Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

It is pretty bad when the French look like the decisive ones.

 

[Sarnoff]

Obama's next bracket

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I would love to see Hillary run against Obama. I'm pretty sure I'm voting Republican next election. Even though we don't know who the front runner will be, I really don't want to cast a vote for Obama.

This Presidency continues to be a

 

[Zegras11]

Obama's next bracket

 

[bueno]

Hey he ordered green dye be put in the White House fountain for St. Patrick's Day. That was just ground-breaking.

 

[Sarnoff]

President "Present"

One knock on Barack Obama in the 2008 election was his record as an Illinois state senator, where he repeatedly ducked tough issues by voting "present." It seems old habits die hard.

If you'd like to know where the leader of the free world stands on those NCAA rankings, just turn on ESPN. ("I think Kansas has more firepower," he explained as he filled out his bracket.) Wondering what the commander in chief thinks about gun laws? Don't worry—he's in favor of those already on the books, according to a recent op-ed.

If, however, you are curious about where the most powerful man in the universe stands on Libya, radiation, a possible government shutdown, the future of Social Security, or rising oil prices, don't look to the White House. Those issues are tough. Those issues risk mistakes. Those issues might mean unhappy voters. And right now, it's approval ratings the White House cares about.

Obama advisers are spinning their excuses for the president's absence (he needs to stay above the fray, he believes in international agreement). Conservatives, for their part, are beginning to argue the "incompetence" line. A combination of all is probably at work, along with an even greater impulse: political safety. Mr. Obama got a taste of falling approval ratings last year. The White House has worked hard to get those numbers back up and wants to keep them there until Mr. Obama has a GOP opponent and can go into campaign mode—where he's at his best.

And so as Moammar Gadhafi has visited a bloodbath on opposition forces, the White House has for weeks spun its wheels at the United Nations, waiting for someone else to go first. The White House has argued intervention might provoke an Arab backlash against the U.S., and it could be it actually believes such crazy talk. Yet it seems equally concerned that any U.S.-led military action in Libya—no matter how minor—will invite comparisons to the dreaded Bush warmongers and prove unpopular.

And as Congress lurches from one budget crisis to the next, President Obama leaves negotiations to Vice President Joe Biden. It has been clear for weeks the only way this gets settled is for Mr. Obama and House Speaker John Boehner to find a fiscal 2011 spending-cut number that gets bipartisan support. But Mr. Obama worries that number will be too much for the left, and not enough for the right, and that means . . . controversy.

Today he instead leaves for a five-day Latin American tour. On that trip he will not be visiting Colombia or Panama, whose trade deals he's squelched since he took office. Trade deals, after all, don't always sit well with the public (and rarely with unions).

It took until yesterday for Mr. Obama to address Japan's nuclear problem, and only then to clarify that Americans should and should not be worried about radiation, while also knowing that U.S. power plants are and aren't safe. The president had been touting a new love for nuclear energy (to coax Republicans into a "clean-energy" deal), but the White House is now worried Japan is the hydrogen version of the BP oil spill, and thinking the safest short-term policy is incoherence.

Entitlement reform? Are you people nuts? Who ever won an election on entitlement reform?

The White House's greater interest right now seems to be throwing little bones to its left. A quip here about the Wisconsin labor dispute, a gun-control op-ed there. A promise to quit defending the Defense Against Marriage Act. Yet even these are tiny bones, designed not to hugely upset the broader public.

Careful is the word. Compare this to George W. Bush, who ordered an Iraq surge despite dismal approval ratings.

A "present" strategy didn't hurt the Illinois state senator, who went on to become president—and that may be what's guiding the president's team now. Then again, the White House is discovering there are greater consequences for a "present" president. The administration is realizing, for instance, that a victorious Gadhafi is not in fact to Mr. Obama's, or the world's, advantage—one reason it is now adopting a more aggressive posture.

It also hardly seems a winning strategy for the White House to keep the president's approval ratings below the 50% he needs for re-election. He in particular risks alienating congressional Democrats, who are wearying of being left to handle public criticism. If they start to believe the president is looking out only for himself, they'll do the same. Even if that means undermining pieces of his agenda.

