with a moderate worldview—a reputation it has maintained for over 150 years. The magazine has notably recognized and published new writers and poets, as well as encouraged major careers. It has also published leading writers' commentary on abolition, education, and other major issues in contemporary political affairs. The magazine has won more National Magazine Awards than any other monthly magazine.

After experiencing financial hardship and a series of ownership changes, the magazine was reformatted as a general editorial magazine. Focusing on "foreign affairs, politics, and the economy [as well as] cultural trends", it is now primarily aimed at a target audience of serious national readers and "thought leaders".

The magazine's initiator and founder was Francis H. Underwood, an assistant to the publisher, who received less recognition than his partners because he was "neither a 'humbug' nor a Harvard man". The other founding sponsors were prominent writers, including Ralph Waldo Emerson; Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.; Henry Wadsworth Longfellow; Harriet Beecher Stowe; John Greenleaf Whittier; and James Russell Lowell, who served as its first editor.

In 2010, The Atlantic posted its first profit in the previous decade. In profiling the publication at the time, The New York Times noted the accomplishment was the result of "a cultural transfusion, a dose of counterintuition and a lot of digital advertising revenue."
...
On January 22, 2008, TheAtlantic.com dropped its subscriber wall and allowed users to freely browse its site, including all past archives. In addition to TheAtlantic.com, The Atlantic's web properties have expanded to include TheAtlanticWire.com, a news- and opinion-tracking site launched in 2009, and in 2011, TheAtlanticCities.com, a stand-alone website devoted to global cities and trends. According to a Mashable profile in December 2011, "traffic to the three web properties recently surpassed 11 million uniques per month, up a staggering 2500% since The Atlantic brought down its paywall in early 2008."

[cheapdate]

50. That American citizen who was killed "without due process"

was an al Qaeda recruiter who worked full-time trying to persuade fighters to travel to Afghanistan to kill American soldiers. He was killed by a missile strike while riding in a truck in Yemen.

There's plenty about the Obama administration to disagree with. I'm sure that none of this is new information to most DUers, who tend to keep up with this shit.

I'm perfectly comfortable with my position regarding president Obama. I'll defend him or criticize him as I see fit. Hell yes, I'm "tribal" when it comes to electoral politics. But before The Atlantic starts talking about a "moral compass" they need to look at the complete picture, not just at NSA surveillance and counter-terrorism.

What would the moral compass say about shredding the social safety net, codifying discrimination, abandoning the protective role of government, and all of the other things that the GOP would gladly inflict on this country if not for the president and the Democratic Party standing in the way? What would The Atlantic they say about the real consequences of the Ryan Budget?

I know where I stand.

[Cha]

71. Mahalo cheapdate..exactly. Conor Friedersdorf looks like an idiot up on his high horse pontificating

about "moral compass" when he doesn't give a shite about the people who would fall through the cracks if President Obama weren't doing his best not to let it happen.

[julio_maracas]

74. Is that the guy whose son got killed too? nt

[cheapdate]

88. Yes. The son was in Yemen reportedly looking for his father.

The son wasn't targeted, but he was traveling in a vehicle with several targeted persons.

[Man from Pickens]

79. If it's so cut and dry, why not have due process?

Due process is an essential part of legitimizing the enforcement action. When you make exceptions for the worst-of-the-worst, next thing you know there will be exceptions all over the place, affecting regular people.

Moreover, due process is supposed to be part of our national identity. If we discard it when it's inconvenient, how can we ask anyone else to respect human rights?

[cheapdate]

91. Anwar Al Awlaki pushes the argument for due process to the very limit.

The government's argument for killing him was based on the legal principle that he was an "imminent threat" and circumstances prevented his arrest.

At the same time, I respect the ACLU for challenging the government's action in federal district court, and I believe that targeting Al Awlaki was justified. Tough call.

[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki|

[Maedhros]

108. All of the allegations you claim in your post are unproven and were fed to you by the Pentagon

operating through various mouthpieces in the American media.

None of it was presented in a court proceeding and subjected to cross-examination by defense. Given the Pentagon's track record with the truth, there is absolutely no reason to believe any of the allegations against Al Awlaki.

I know where you stand as well - firmly behind the idea of an Imperial Presidency, with the power to wage war without Congressional approval and to execute enemies of the State with no oversight or Constitutional restraint.

