A question to the Anti-Bush, Obama true believer types.

[Geo Patric]

What date are you referring to? Setting a date when we'll start a drawdown doesn't really matter if the pace and end date are completely undetermined.

July, 2011. the very date cited in your citation which quotes exactly the speech i cited. This is one of the reasons Mc Chrystal made a point of shooting off his fool mouth.

That's the exact opposite of what he said in March.

no it isn't. read your own citation:

Under the plan, the coastline from New Jersey northward would remain closed to all oil and gas activity. So would the Pacific Coast, from Mexico to the Canadian border.

The environmentally sensitive Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska would be protected and no drilling would be allowed under the plan, officials said. But large tracts in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska — nearly 130 million acres — would be eligible for exploration and drilling after extensive studies.

The proposal is intended to reduce dependence on oil imports, generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases and help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation.

Limited drilling with the understanding that though it will provide product it will NOT reduce prices. We have already seen ample evidence of that as prices rise while profits soar. No drilling in environmentally sensitive areas. Still too much drilling for those on the left, far too much restriction for those on the right.

This isn't true at all. To this day, we are capturing and transferring detainees to the internment facility at Bagram AFB. Obama has successfully argued that detainees held at Bagram do not have habeas rights or the ability to challenge their detentions in US courts.

The difference being that Bagram AFB is in a war zone. It is still wrong. But it is hardly unusual and more specifically, it is not unconstitutional. The base is no secret though. No secret bases in Poland either. The Army Field manual as a guide to interrogation. He allows for some degree of 'deviation' and he is wrong to do so, but it is still not the same. If not as good as it should be it is far better than it was under Bush.

no, it is not the Great Leap that many of us wanted and even allowed ourselves to expect, but it is change, if mostly a change of outlook. He is getting perhaps the fiercest opposition of any president since lincoln and he has still made progress. And the opposition from the opposition part or even from the manipulated public is likely neglible when compared to the opposition he is likely receiving behind closed doors from the military... an opposition he appears to have managed pretty adroitly.

but... perhaps we need to look a little further...

geo.

 

[Ikari]

There is very little difference between Bush and Obama. Anyone who thinks so is just fooling themselves. Nearly the same damned thing, doing the same damned things. This is why people need to realize that we should never think of this in terms of Republican vs. Democrat since if it's just the two, they can easily just play off that. It must be the Government vs. the People. And if neither party will do what's necessary to elicit proper change, then vote for someone else. I told all the Obama fanatics during the campaign that Obama is a Chicago politician, nothing more. He'll be no different that Bush. No one wanted to believe it. Same ****, different day.

 

[Geo Patric]

looking a little further....

The paradox is that while the Right considers Obama a closet socialist, some liberals view him as virtually a corporate sellout

The dissonance between the Left's and Right's portrayals captures a defining duality in Obama. Ideologically, he is drawn toward an aggressive role for Washington. But, temperamentally, he is a deal-maker who likes to forge agreements with broad coalitions that include business interests. The tension between those instincts shapes Obama's record of activism tempered by pragmatism.

- Ronald Brownstein, National Review

BOTH views are derived largely from his need to counter the crushing failure of the previous administration. Had he inherited the serene national scene that Bush did his successes would likely be more to the liking of both parties. Perhaps the biggest difference between the men is that Obama recognizes that he is President of all of us, not just the ones that agree with him.

To compare job growth in 2010 with Bush's record ignores the nearly 4 million jobs lost. . . during the freefall that began in Bush's final months. That's like ignoring a meteor strike.

