I read you attacking the war in Afghanistan all the time, and frankly, I often agree with your criticisms. What I never see from you, however, is what you'd do instead. How do you think we should end the spending (in blood and treasure) in Afghanistan, while ensuring that it does not return to being a haven for terrorists, leading to another attack that forces us to go right back in? Cause you're kidding yourself if you think that if we just up and left right now al Qaeda wouldn't just waltz back in and set up base again in the ensuing chaos.
Obviously something needs to change about the policies there, but stop pretending that Obama's facing some easy decision and being reticent in the face of obvious solutions.
I completely agree. The Democratic Party is (and always has been) a very diverse group of people, as opposed to the relatively homogenous Republicans. It's absurd to believe that we should have been able to easily get all 60 Democrats to always vote the same way on liberal legislation, especially when that 60 included Democrats from Nebraska and Arkansas. If the Republicans had not gotten together and decided "hey, let's just vote as a block to filibuster and say 'no' to EVERYTHING," and the Tea Partiers hadn't threatened primaries against any Republican that dared support Obama on anything, Nelson, Lieberman and Landrieu would be irrelevant.
This is the Republicans' fault simply because they decided they would just all get together to say no on everything and filibuster everything. The Democrats never did this to Bush, and expecting the Democrats to always get 60/60 votes is just completely blind to the realities of the world.
I think he might go insane.... Obama the hippie, tree-hugging, kumbayah singing socialist is doing a better job fighting terrorists than Bush the Torturer? Impossible! Obama gets a better rating than Republicans on Terrorism now? Impossible!
Actually, Obama has far fewer vacancies than Bush did. This is primarily because the Republicans spent the Clinton Administration seeking every excuse they could find to not confirm his judges, while the Democrats in the Senate actually worked with Bush (and to Bush's credit, he actually appointed a shockingly high number of Democrats to the District Courts, especially in his last two years). Because Republicans wouldn't confirm Clinton appointees, he left office with a lot more vacancies than Bush did.
I, for one, value our republic enough to know it's wrong to manipulate Supreme Court seat numbers just because there's a constitutional ruling we don't like. Why 2 seats and not 10? Hell, when the Republicans take over again (and history tells us they will), they can add 20 new seats and overturn Roe v. Wade, isn't that a fun way to go? Get real.
Disclosure isn't meant to embarass the corporations, but the candidates. Shoppers of Wal-Mart may not stop shopping at Wal-Mart because it supports Republicans, but I know plenty of Wal-Mart shoppers who shop there bitterly because it's the only place they can afford, and who would be much less likely to vote for the guy Wal-Mart supports. Disclosure is for voters, not customers.
Hard contribution limits were treated as assumed constitutional, disclosure requirements were upheld, these are things that can be campaigned on.
But there's something else mentioned in the opinion being too overlooked. Corporations are still legal entities bound by their charters. Stockholders and dissenting directors are always allowed to take the Board of Directors to court, often even as individuals, to sue them challenging their decisions on expenditures as violating the corporate charter. This tactic has been used by conservative stockholders and board members to sometimes prevent companies from giving lots of money to charity. It's never been tried in the political scene, but that's because it hasn't been an issue until now. My guess is, you'll see these suits popping up, and corporate spending on elections will be limited in part by BoD's afraid of getting sued.
I'm sorry, but this is insane. We may not like the Senate bill, but mark my words, if we follow this plan, none of it gets renewed in 5 years (the reconciliation limit) and we've got nothing. And I don't just mean wait until we get our majority back, no, it's done. If we don't pass something major now, mark my words, it will be 20 years before we get another shot.
Too many people just can't wait that long. Pass the Senate bill. Go ahead and do what we can through reconciliation, but put something in place so that if everything is allowed to expire in 5 years, there's still something there.
I must confess that back in 2006, I bought into the "he's with us on everything but the war" and as I still supported the war at the time, I was outraged when Lamont beat Lieberman in the primary....
When people ask my what my biggest political regret of the past decade is, I now regularly say the money I contributed to his 2006 re-election campaign. This man is an embarassment. As a Jewish American, watching the first Jewish major party top-ticket nominee act this way is even more disgraceful.... For him, 2012 can't come soon enough.... I hope he runs for re-election, I want him to watch himself get crushed into the ground.
Obama's given a LOT of thought to this decision. He's talked to dozens of world leaders, military experts, scholars, politicians, cultural experts, etc. He's certainly given it a lot more thought than our former joke of a commander-in-chief did. Moreover, his thought and choice is a lot better informed than any of us are.
I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. I know I haven't gotten as much input, advice, lessons, and intelligence as he has, and if this is the conclusion he reaches (which, as several people pointed out, is also how he campaigned), then I'm ready to support it. If it doesn't work, then I'll know not to give it to him again, but considering how much more thought he's put in than Bush, I feel like he'll actually know what he's talking about.
I'm glad to have a President who does what he thinks is right regardless of the political pressures from either end of the spectrum.
I completely agree. Nuclear power has been safe for years, and while we do need to figure out a better long-term solution to the waste issue, that's not a good reason not to build more plants. Nuclear power is about the cleanest energy out there, and one plant produces an awful lot of power.
While I officially reside and vote in Rep. Moran's (VA-8) safe Democratic district, I go to law school, and subsequently basically live in Tom Perriello's (VA-5) very Republican District. I e-mailed him on Friday to ask him to vote Yes, and I already am planning to donate to his 2010 campaign in response to his vote on this AND on cap and trade.
I remain fairly convinced that if his vote was absolutely needed to pass any of these bills, Dennis Kucinich would not let his vote be the one that defeats them. He's voting no, I think, to make a point, not to actually defeat these bills.
Speaking as a Jew myself, I always laugh when people say we're gonna' vote Republican.
I'll vote Republican when they stop trying to shove Christianity down my throat, and when they adopt the principles of Tikun Olam. Since that would basically make them Democrats, I don't think I'll be switching anytime soon.