There is another way, of course. The Americans who voted in 2008 didn't vote "present." They voted for a leader. They might even reward Mr. Obama for doing that job.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

President "Present"

It took until yesterday for Mr. Obama to address Japan's nuclear problem, and only then to clarify that Americans should and should not be worried about radiation, while also knowing that U.S. power plants are and aren't safe. The president had been touting a new love for nuclear energy (to coax Republicans into a "clean-energy" deal), but the White House is now worried Japan is the hydrogen version of the BP oil spill, and thinking the safest short-term policy is incoherence.

 

[Jewell]

Even the strongest love affairs often come to an end...

PAST: Farrakhan: When Obama talks “the Messiah is absolutely speaking.” LINK

PRESENT: "Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?" Farrakhan goes on a rant on Chicago radio about Obama calling for Qaddafi to step down. LINK

To be fair to Obama, it should be noted that Louis may simply be siding with his closer friend:

Farrakhan was the 1996 winner of the Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights, which boasts such luminaries as Holocaust-denier Roger Garaudy, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez.

 

[jonessed]

At least we get to hear liberals try and rationalize how when Obama engages in oil wars/nation building exercises it's somehow justified.

 

[ericttspikes]

At least we get to hear liberals try and rationalize how when Obama engages in oil wars/nation building exercises it's somehow justified.

I didn't see any pro war, pro nation building liberals at the protest downtown Chicago yesterday. Not only were they protesting the military action, but they were also protesting the cost. Who wasn't there was the Tea Party protesting the billions just dropped on Libya in a day. Not surprising though. Too bad the right is in a fight to see which candidate is the biggest bat #### crazy ideologue because any serious moderate could easily pick off Obama. The far left can't stand him and middle of the road progressives only tolerate him. The truth that Obama realizes that they have nowhere to go, especially when they see the Draconian GOP agenda being rolled out in the States and the crazy stuff GOP potential candidates are spouting.

 

[Sarnoff]

Liberal Democrats in Congress call for Obama's impeachment

 

[timschochet]

In terms of sheer politics, the bombing of Libya will help Obama. This, despite all of the conservative talking points we've already heard:

1. It was done too late; he spent far too long dithering about it.

2. This is really Hillary's show; she's the tough one; she had to drag Obama along.

3. He's busy doing NCAA brackets and in Rio while this is going on.

Etc. Only none of it is going to fly, because the public likes war (this is an inevitable truth of American politics. There has never been a military action in the history of this country which the majority of Americans did not approve of at the time it was taken) and because Obama is POTUS. Watch his approval ratings take a bump.

 

[Jewell]

In terms of sheer politics, the bombing of Libya will help Obama. This, despite all of the conservative talking points we've already heard:1. It was done too late; he spent far too long dithering about it. 2. This is really Hillary's show; she's the tough one; she had to drag Obama along.3. He's busy doing NCAA brackets and in Rio while this is going on. Etc. Only none of it is going to fly, because the public likes war (this is an inevitable truth of American politics. There has never been a military action in the history of this country which the majority of Americans did not approve of at the time it was taken) and because Obama is POTUS. Watch his approval ratings take a bump.

Agreed.

Too bad the right is in a fight to see which candidate is the biggest bat #### crazy ideologue because any serious moderate could easily pick off Obama.

First, I don't think any opponent can easily pick off Obama. Incumbents are tough to dethrone. Second, it's interesting that you think a moderate would more easily topple Obama than a candidate with a more stark contrast to him. Honestly, I have no clue whether Republicans would be better served with a more moderate candidate or a more conservative candidate. This sounds like a Tim poll topic.

 

[jon_mx]

The only GOP candidate who could win is one that can unite both conservatives and moderates. Right now that would be Christie who isn't running, Daniels who probably will run, or Romney.