Someone so foolishly trusting of the Pentagon and the authoritarian reasoning behind due-process-free political killing belongs on my ignore list. Bye.

[cheapdate]

132. That's consistent, at least.

Adding me to your "ignore list".

If you ignore enough evidence, you can keep believing that Al Awlaki was a peaceful man. It's easier that way.

Ignore away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

[zappaman]

52. "spied on every American"

He did?

[OilemFirchen]

54. You should see the dossier he has on my four-month-old great-niece.

To her credit, though, she ain't talking.

[zappaman]

55. Makes Santa and God look like underachievers

[Cha]

59. Yep, according to the OP.. Pres Obama is right up there with God and Santa Claus! LOLOLOLOL

[zappaman]

60. Mahalo Cha!

Hope all is well on the islands!

[Cha]

58. Rolf.. this sounds like it was written by Edward freakin Snowden.

[RiverLover]

72. It looks like he did. Here's ACLU's take on it~

"“The president’s decision not to end bulk collection and retention of all Americans’ data remains highly troubling,” the ACLU said in a statement. “The president should end—not mend—the government’s collection and retention of all law-abiding Americans’ data. When the government collects and stores every American’s phone call data, it is engaging in a textbook example of an ‘unreasonable search’ that violates the Constitution.”

The president did not articulate a specific reason why this information needs to be collected and stored. His own intelligence review panel found that it serves no essential counterterrorism purpose."

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177985/what-obama-didnt-say-his-speech-nsa-spying

[treestar]

86. When it comes to that issue, exaggeration is essential

They adopted Eddie's delusional exaggerations and expect everyone else to bow down to them as fact.

[LondonReign2]

97. Yes.

Any other questions?

[DonCoquixote]

61. I do hope he meant sarcasm

callig Hillary a civillibertarian.IF anythign, she will ramp up the spying.

[grasswire]

68. I think you misread.

Hillary was called this: civil illibertarian. Not civillibertarian

[ecstatic]

65. My response? The things on that list were

happening before I was born and will likely continue after I die. I think war is disgusting and I cannot stand the thought of innocent people dying in my name and with my tax dollars. But again, this country started off as and continues to be a violent war machine. One president cannot change that without a stable LEFT LEANING/ PRO-PEACE majority.

The things that can change, and DID change, however, are in jeopardy now because of clowns much like the author of that hit piece who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Healthcare, my rights over my OWN body, my right to vote, etc., things that ARE CHANGING AS I TYPE due to right wingers taking control. The points on that list will NEVER be addressed as long as people don't understand that a president is not a dictator and cannot single-handedly change centuries of tradition by him/herself.

[Maedhros]

112. Attitudes like yours are disgusting.

"Yes, the President is abusing the Constitution, but because previous Presidents also abused the Constitution I can't be bothered to care."

/ignore.

[ecstatic]

154. which amendments are you referring to?

You said he's abusing the Constitution, which suggests he should be impeached, correct? Please elaborate.

[on point]

66. Misses the mark completely on turd way financial complicity, failure to prosecute war crimes.

Otherwise hit and miss.

1-3, 6,7 yes. 4 and 5 not so clear.

Bigger issues are the turd way and war crimes. Then poor strategy execution in letting the pukes off the hook at every turn. Wanting to reduce social security, and do the nasty international trade agreements for the corps.

[grasswire]

67. yes, I noticed that no financial criminals were mentioned. nt

[RiverLover]

73. Totally agree ~nt

[world wide wally]

69. well, now you'll be getting more of your alternative. Get back to me in a year

[SidDithers]

75. Conor Friedersdorf. LOL...nt

Sid

[Depaysement]

76. He's not a civil libertarian President

But look at all he has done.

1. Unemployment cut in half
2. Economic growth at 3.5%
3. Fewer troops in harm's way
4. Improving relations with many countries including Cuba and Iran
5. ACA
6. Increased workers' right to discuss pay, work conditions, etc.
7. Saved the auto industry and, for once, the American People got paid back

And there are many, many more achievements.

Historians will be kind to him, I think.

[JoePhilly]

78. They'd be carving his face on mt Rushmore

if he was white.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

92. Killing bin Laden alone would have done the trick...

...oh, wait...that was Bush who got the credit for that.