The real point of looking again at Bush's record is to underscore how few jobs the economy was creating even before the 2008 collapse. Bush's tally of 1 million jobs was much less than the economy had generated during any other two-term stretch since World War II: Dwight Eisenhower produced nearly 4 million, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (together) almost 16 million, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (together) 11 million, Ronald Reagan 16 million, and Bill Clinton more than 22 million.

ibid

and Bush's gains were offest at an exponential rate by his losses. We gained 230,000+ jobs in April, nearly a quarter of Bush's total for his last year and STILL unemployment rose by 0.4 percent. Most importantly, before the ball falls, it has to stop rising and before it can stop it has to slow down. The rate of job loss has been steadily slowing for most of the last year.

the economic situation is improving. slowly. far more slowly than many would like. it is a big hole. the republican mantra has become 'less bad is not good'. True enough, but less bad is better. Unemployment is the biggest issue to most of us and that is what is lagging. Production is up, new housing is up, new mortgages, loans, credit... all are up. The market is way up, profits are up. Only unemployment remains down and who is to be held to account for that?

Thanks to the economic stimulus program including innovative monetary policy, the economy could hit the bottom sometime around mid-year. . . Even if the economy continues to show signs of improvement, businesses will cut jobs and trim fats to stay lean and mean in the immediate future. Employers want to make sure a sustained economic recovery is here before hiring. That time won’t come until sometime in 2010.

–Sung Won Sohn, Smith School of Business and Economics as reported in the WSJ

keep in mind that as long as profit can be squeezed out without hiring, employers are NOT going to hire.

geo.

 

[RightinNYC]

July, 2011. the very date cited in your citation which quotes exactly the speech i cited. This is one of the reasons Mc Chrystal made a point of shooting off his fool mouth.

Did you read my post? "Setting a date when we'll start a drawdown doesn't really matter if the pace and end date are completely undetermined."

Again, the fact that Obama said we will start removing troops in July 2011 has absolutely no bearing on when we will "get the hell out of Afghanistan," which is what you referred to.

That's the exact opposite of what he said in March.

no it isn't. read your own citation:

I don't understand how you're saying this isn't the case.

You: "He said in the campaign that he wanted to limit it and not start new offshore drilling."
Obama: "We're starting new offshore drilling in areas that have previously been restricted."

How are those not contradictory?

The difference being that Bagram AFB is in a war zone. It is still wrong. But it is hardly unusual and more specifically, it is not unconstitutional. The base is no secret though. No secret bases in Poland either. The Army Field manual as a guide to interrogation. He allows for some degree of 'deviation' and he is wrong to do so, but it is still not the same. If not as good as it should be it is far better than it was under Bush.

Again, you're changing your story. You said "no more imprisoning without habeus corpus, though this last brings up one HUGE disappointment. No, no NEW folks imprisoned without due process." In reality, we have continued imprisonment without habeas corpus and there are plenty more new folks imprisoned "without due process."

The only difference is that whereas Bush picked them up all over the world and flew them to Gitmo, Obama learned from Bush's tactical mistake and now flies them to Bagram instead, so as to be outside the reach of the SC (so far).

Unless your only objection to Bush Adminstration polices on habeas and indefinite detention was the location of Guantanamo, there is no way to say that Obama's policies on those two issues are any better than Bush's.

 

[Geo Patric]

the fact that Obama said we will start removing troops in July 2011 has absolutely no bearing on when we will "get the hell out of Afghanistan,"

yes, well, i understand it will occur at 3:14 am, July 23, 2011..... Petreaus' aide will be the fella to turn out the lights.

You: "He said in the campaign that he wanted to limit it and not start new offshore drilling."
Obama: "We're starting new offshore drilling in areas that have previously been restricted."

How are those not contradictory?

a convenient link: Merriam Webster re: Contradiction

a pertinent example: "I am going to limit drilling" - "I am NOT going to limit drilling".

that he is restricting drilling in some places and reducing the rate of new drilling overall is placing a limit on drilling. He wanted to limit it more. He could not without pissing off everyone and his grandma so he settled for what he could get. The BP spill offered new possibilities and he tried to exploit them. So far he has, again, been stymied. BUT... the difference is that he has tried (and to some degree) succeeded in reducing new drilling and BUSH tried and succeeded in increasing the amount of new drilling in extremely sensitive places. there IS a difference.