 

[Sarnoff]

Filed under "If you'd told me in 2008 I'd be hearing this in 2011, I'd have called you crazy, for multiple reasons": Michael Moore suggests Obama should return his Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Filed under "If you'd told me in 2008 I'd be hearing this in 2011, I'd have called you crazy, for multiple reasons": Michael Moore suggests Obama should return his Nobel Peace Prize.

It does sound crazy. But I agree with some other poster from some other thread who said these extreme liberals turning away from Obama helps him portray himself as a moderate.

 

[ericttspikes]

In terms of sheer politics, the bombing of Libya will help Obama. This, despite all of the conservative talking points we've already heard:1. It was done too late; he spent far too long dithering about it. 2. This is really Hillary's show; she's the tough one; she had to drag Obama along.3. He's busy doing NCAA brackets and in Rio while this is going on. Etc. Only none of it is going to fly, because the public likes war (this is an inevitable truth of American politics. There has never been a military action in the history of this country which the majority of Americans did not approve of at the time it was taken) and because Obama is POTUS. Watch his approval ratings take a bump.

Agreed.

Too bad the right is in a fight to see which candidate is the biggest bat #### crazy ideologue because any serious moderate could easily pick off Obama.

First, I don't think any opponent can easily pick off Obama. Incumbents are tough to dethrone. Second, it's interesting that you think a moderate would more easily topple Obama than a candidate with a more stark contrast to him. Honestly, I have no clue whether Republicans would be better served with a more moderate candidate or a more conservative candidate. This sounds like a Tim poll topic.

I personally think the GOP is making a huge mistake in making 2012 about the fringe of their base. They went all in on the Muslim Manchurian Candidate Marxist Ultra Liberal Illegitimate President route. Sure the moonbats swallow the 24/7 propaganda and are true believers, but we all knew they weren't going to vote for Obama. I'm pretty sure they have that crowd locked up. Trying to get moderates and independents to buy in seems like a dumb move, especially in the world we live in today. There are serious problems and the current GOP candidates trivialize them with the completely predictable political gamesmanship (ie, EVERYTHING Obama does is liberal and wrong). It doesn't fly and is intellectually dishonest. It's like they are confident if they call the sky green enough times it will be. As I said, the far left bailed on Obama during health care. Giving up the public option was the start of him caving on progressive values, which he continues to do to this day. Moderate progressives are disappointed, and this new war won't help, but the options they see from the right are frightening enough to get them to the polls, especially in light of the November elections and the consequences being played out. I could see a serious GOP moderate that can propose solutions peel off moderate progressives and independent voters and win back the blue collar voters they are currently dumping on. I'm just not sure a serious moderate GOP candidate exists at this time. When you see a guy like Tim Pawlenty pander to the birthers it appears they have all gone the fringe route and that the primaries will be an ugly exercise of who can out crazy the other guy (or gal) instead of proposing sensible solutions that would resonate with intelligent voters.In the end it doesn't matter. The D's and R's are decimating the middle class and the American economy. An election won't change that. The GOP is transparent in their assault and the Dems just pretend to care, the end game is the same save a few sociopolitical scraps they toss out now and then.

 

[Fensalk]

Filed under "If you'd told me in 2008 I'd be hearing this in 2011, I'd have called you crazy, for multiple reasons": Michael Moore suggests Obama should return his Nobel Peace Prize.

It does sound crazy. But I agree with some other poster from some other thread who said these extreme liberals turning away from Obama helps him portray himself as a moderate.

No, historically it doesn't look like that. Democrat presidents always seem to have a tougher time fighting wars than their republican counterparts. The republicans can always fall back on their base which tends to be less antiwar. When a democrat president goes to war, he loses his antiwar base, and he also loses support from the republican side as they tend to nitpick about not being more aggressive. LBJ had to not run for re-election because of exactly that during Vietnam. He lost both democrat and republican support. If he was a republican, he would have at least kept the republican side.

 

[Saints-Man]

...

No, historically it doesn't look like that. Democrat presidents always seem to have a tougher time fighting wars than their republican counterparts. The republicans can always fall back on their base which tends to be less antiwar. When a democrat president goes to war, he loses his antiwar base, and he also loses support from the republican side as they tend to nitpick about not being more aggressive.