[JoePhilly]

94. YUP.

[Maedhros]

115. Who needs civil liberties anyway, amirite?

It's not like democratic republics need them or anything. As long as we get our bread and circuses, our republic will last forever!

[liberal N proud]

77. Another hit piece and and another group of Dems agree - No wonder the Republicans won the elections

[Savannahmann]

81. So you're in favor of those actions?

You're obviously in favor of torture. Hey we have to make those bastards talk right? You're in favor of spying on Americans. Why not, what do they have to hide? Those so called innocents killed in the drone strikes. They should have known they were asking for it just standing there hanging around at weddings and such.

Should I continue? By denigrating it as merely a hit piece it brings up the question. Just what do Democrats stand for. Apparently we don't stand for the 4th Amendment. Nor the 5th Amendment. Nor do we really care for the 6th Amendment.

The first Amendment, well we'll consider that on a case by case basis. This is the message we're sending out to the world, to our voters. Then we wonder why they don't bother voting for us.

[Maedhros]

117. I've found, with almost no deviation, the more one's user name

includes the words "liberal" or "progressive" the more conservative are one's posts.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

93. Those same Dems didn't blink an eye regarding the astrocities that Bill Clinton

committed, including allowing tens of thousands in Rwanda die.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. The author of this piece is an apologist for homophobes if not a homophobe himself....

So his opinion is of no value to me.

[still_one]

110. He is a right wing shrill. Look it up on wiki

[treestar]

84. 7 false overgeneralized accusations

pass.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

87. There is no error so monstrous that it fails to find defenders among the ablest men. Lord Acton

There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. Lord Acton

[woo me with science]

90. We are a united oligarchy, not a gridlocked democracy.

Our form of government has changed, all the theater about democracy notwithstanding. The corporate shills can deny it to the ends of the earth, but the policies prove the point.

Today, our corporate Trojan horse presidency is working to fast-track the TPP and double troops in Iraq, while simultaneously insulting America with a shameless Kabuki of supporting net neutrality while the FCC officials HE APPOINTED pretend to go rogue, all as planned.

What blithering idiots they take us for.

And the very presence of the 24/7 propaganda machine excusing and spreading the horseshit only drives home how deep and tentacled and shameless the corruption of political messaging has become in this country.

States that build surveillance machines also build propaganda machines.

We are there. We have suffered a corporate coup of our democracy.

2+2=4.

And shame on every morally bankrupt shill who takes a little paycheck to aid and abet it. You have sacrificed nothing less than your fundamental human decency.

[appal_jack]

124. Excellent, if depressing summary, woo. k&r, nt

[Old Nick]

95. 1: It was written before Election Day

2: Its author was Conor Friedersdorf!

[still_one]

109. Connor friedersdor is a right wing shrill.

In an interview with journalist Matt Lewis, Friedersdorf stated that he has right-leaning views but that he does not consider himself to be a doctrinal conservative or a member of the conservative movement.[3]

[grahamhgreen]

102. Obama lost me when he shoved Romneycare down our throats.

[still_one]

106. It would have been better to have nothing right? So children and uninsured got covered, and

Medicaid was expanded, and those with pre-existing conditions could finally get coverage, etc. etc, etc

You wanted Medicare for all and a public option, we'll both nelsons, Lieberman, bayh, and other blue dogs were not going to go for that, and with not one republican voting for it, he needed every Democra, and they were not going to go for Medicare for all.

[grahamhgreen]

114. First, he could have done it with reconcilliation. Second, Leiberman has a price-tag, obviously,

all that was needed was the right offer (cabinet post, ambassador, whatever), Third, and most importantly, HE DID NOT EVEN ALLOW SINGLE PAYER ADVOCATES INTO THE INITIAL DISCUSSIONS, because, in my view, he had no intention of delivering.

That said, because Senator Sanders forced 20 billion into the bill for Community Health Centers, and made sure there was an avenue for single payer, the bill became one that most Dems could swallow.

However, it is my view that the R's will go after the legislation bit by bit until nothing is left of it but the mandate to buy insurance that will eventually cover nothing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

125. First ...

he could have done it with reconciliation.

No he could have ... not under the rules. Unless you know, and can provide, something different.

Don't people ever tire of the "All he had/has to do is {insert simplistic fix here}" ... As if sitting behind a keyboard imparts some special wisdom?