Again, you're changing your story. . . .

i changed no story this or any other time. Habeas Corpus in american law applies, has always applied, to execution of that law in american states, territories and holdings, including military installations, such as Guantanamo Bay Military Base but NOT including war zones, such as Bagram AFB and it never has. In my opinion, it should, but it does not and m. Obama does NOT have the arbitrary right to say that it does.

We are no longer denying access to the international Red Cross, though as Bush tried desperately to do. We are no longer 'buying prisoners' from any Afghani or Pakastani with a grudge which was common in the Bush Admin according to Colonel Wilkerson, aide to Gen Colin Powell, Bush's SOS.

Most of THOSE prisoners have been released. Many by Bush as way of 'cleansing' his shameful legacy and because he knew they would not meet the need for trial as the SCOTUS decision obliged. many more have been released by Obama simply because it was clear that they posed no threat to the U.S. and their detention was simply wrong.

and that is the point. No one being scooped off the streets of the Unites States is being held there. That guy in New York that planted a bomb in Times Square? Is in an American Federal Detention center. He has been charged in an American Court. He has legal representation. THAT is the difference.

Obama learned from Bush's tactical mistake and now flies them to Bagram instead, so as to be outside the reach of the SC (so far).

yes. I expect he would have had a fight with his military commanders had he not done so. a coup is not really the best way to settle the issue, i think.

Unless your only objection to Bush Administration polices on habeas and indefinite detention was the location of Guantanamo, there is no way to say that Obama's policies on those two issues are any better than Bush's.

well, yeah, if we are willing to ignore the Constitution Of The United States.

are you under the impression that Bush's opponents had a problem with holding combatants? No, I do not think we have done enough in ensuring the rights of prisoners, but it has been measurably improved. Bush initiated a gulag of secret prisons where no one had any rights. THAT is over with.

geo.

 

[RightinNYC]

yes, well, i understand it will occur at 3:14 am, July 23, 2011..... Petreaus' aide will be the fella to turn out the lights.

...

Okay, I'll try one last time.

The withdrawal is starting in 2011.
There is no set pace for the withdrawal.
There is no end date for the withdrawal.
It could last 6 months or it could last 6 years.

Do you see why I might object to the notion that he's "set a date for getting the hell out of Afghanistan"?

a convenient link: Merriam Webster re: Contradiction

a pertinent example: "I am going to limit drilling" - "I am NOT going to limit drilling".

that he is restricting drilling in some places and reducing the rate of new drilling overall is placing a limit on drilling. He wanted to limit it more. He could not without pissing off everyone and his grandma so he settled for what he could get. The BP spill offered new possibilities and he tried to exploit them. So far he has, again, been stymied. BUT... the difference is that he has tried (and to some degree) succeeded in reducing new drilling and BUSH tried and succeeded in increasing the amount of new drilling in extremely sensitive places. there IS a difference.

I just don't know what else to say to you here. I think that the plain meaning of those words is absolutely indisputable, and I cannot comprehend how you are saying otherwise.

i changed no story this or any other time. Habeas Corpus in american law applies, has always applied, to execution of that law in american states, territories and holdings, including military installations, such as Guantanamo Bay Military Base but NOT including war zones, such as Bagram AFB and it never has.

It's far more complicated than that - there's a six-part test that the court uses to determine whether habeas applies in each particular situation. Habeas didn't apply at Gitmo until 2008. Habeas may very well apply at Bagram once the court hears the appeal of Al-Maqaleh.

Moreover, the court in Boumediene also noted that its evaluation of the factors would take into consideration whether the location chosen for detention was selected so as to avoid habeas. Given that we're taking individuals who are not in war zones and bringing them to Bagram for precisely that purpose, the court may well find it to be inappropriate.

In my opinion, it should, but it does not and m. Obama does NOT have the arbitrary right to say that it does.