LBJ had to not run for re-election because of exactly that during Vietnam. He lost both democrat and republican support. If he was a republican, he would have at least kept the republican side.

I think LBJ is the exception more than the rule. The left during LBJ's time was VERY anti-war, radically so, which is not true now. The left is anti-war, but not to the extent as existed in the 1960's. Unless something drastically changes, no Democrat will oppose President Obama in 2012. Some Democrats may be luke-warm about President eObama, but he has not lost their support. It is just weaker, but it is still there. If not, his approval ratings would not be as high as they are.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Looking good for 2012

 

[Sarnoff]

Terror suspects don't need Miranda rights

The number of instances in which Obama has violently breached his own alleged principles when it comes to the War on Terror and the rule of law are too numerous to chronicle in one place. Suffice to say, it is no longer provocative or controversial when someone like Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin writes, as he did the other day, that Obama "has more or less systematically adopted policies consistent with the second term of the George W. Bush Administration." No rational person can argue that or even tries to any longer. It's just a banal expression of indisputable fact.

Suckers.

 

[Sarnoff]

Foreign policy: Bush's third term

Domestic policy: Carter's second term

Hope and Change!

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Foreign policy: Bush's third termDomestic policy: Carter's second term

Compromise! Way to be a moderate.

 

[jonessed]

In terms of sheer politics, the bombing of Libya will help Obama. This, despite all of the conservative talking points we've already heard:1. It was done too late; he spent far too long dithering about it. 2. This is really Hillary's show; she's the tough one; she had to drag Obama along.3. He's busy doing NCAA brackets and in Rio while this is going on. Etc. Only none of it is going to fly, because the public likes war (this is an inevitable truth of American politics. There has never been a military action in the history of this country which the majority of Americans did not approve of at the time it was taken) and because Obama is POTUS. Watch his approval ratings take a bump.

There is absoltely no way to know this until we see what happens with Qadaffi. War supporters are fickle (see Iraq). I mean come on, this is going to take, at best, months and quite possibly years to resolve. There is no way to know how this is going to play out, much less how Obama is going to look in the end.

 

[Sarnoff]

this is going to take, at best, months and quite possibly years to resolve.

Obama: "Days, not weeks."

 

[Statorama]

My man is at it again

Obama accepts transparency award in secret meeting

The secret presentation happened almost two weeks after the White House inexplicably postponed the ceremony, which was expected to be open to the press pool.

This time, Obama met quietly in the Oval Office with Gary Bass of OMB Watch, Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight, Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Patrice McDermott of OpenTheGovernment.org, without disclosing the meeting on his public schedule or letting photographers or print reporters into the room.

 

[Statorama]

Obama administration admits Bush was right and they were wrong about terror trials

Attorney General Eric Holder today will announce that self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad will be tried in a military commission, the CBS News Investigative Unit has learned. A source says the commission will be held at the Guantanamo Bay prison.

 

[Statorama]

Obama administration's involvement in "Project Gunrunner" coming to light

Mystery surrounds the ATF Gunwalker scandal. Who authorized the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ stingless sting operation that allowed, indeed enabled thousands of U.S. guns to flow to Mexican drug cartels? Why is the Obama administration stonewalling the Congressional investigation of Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious? What else are they hiding? And here’s another one: why has Mexican President Felipe Calderon remained on the sidelines of this story, continuing to cozy-up to President Obama when it’s clear that Uncle Sam supplied weapons to the narco-terrorists plaguing his country?

 

[jamny]

Obama administration's involvement in "Project Gunrunner" coming to light

Mystery surrounds the ATF Gunwalker scandal. Who authorized the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ stingless sting operation that allowed, indeed enabled thousands of U.S. guns to flow to Mexican drug cartels? Why is the Obama administration stonewalling the Congressional investigation of Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious? What else are they hiding? And here’s another one: why has Mexican President Felipe Calderon remained on the sidelines of this story, continuing to cozy-up to President Obama when it’s clear that Uncle Sam supplied weapons to the narco-terrorists plaguing his country?