[1StrongBlackMan]

113. You can always express your distaste by foregoing the evil that is the ACA. eom.

[grahamhgreen]

121. That's not what I said. It was a marginal step forward, thanks to Sen Sanders, but the opportunity

that was squandered, is legend.

I mean the argument is that he could not get ONE single R vote for his bill.

Not one vote. Impossible. Everyone says this over and over.

YET HE THEN SPENT THE NEXT 6 YEARS TRYING TO COMPROMISE WITH THE R'S ON EVERYTHING ELSE!

So, one would have to believe that he realistically believed for 6 years that he could bring the R's to his side on some issues.... YET HE WAS UNWILLING TO PUSH FOR ONE VOTE FOR A PUBLIC OPTION!!!

I don't buy it.

Then, he extended the Bush tax cuts when he could have done nothing and they would have expired.

Then, he called torturers patriots. Torturers. People who torture other human beings, many of whom were innocent.

But, whatever, he's better than a sharp stick in the eye

[1StrongBlackMan]

126. Now,

It was a marginal step forward

THAT is NOT what you said.

[grahamhgreen]

151. Oh yes, he lost me with the marginal step forward. Why?

Because i could see that the law was so complex it would be easy to eat holes into it until nothing would be left but the mandate.

[1StrongBlackMan]

152. Okay. eom.

[still_one]

134. It was much more than a marginal step. Susan Collins, the so-called moderate republican voted

against the ACA.

He had a very brief 2 year window to get something done, and he did, and it was right down to the wire.

Since Truman there have been talking of healthcare, and nothing happened. The closest before this was Hillary's plan, and the republicans destroyed that before it got off the ground.

Under the environment and circumstances it was a remarkable achievement.

[grahamhgreen]

168. The reason he had the brief window was BECAUSE of the Crapsurance law he passed!

If every American had a medicare card now, we'd have both houses.

[still_one]

169. They weren't going to get that. The blue dogs would NOT have voted for it, and neither would

Lieberman, contrary to your assumption that he could be influenced. He already was bought and paid for by the insurance companies

[grahamhgreen]

170. Then pay him more! Simple math.

[still_one]

171. would not have worked, it was more than lieberman. We just disagree that's all

[grahamhgreen]

172. Yes. I firmly believe that anyone who can be bought and sold, can be bought and sold!

[still_one]

173. ok

[hifiguy]

116. Damned hard to disagree.

[BlueStreak]

118. What does Obama stand for, if not for the items on that list?

For health care? He pushed through the most right-wing, predatory, profiteering, Republican solution possible -- and did the trick without any Republican votes. WTF!? If we weren't going to get any Republican votes, then why not do something that Democrats actually wanted?

Gay rights? I'd say he came along kicking and screaming. Hardly a profile in courage.

Immigration reform? No, he took the most cowardly approach to this, ducking the issue before the election. Not only was it cowardly, but it was politically stupid.

Reform of our financial system. Oh puh-leese. Reagan's administration prosecuted 1000 criminals in the S&L scandal. Obama's administration hasn't prosecuted a single one.

I have had way more than enough of this guy. I am so thankful for term limits.

"Hope and Change", my ass. We need to elect people who will actually stand for real things and fight for them.

[grahamhgreen]

122. " If we weren't going to get any Republican votes, then why not do something that Democrats actually

wanted"


Poignant.

[RiverLover]

156. Tell us how you really feel..come on, you're holding back...

jk! Obama has been a disappointment for me as well. In too many areas. It's not all bad, he's done some good, like the article said. He's just too much like a rethug in the spying, silencing journalists, war, finance, fracking....*sigh*

[DesMoinesDem]

120. That's the same list the BOG has for why the are in love with Obama.

But the BOG loves everything Obama does without even the hint of thought.

[still_one]

137. I don't know if you are from Iowa or Wisconsin, but in either case the midterms sure indicated

the that the majority in those states have a particular view.

Why would you single out the BOG? The whole point of that group is to support Obama. Other groups and forums can do what ever they want. Just like other states can do what they want, and vote for who they want.

[Cha]

145. Mahalo still_one.. some just can't wrap their heads around the fact that the President has

supporters on DU. And, we have a Barack Obama Group where those with conspiracy theories like.. "Obama was glad the gop won" and such epic drivel.. or any cheap pot shots are not welcome.