If Obama wanted to give habeas to the detainees at Bagram, he could absolutely do so, as could Congress.

and that is the point. No one being scooped off the streets of the Unites States is being held there. That guy in New York that planted a bomb in Times Square? Is in an American Federal Detention center. He has been charged in an American Court. He has legal representation. THAT is the difference.

You realize that this happened constantly under the Bush Administration as well, right?

well, yeah, if we are willing to ignore the Constitution Of The United States.

are you under the impression that Bush's opponents had a problem with holding combatants? No, I do not think we have done enough in ensuring the rights of prisoners, but it has been measurably improved. Bush initiated a gulag of secret prisons where no one had any rights. THAT is over with.

I don't know how else to explain this:

Bush claimed that prisoners held in Gitmo and Bagram had no right to habeas and could be held indefinitely. The Supreme Court said that Gitmo was close enough to the US that the prisoners there had habeas, but ignored the question of whether that extended to Bagram. Now, Obama is making the exact same claims that Bush did re: Bagram. He is saying that detainees at Bagram have no habeas rights and can be held indefinitely.

Unless your only objection to the aforementioned Bush policies is about the fact that they were located in Gitmo instead of Bagram, it's absolutely ludicrous to claim that Obama "put an end" to the Bush policy of holding prisoners without rights.

To put it another way - pretend that Bush had taken everyone at Gitmo and shipped them off to Bagram, where they would not have habeas rights. Would you object to that?

 

[Geo Patric]

...
Okay, I'll try one last time.

you needn't really. i understand you perfectly. it was sarcasm.

you need him to tell you the day and date that it will be complete. He cannot and you know he cannot. So... you can insist that he has no intention of doing what he said he was gonna do, what the military is apparently preparing for. ok... you win.

Do you see why I might object to the notion that he's "set a date for getting the hell out of Afghanistan"?

of course i can. whaddya think? I am a dope? no, i understand quite well that no matter what he says or does he is a liar and a socialist.

Habeas didn't apply at Gitmo until 2008.

only because it hadn't been employed to illegally hold people who would otherwise be entitled to its protections, so that doing so had never been challenged. I have never had to decide whether hitting my children was justified nor had any laws regarding the legality of doing so had ever before applied to me... because I have none.

Moreover, the court in Boumediene also noted that its evaluation of the factors would take into consideration whether the location chosen for detention was selected so as to avoid habeas.

and? sure, intent may be considered in the determination as to the criminality of an act, as long as the act can be said to fall under the jusrisdiction of law. as long as the site was subject to habeas otherwise they are constrained by the constitutional protection. again, POW detention camps in war zones are not subject to such restrictions and never have been.

Given that we're taking individuals who are not in war zones and bringing them to Bagram for precisely that purpose, the court may well find it to be inappropriate.

i am unaware that anyone is being arrested in the United States and Transferred to Afghanistan for torture. If i am mistaken, please feel free to correct me. if so, then it is indeed inappropriate.

If Obama wanted to give habeas to the detainees at Bagram, he could absolutely do so, as could Congress.

no, neither the president not the congress can extend constitutional protections beyond that defined in the constitution. They could provide the same amenities but they could also give them Cheetos (i like the jalapeno ones! yum!) if it suited their purposes, but they are not obliged to. They could allow them to carry guns but that would not constitute protections under the Second Amendment. A fine distinction, perhaps, but fine distinctions can mean a great deal.

You realize that this happened constantly under the Bush Administration as well, right?

man, this is getting tiresome. sure, Bush legal types did it the right way some times, but not at other times. Obama Legal team does it the legal way everytime. that is the difference.

I don't know how else to explain this:

well, i appreciate your generous efforts.

Bush claimed that prisoners held in Gitmo and Bagram had no right to habeas and could be held indefinitely.

he was wrong about Guantanamo. he was wrong about noncombatants too. I believe he KNEW it, too. I believe Woo knew it, Cheney damn sure knew it.