This story definitely doesn't get enough press.

 

[Sarnoff]

"The greatest difficulty in criticizing Obama’s policy on Libya is in figuring out exactly what the policy is."

 

[Sarnoff]

 

[Statorama]

Obama's answer to people trying to save money on gas prices? Buy a new car

 

[Statorama]

Government Shutdown looming? Time for another OBAMA VACATION

This time it's Williamsburg

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Government Shutdown looming? Time for another OBAMA VACATION

This time it's Williamsburg

Stop with the vacation nonsense. There are dozens of legitimate things to criticize Obama for. Taking vacations isn't one of them. As I posted earlier, Jimmy Carter took the fewest vacations in his first year of any President in modern times. Anyone want this President or future Presidents to follow his footsteps? It's not like Obama stops working when he's on vacation.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I keep waiting for Geico to tell me how much I can save on my car insurance.

 

[bueno]

Government Shutdown looming? Time for another OBAMA VACATION

This time it's Williamsburg

Stop with the vacation nonsense. There are dozens of legitimate things to criticize Obama for. Taking vacations isn't one of them. As I posted earlier, Jimmy Carter took the fewest vacations in his first year of any President in modern times. Anyone want this President or future Presidents to follow his footsteps? It's not like Obama stops working when he's on vacation.

Carter would be an improvement.

 

[Fennis]

Foreign policy: Bush's third termDomestic policy: Carter's second termHope and Change!

twofer

I can't decide which I like better, the never ending drum beat of hardcore republicans telling us that Obama is exactly like Bush or the never ending drumbeat of hardcore republicans telling us Obama is a socialist

 

[jon_mx]

Am I the only one who does not see the contradiction in calling Obama a socialist and the second coming of Bush. Bush was all about big goberment solutions.

 

[Statorama]

Obama working hard on the budget crisis during his vacation in Williamsburg

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Obama working hard on the budget crisis during his vacation in Williamsburg

How dare he step outside with his family. Time for a recall.

 

[Statorama]

Obama running secret detention/interrogation camps in Afghanistan

Remember, it's only a bad thing when Bush does it. No need to protest.

AP Exclusive: Terror suspects held weeks in secret

(AP) – 9 hours ago

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — "Black sites," the secret network of jails that grew up after the Sept. 11 attacks, are gone. But suspected terrorists are still being held under hazy circumstances with uncertain rights in secret, military-run jails across Afghanistan, where they can be interrogated for weeks without charge, according to U.S. officials who revealed details of the top-secret network to The Associated Press.

The Pentagon has previously denied operating secret jails in Afghanistan, although human rights groups and former detainees have described the facilities. U.S. military and other government officials confirmed that the detention centers exist but described them as temporary holding pens whose primary purpose is to gather intelligence.

The Pentagon also has said that detainees only stay in temporary detention sites for 14 days, unless they are extended under extraordinary circumstances. But U.S. officials told the AP that detainees can be held at the temporary jails for up to nine weeks, depending on the value of information they produce. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the program is classified.

The most secretive of roughly 20 temporary sites is run by the military's elite counterterrorism unit, the Joint Special Operations Command, at Bagram Air Base. It's responsible for questioning high-value targets, the detainees suspected of top roles in the Taliban, al-Qaida or other militant groups.

The site's location, a short drive from a well-known public detention center, has been alleged for more than a year.

The secrecy under which the U.S. runs that jail and about 20 others is noteworthy because of President Barack Obama's criticism of the old network of secret CIA prisons where interrogators sometimes used the harshest available methods, including the simulated drowning known as waterboarding.

Human rights advocates say the severest of the Bush-era interrogation methods are gone, but the conditions at the new interrogation sites still raise questions. Obama pledged when he took office that the United States would not torture anyone, but former detainees describe harsh treatment that some human rights groups claim borders on inhumane.