[still_one]

149. .Mahalo right back at you Cha. Your points are right on

[gmb92]

135. Classic selective evaluation

Atlantic: Let's summarize the 7 things we disapprove of, then completely gloss over the much larger list of things we approve of as merely..."he's had a few accomplishments..."

In the face of unprecedented partisan obstructionism...

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/15/a-long-list-of-president-obamas-accomplishments-with-citations/

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm

[still_one]

139. Exactly

[Spazito]

138. Why would anyone give this person, the writer of the opinion, a nanosecond of attention...

when they don't even know how the governance system works? Congress is the power, congress has the power to pass bills or not pass bills, the President doesn't even have a vote never mind control of any of the complaints the truly ignorant (ignorant meaning lacking knowledge) writer of this crappola lists as the sins of the President.

Either the writer for the Atlantic is truly ignorant or he is hoping the readers are and won't call him on his crap.

[still_one]

155. The writer is a right winger.

[Spazito]

157. Yep, a Paulite it seems...

yet some DUers are applauding his view unreservedly, interesting to say the least.

[still_one]

159. He admitted freely to his right wing leanings in an interview related on Wiki

[RiverLover]

158. Jeez, attack the messenger. He wrote this also "British Liberty is Under Threat"

British Liberty Is Under Threat
The country seems invulnerable to tyranny. Yet in the last 15 years it has eliminated core rights and protections that took centuries to secure.
Conor Friedersdorf Nov 11 2014, 10:39 AM ET

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/british-liberty-under-threat-terrorism/382605/

Read that & tell us again that he's a right-winger.

[still_one]

160. He admits it himself he leans to the right, and votes libertarian. So yes, he is a right winger.

In an interview with journalist Matt Lewis, Friedersdorf stated that he has right-leaning views but that he does not consider himself to be a doctrinal conservative or a member of the conservative movement.[3]

Writing for The Atlantic, Friedersdorf laid out his argument for why he refused to vote for Barack Obama. In his argument, he claimed that Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis, secretly orders and oversees the extrajudicial killing of American citizens, and committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval. [4]

During the 2012 election cycle, Friedersdorf endorsed Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson for president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conor_Friedersdorf

[RiverLover]

161. OK ~nt

[still_one]

162. Perhaps my phrasing right winger is a big strong, but leaning to the right, a libertarian, and a

lot of his writings indicate he is an apologist for Rand Paul, does not thrill me about his opinions. Some of course which may have validity, but so do some views of Rand Paul that we should have never invaded Iraq.

He is an opinion writer. Most of his writings are libertarian to the right, and he does not like the President.

but I see the point you are making with your example

[Babel_17]

141. A bit too simplistic

Presidential candidates don't generate themselves in a vacuum, and Presidents are constrained by circumstance. To frame it like this gives the impression that President Obama is a ruler governing by way of fiats.

Point 7 though, yeah, though I wouldn't label it as persecution (though that can be the subjective result). It's more about going back on what we thought we were promised. And, of course, most of us see a great value in the principle of whistle blowing.

[True Blue Door]

146. I think it's utterly insane.

Basically he's saying the President of the United States should be a dictator who imposes the author's political opinions on the state rather than the leader of one branch of a three-branch government.

He also seems to think the President should politically interfere in the Justice Department and force it to prosecute certain people even if US Attorneys find it legally problematic or practically impossible to do so, and further interfere to force it not to prosecute certain other people whose actions - even when they do technically violate laws - the author considers politically beneficial. Basically he wants a progressive-flavored Richard Nixon.

This is not a liberal viewpoint, or one rooted in reality-based citizenship. This is someone who wants a left-wing populist strongman to basically send in the tanks, purge the professional bureaucracies of anyone who is ideologically impure, and force Congress and the courts to implement their wish list.

The obsessive focus on Obama rather than on what we know for years to have been the root of America's political problems - GOP obstructionism - makes it just another example of the left carrying right-wing water.

[easychoice]

164. The "Seattle Police Department" has Drones

That did it for me.The stormtroopers march on unabated.

[Catherine Vincent]

166. Sorry, I didn't read the full article

The heading says "our disapproval" but the body of the article reads "..but here's what I...

So, whatever.

[woo me with science]

167. kick