Obama is making the exact same claims that Bush did re: Bagram.

and he is right, legally. as i say, i think he is wrong morally and i think he does too, but i cannot actually speak for him. as long as it is legal he is not likely to succeed in forcing the military and the republicans to accept that we extend justice to nonamericans.

Unless your only objection to the aforementioned Bush policies

my primary objection was that they were arbitrary and illegal. they violated the essential principles of justice and rule of law that first set this nation apart. secondly, they shamed us before the world.

you think i am apologizing for this administration. I am not. I am disappointed that we have not done more and that we have not done better. But i am glad that we are doing better than we had been and I am near to being satisfied that he is doing as much as he can under the constraints of the opposition, the military and his own infuriating propensity to get people to agree before he acts.

you conservatives drive me nuts! Bush was a wonderful man and a great president and obama does all the same things the same way but Obama is ruining the country.

please... make up yer freakin mind.

geo.

 

[Captain America]

What's changed?



1. Obama awards Blackwater Contract.

CIA Awards Blackwater Another Contract in Afghanistan

2. Obama awards Haliburton no bid contract.

KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks (Update1) - BusinessWeek

3. Bush's Patreus now in charge of Afghanistan


Petraeus Gives Troubled Afghan Mission a Trusted Name - BusinessWeek


4. Continued the off shore drilling as a means for energy.

Byron York: Who told Obama offshore drilling is ‘absolutely safe'? | TheUnion.com

5. Used a "surge" in Afghanistan like Bush did in Iraq.

Obama launches Afghanistan surge | The Australian



Now, I think Obama made the right choices in these decisions, What I am asking however is some of our more ardent supporters of Obama whom no doubt spent the entire bush admin here at DP bashing bush over policies such as these what the difference is now regarding the policies once so despised not so long ago.

At the risk of being obnoxiously redundant, I say again, "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

At the risk of being obnoxiously redundant, I say again, "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

exactly. Which is why I was curious how some of our more ardent of supporters of the current administration squares this up, sadly though, they have all avoided this thread.. :thumbs:

 

[RightinNYC]

you needn't really. i understand you perfectly. it was sarcasm.

you need him to tell you the day and date that it will be complete. He cannot and you know he cannot. So... you can insist that he has no intention of doing what he said he was gonna do, what the military is apparently preparing for. ok... you win.

Petraeus vows long-term commitment in Afghan war

Petraeus vows long-term commitment in Afghan war

...

Obama has said troops will begin to leave in July 2011, but that the pace and size of the withdrawal will depend upon conditions.

Petraeus reminded the Senate Armed Services Committee that the president has said the plan to bring some forces home next summer isn't a rush for the exits. He said the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan is "enduring," and that it will be years before the Afghan security forces can fully take over.

But yea, July 2011 certainly sounds like a date for "getting the hell out" of Afghanistan!

and? sure, intent may be considered in the determination as to the criminality of an act, as long as the act can be said to fall under the jusrisdiction of law. as long as the site was subject to habeas otherwise they are constrained by the constitutional protection. again, POW detention camps in war zones are not subject to such restrictions and never have been.

1) It's not about criminality
2) It had never been applied to places like Gitmo before either
3) Bagram isn't a POW camp

i am unaware that anyone is being arrested in the United States and Transferred to Afghanistan for torture. If i am mistaken, please feel free to correct me. if so, then it is indeed inappropriate.

Did I say that? We're taking people from other countries where we are not at war and bringing them to Bagram.

no, neither the president not the congress can extend constitutional protections beyond that defined in the constitution.

I see you're unfamiliar with statutory habeas.

and he is right, legally. as i say, i think he is wrong morally and i think he does too, but i cannot actually speak for him. as long as it is legal he is not likely to succeed in forcing the military and the republicans to accept that we extend justice to nonamericans.

my primary objection was that they were arbitrary and illegal. they violated the essential principles of justice and rule of law that first set this nation apart. secondly, they shamed us before the world.

you think i am apologizing for this administration. I am not.