More than a dozen former detainees claimed they were menaced and held for weeks at the Joint Special Operations Command site last year, forced to strip naked, then kept in solitary confinement in windowless, often cold cells with lights on 24 hours a day, according to Daphne Eviatar of the group Human Rights First, which interviewed them in Afghanistan.

Eviatar said her monitoring group does not believe the JSOC facility is using the full range of Bush-era interrogation techniques, but she said there's a disturbing pattern of using fear and humiliation to soften up the suspects before interrogation.

Many of those interviewed said "they were forced to strip naked in front of other detainees, which is very humiliating for them," Eviatar said. "The forced nudity seems to be part of a pattern to make detainees feel disempowered."

The detainees also reported that their interrogators told them they could be held indefinitely, the group said.

Special Operations Command spokesman Col. Tim Nye denies the allegations, insisting the detainees are treated in accordance with U.S. detention laws, rewritten since the Bush era to prohibit the harshest interrogation techniques. "All detainees are treated humanely in compliance with all U.S. and international laws, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions," Nye wrote in an e-mail.

U.S. officials in Afghanistan add that the top commander there, Gen. David Petraeus, insisted on opening the Joint Special Operations Command site to inspection by Afghan officials and the International Red Cross last summer. The International Red Cross has not responded to an AP inquiry about whether it had been allowed to visit the site.

Petraeus wanted to force more openness on the JSOC, a secretive organization that runs special missions units within the military to perform highly classified activities, according to a senior official briefed on the program, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters.

The official said part of Petraeus' logic was to ensure transparency to international monitoring bodies so the interrogations could continue because they are yielding intelligence that has helped quadruple special operations missions against militant targets.

When suspected insurgents or terrorists are first captured, they are interrogated in the field to determine their status in the insurgent hierarchy and their usefulness in terms of local, tactical military intelligence, officials said.

Detainees then can be held up to 14 days in a temporary facility before being either released or transferred to a public detention facility called Parwan that is jointly run by the United States and Afghanistan. The Parwan jail abuts the sprawling U.S. base at Bagram, north of Kabul, which also houses the secret "temporary" jail.

Ordinary Taliban foot soldiers often provide useful information about how insurgent networks work, who runs them and who pays the bills, said Vice Adm. Robert Harward, who runs detention operations in Afghanistan.

But if detainees can provide unusually valuable information on the location of a bomb-building factory or are willing to identify the local Taliban commander, their interrogators can ask to keep them longer.

After the first two weeks, the first extension is for three weeks, for reasons including "producing good tactical intel" to "too sick to move," according to a U.S. official familiar with the procedure. The next possible extension is for an additional month, adding up to a total of roughly nine weeks in temporary detention before battlefield interrogators have to appeal to the executive, either the defense secretary or the president himself, for another extension.

The military has never pushed for that for any detainee, according to a former senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters.

It's unclear how many detainees are being held at the temporary facilities at any one time. Detention spokesperson Capt. Pamela Kunze says the number is classified, but it represents only a small fraction of the total number of detainees.

If evidence against the detainees proves solid, they are transferred to Parwan for eventual prosecution in Afghan courts.

Last year, only 1,300 suspects out of 6,600 arrested across Afghanistan ended up at the Parwan detention facility, according to Harward.

There are currently some 1,900 detainees being held at Parwan, which has a capacity of 2,600. Parwan will gradually be handed over to Afghan control. The status of the temporary facilities likely would be negotiated as part of a future security agreement, transitioning power to the government of Afghanistan.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Obama running secret detention/interrogation camps in Afghanistan

I can't believe Obama isn't getting ripped in the media for continuing many of Dubya's policies. I know networks take sides but it still is something I have a hard time wrapping my head around.

 

[Sarnoff]

Obama running secret detention/interrogation camps in Afghanistan

I can't believe Obama isn't getting ripped in the media for continuing many of Dubya's policies. I know networks take sides but it still is something I have a hard time wrapping my head around.

It's more than just taking sides. It's more than just "in the tank". There's a healthy portion of the media that is basically the PR firm for the Democratic Party.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Obama running secret detention/interrogation camps in Afghanistan

I can't believe Obama isn't getting ripped in the media for continuing many of Dubya's policies. I know networks take sides but it still is something I have a hard time wrapping my head around.

