Tag: Barack Obama

Lawrence O’Donnell Takes Off The Gloves: National Defense Authorization Act, Soft Journalism, and the Spoonfed Two Party System

~ Chris Cocca ~ 1 Comment

Taking a cue from the pages of Superman, Lawrence O’Donnell lambasted the mainstream media Wednesday night for their failure to cover the Third Parties debate and for failing to address this little nightmare:

Imagine if Congress passed a bill that the president signed that allowed indefinite detention without charge or trial. That would be issue one at any presidential debate, wouldn’t it? The media’s favorite debate moderator, Martha Raddatz, would have forced a full discussion of that one at the vice presidential debate, wouldn’t she? Well, Congress did pass that law last year and President Obama signed it and he never mentioned it on his list of his accomplishments in any of the debates. And he was never asked about it, not by the media’s second favorite debate moderator, Candy Crowley, and not by Mitt Romney. It never came up at the two-party presidential debates.

Watch the video here.  It starts with the drug war (I’m not for legalization, but am for reform), and if that bothers you, fast forward to the part about the National Defense Authorization Act.  I kind of like how someone on Examiner.com put it:

But in the most shocking segment, O’Donnell laid out a serious charge against President Obama and the failure of the media and the public to hold him responsible due to a certain law that he signed called the National Defense Authorization Act, which according to O’Donnell will allow the government to detain, interrogate, prosecute or just make people who it suspects to be terrorists disappear without a trial of any kind, and this includes American citizens! O’Donnell then blasted all of the moderators of the three presidential debates between Obama and Romney for not bringing this issue up, and then he blasted the cowardly Mitt Romney for also being to [sic] sheepish to ask President Obama about this issue, instead of crowing about how he would repeal Obamacare, when he should be repealing this monstrosity.”

O’Donnell encouraged people to vote for third party candidates, especially in swing states.

Good for you, Larry.  Even if you were a few hours late to the party:

It’s Okay To Assassinate the Families of Suspected Terrorists, Just Don’t Waterboard Them First

~ Chris Cocca ~ 8 Comments

From June, 2012.  It’s interesting for me to re-read this in post-2016 Democratic primary world. 

June 4, 2012:

What do we do with Obama’s drone war?

From the New York Times:

Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.

“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” said Thomas E. Donilon, his national security adviser. “His view is that he’s responsible for the position of the United States in the world.” He added, “He’s determined to keep the tether pretty short.”

If you thought for one hot second that the NYT piece is calling Obama out for the covert drone war or his decision that he is fit to decide when to kill the families of suspected terrorists, Charles Krauthammer is here to tell you:

The article could have been titled “Barack Obama: Drone Warrior.” Great detail on how Obama personally runs the assassination campaign. On-the-record quotes from the highest officials. This was no leak. This was a White House press release.Why? To portray Obama as tough guy. And why now? Because in crisis after recent crisis, Obama has looked particularly weak: standing helplessly by as thousands are massacred in Syria; being played by Iran in nuclear negotiations, now reeling with the collapse of the latest round in Baghdad; being treated with contempt by Vladimir Putin, who blocks any action on Syria or Iran and adds personal insult by standing up Obama at the latter’s G-8 and NATO summits.

The Obama camp thought that any political problem with foreign policy would be cured by the Osama bin Laden operation. But the administration’s attempt to politically exploit the raid’s one-year anniversary backfired, earning ridicule and condemnation for its crude appropriation of the heroic acts of others.

Who gets to live and die in Yemen?  Don’t worry, world, it’s in the hands of Barack Obama, Decider.

Barack Obama, The Decider.  Did you ever think it would come to this?

Since the president is comfortable likening these decisions to game-play, let’s play a game of our own, shall we?  A political and ethical Mad Libs of sorts.  Take every “Obama” out of these pieces and replace it with “George W. Bush.”   Makes you want to vomit, right?  Barack Obama better fly from your gullet just as fast.  Jeremy Scahill doesn’t mince words.

Mad Libs.  Hey, see what I did there?  Obama’s a mad liberal, and you know this because he’s a tough drone warrior now.  He’s the concierge at Guantanamo Bay.  But shouldn’t other liberals be mad that the Peace Prize President is doing these things?  No, Timmy, you’re thinking of progressives.

If only ending these campaigns were as easy as electing Mitt Romney.  But does anyone think Romney wouldn’t do the same thing?  Now listen, liberals, don’t go saying “well, Obama is doing it less that Romney, and he’s keeping us safe, so it’s um, er, okay.”

This is what happens when establishment incumbents face no challenges from within their own party or purported ideology.  Oh, for a credible challenge to Obama from a progressive.  Oh for an Obama 2008 to run against Obama 2012.

Related articles

The Good Old Days Weren’t Always Good: A Transatlantic Reminder to Tim Stanley

~ Chris Cocca ~ 1 Comment

But it isn’t just Obama’s flaws that are making this race interesting. Mitt Romney might not be the most charismatic candidate, but that’s a hidden strength in an election that’s all about competence and getting back to the basics of what once made America work so well. This week, the pro-Obama journalist Andrew Sullivan wrote that with his wealth, good looks and apple-pie conservatism, Romney is like “a focus-group tested model president from 1965”. Sullivan obviously doesn’t realise how popular the TV show Mad Men is. Who wouldn’t warm to a candidate that represents an age marked by low unemployment, stable families and a laissez-faire attitude towards drinking at work?

At first blush, this bit from Tim Stanley’s “Obama is Carter” piece feels clever.  If you’re white, straight, and male, it might take a least one full second to remember that 1965 isn’t the good old days from everyone’s perspective.

I’ll give Stanley this much:  Don Draper assumed a whole new persona when it was expedient to do so, and his public life is one huge pose.  Romney and Obama are vulnerable to this charge on various counts.  Does anyone really believe Romney’s ashamed of RomneyCare or that he’s a pro-life?  Does anyone really believe that Obama is a federalist on marriage equality?

Yes, this is what politicians do.  But Obama was supposed to end all of that.  As of right now, he’ll be lucky to win a second term.

Did Obama Allow “Born in Kenya” Narrative? If So, Does It Bother You?

~ Chris Cocca ~ 2 Comments

You’ve heard that in 1991, literary agency Acton & Dystel typo’d the part of client Barack Obama’s bio that mentioned his place of birth.  (They said it was Kenya).

If a story from WND can be believed, successor firm Dystel & Gooderich kept the mistake in their client’s profile up through April 2007, when it was then corrected.

I don’t have any reason to doubt that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.  At some point or another, however, Barack Obama seems to have sanctioned the belief that he was born in Kenya, or allowed it to linger.  What started as a mistake at Acton & Dystel in 1991 was allowed to remain in the narrative until after Obama started running for president.

It’s hard to believe that a Obama was unaware of the error for 16 years.  For a young writer trying to sell a first book, “born in Kenya, successful in America,” was a much better hook than the truth.

Does it bother you that Obama seems to have let this error persist for so long?  Not “bother” in the sense that it has you questioning his eligibility, bother in the sense that it has you questioning his character?

The State of Our Union Tomorrow, Today

~ Chris Cocca ~ Leave a comment

I just posted this on Facebook and wanted to share it here:

I didn’t watch SOTU, but I’m optimistic. Not about Democrats or Republicans. Not about elections or debates. About something money couldn’t buy but the economic crisis helped us see: here and now, most of us want to be better than we’ve been. Most of us are committed to being more fair, more open, more compassionate…more generative. The economy still scares me, maybe now more than ever, but the renewed capacity I’ve seen in people to give even from what little they have so that those with even less might have something…I believe in that. I believe in love. I believe we’re called to live God’s future in the present. I believe we must, and I believe we can.

Who’s Right on Smog and Clean Air Standards? Obama or His EPA?

~ Chris Cocca ~ 3 Comments

In September, President Obama announced that his administration would not adopt the new ozone standard recommended by EPA after a two-year review of the 2008 Bush administration standard.

EPA head Lisa Jackson had been pushing hard for the updated standard to replace the 2008 model, which the American Lung Association says “failed to protect public health, failed to follow the scientific community’s recommendations, and was legally indefensible.”

Ground-level ozone is a primary component in the creation of smog.  As we note on the Air Quality facts page at AirQualityAction.org, people with lung disease, children, older adults, and people who are active can be affected when ozone levels are unhealthy. Numerous scientific studies have linked ground-level ozone exposure to a variety of problems, including:

  • Airway irritation, coughing, and pain when taking a deep breath
  • Wheezing and breathing difficulties during exercise or outdoor activities
  • Inflammation, which is much like a sunburn on the skin
  • Aggravation of asthma and increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses like pneumonia and bronchitis
  • Permanent lung damage with repeated exposures.

Healthy people also experience difficulty in breathing when exposed to ozone pollution. Because ozone pollution usually forms in hot weather, anyone who spends time outdoors in the summer may be affected.

As the ALA notes, “By choosing to ignore the recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), the President is failing to follow the nation’s landmark air pollution law, the Clean Air Act, and therefore failing to protect public health, particularly those most at risk including children, older people, and people who suffer from chronic lung diseases. For these people, breathing smog-polluted air can lead to coughing and wheezing, restricted airways, hospitalization and even death. Even healthy young adults and people who exercise or work outdoors can suffer from high levels of ozone pollution.”

All Americans, especially those already most at-risk from smog pollution, deserve the kind of protection ALA and EPA have called for. The President’s position on this issue is predicated by the false notion that tougher standards will adversely impact job creation. Remind the President that the creation of greener, cleaner jobs was at one time a top priority for his administration, and that his decision to punt on better smog standards is misguided and puts millions of Americans at needless risk.

And Now a Word from Our Libertarian Friends

~ Chris Cocca ~ Leave a comment

Just got this in the in-box.  Are they right?  Do lobbyists have too much power because the government has too much power?  And if so, which government?  The government of incumbent elected officials? The government of tenured bureaucrats?  And don’t get me wrong, people in both groups do wonderful things.  But who’s really hog-tying the People’s latent political power?  Probably everyone.

A word for our Libertarian friends, for your consideration.

I don’t like the trope that everything can be fixed by shrinking government, nor the promise that all will be well if we simply vote for Libertarians.