It's more than just taking sides. It's more than just "in the tank". There's a healthy portion of the media that is basically the PR firm for the Democratic Party.

I don't disagree. It makes me sad and disgusts me.

 

[Mello]

Obama running secret detention/interrogation camps in Afghanistan

I can't believe Obama isn't getting ripped in the media for continuing many of Dubya's policies. I know networks take sides but it still is something I have a hard time wrapping my head around.

It's more than just taking sides. It's more than just "in the tank". There's a healthy portion of the media that is basically the PR firm for the Democratic Party.

I don't disagree. It makes me sad and disgusts me.

I wish people would stop playing political games and protest against it no matter who's in charge. It's shameful that our country is stooping to these levels out of fear.I wouldn't agree that the media is in the tank for Dems though. Across all media formats, I see a pretty even split of media agendas. There's a higher number of liberal outlets, but the conservative outlets have a higher number of customers. The reason they aren't showing anything about this is because people sadly don't care because the people that acted like they care are biased idiots. They won't speak bad about Obama because they fear driving people to Republicans. The Republicans have already convinced themselves these actions are OK during the last presidency. This is just a tool to use to point out Obama's hypocrisy. The media shows what the people will watch and not enough people care.

 

[Statorama]

Obama wants to be able to read your old emails without a warrant

The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans’ e-mail stored in the cloud.

("cloud" = email stored on external servers like yahoo, etc)

As the law stands now, the authorities may obtain cloud e-mail without a warrant if it is older than 180 days, thanks to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act adopted in 1986. At that time, e-mail left on a third-party server for six months was considered to be abandoned, and thus enjoyed less privacy protection. However, the law demands warrants for the authorities to seize e-mail from a person’s hard drive.

A coalition of internet service providers and other groups, known as Digital Due Process, has lobbied for an update to the law to treat both cloud- and home-stored e-mail the same, and thus require a probable-cause warrant for access. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on that topic Tuesday.

 

[Statorama]

Good News! Obama to keep his Nobel Peace Prize

Some foreign leaders have called on Obama to return the Nobel Peace Prize he accepted in 2009 since ordering the Libya attack.

Oh, and

At least 858 U.S. soldiers have died in the Afghanistan war since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009. That equals 60 percent of the 1,427 American soldiers killed so far in the 10-year war in that country.

Of the 858 U.S. deaths since Obama’s inauguration, 791 have been combat-related. This means that for the 1,241 combat-related deaths that occurred since the Afghanistan war began in October 2001, about 64 percent happened in the two years since Obama took office.

Last year was the deadliest for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, with 497 combat and non-combat fatalities.

 

[Statorama]

Dominoes being put in place for Obama to use Libyan prescedent for Israel no-fly zone

 

[JuniorNB]

Hey Statorama, just curious....do you have a wife and kids? Ever talk to them? Or smile at them? Or is your entire life just reading conservative blogs and watching Fox News and trying to convince the world that Obama is going to lead to the demise of the country? Just wondering, because it's really sad to watch from here.

 

[Statorama]

Hey Statorama, just curious....do you have a wife and kids? Ever talk to them? Or smile at them? Or is your entire life just reading conservative blogs and watching Fox News and trying to convince the world that Obama is going to lead to the demise of the country?

Thanks for the concern JNB, it's kind of touching.I'm doing great, thanks for asking. I've been married over two decades, and outside of the occassional eye roll she's just fine with things.Would it be easier to do like you do and turn off my brain as to what's going on around me? Sure. That's just not me though. I'm far too intellectually curious to just kick back and assume everything's going to be ok, or to denegrate someone that's trying to wake me up to what's going on in the world.Informing people of the dangers we face helps me sleep at night. I like knowing I'm doing my share.(side note: I've said before, once Obama's out of office I'm retiring this whole thing. So get him out of office and you won't have to worry about seeing me in a political thread ever again. Neither one of us wants this to go on another 5 years.)