No, that's exactly what you're doing. You're doing everything you can to create a distinction between Gitmo and Bagram, when the practical consequences of our actions in each place are absolutely identical.

Once again: Pretend that Bush had taken everyone at Gitmo and shipped them off to Bagram, where they would not have habeas rights. Would you have objected to that?

you conservatives drive me nuts! Bush was a wonderful man and a great president and obama does all the same things the same way but Obama is ruining the country.

please... make up yer freakin mind.

Where have I said that Obama was wrong to do what he's doing? I think Obama's done a good job when it comes to conducting the wars and I largely agree with his detainee policy. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy in condemning Bush while praising Obama for doing the same.

 

[Geo Patric]

the lines of argument have crossed so many times that nothing is clear here.

Obama has modified Bush's detention policies towards constitutionality. That is the difference. Bagram and Guantanamo are not the same in terms of their legal status. Bagram is in a war zone and the rules that govern detention centers or POW camps or prisons or whatever you choose to call them apply differently.

Bush did in fact take people from wihtin the legal borders of the U.S. and imprison them with the express purpose of subjecting them to practices which were illegal outside of a war zone claiming that Guantanamo was one such place. That practice has ended.

extraordinary renditions of non-americans continue. they should not, in my opinion.

Bush allowed practices against prisoners which were clearly illegal. Obama does not. I still do not like many of the practices which he allows, but I am glad he has scaled to being at least legal.

Bush employed evesdropping that was clearly illegal. Obama does not. He still allows for practices that just barely skirt the law and I would that he did not. but... at least he is not breaking the law.

Bush coerced private communications in his illegal activities. Obama does not.

the list is extensive. He has not broken entirely with the practices of the prior admin as many of us had wished. he has imnproved them to the point where they can be addressed within the law, and that is better. and better is not the same.

geo.

 

[jambalaya]

I think the "Obama true believer" types are pretty much entirely an invention of the conservative mind.

So I guess a lot of his votes were fraudulent? All those wide eyed people at those Obama rallies just didn't exist? Chris Matthews really didn't drool all over himself at the mention of Obama's name? You can run but you can't hide.

 

[Deuce]

So I guess a lot of his votes were fraudulent? All those wide eyed people at those Obama rallies just didn't exist? Chris Matthews really didn't drool all over himself at the mention of Obama's name? You can run but you can't hide.

What I said:
----------------


Your head:
---------------

Conservatives act like liberals would never question Obama, that we support everything he does no matter what it is because he's Obama. That's absurd.

 

[peepnklown]

What about the anti-Bush, anti-Obama, anti-presidential puppet?

 

[ScottD]

So I guess a lot of his votes were fraudulent? All those wide eyed people at those Obama rallies just didn't exist? Chris Matthews really didn't drool all over himself at the mention of Obama's name? You can run but you can't hide.

Just because a majority of Americans looked at the choices they had and came to the conclusion that Obama was the better of the two, does not make them blind followers. Most of his supporters came to that conclusion because he had the most sound arguments behind him.

 

[jambalaya]

Just because a majority of Americans looked at the choices they had and came to the conclusion that Obama was the better of the two, does not make them blind followers. Most of his supporters came to that conclusion because he had the most sound arguments behind him.

His margin for victory had a lot to do with the true believer hope and change types. His principle message was hope and change. Many people who voted for him are very disappointed that he little more than a typical politician. We can't say ALL of his followers were blind. We can say that the central message grabbed a lot of people and has turned out to be a load of crap.

 

[Geo Patric]

His margin for victory had a lot to do with the true believer hope and change types.

good lord, when are you people gonna let go of that christ complex bull**** and deal with what is actually happening?

most of the people I know that voted for him voted for him because he is liberally minded, exceptionally intelligent, exceptionally capable and respecting of people and the law. all in all, a far better qualification than Bush's good ol' boy pretense.

he is no where near as liberal as many of us hoped, but at least he does not have his head firmly placed up the ass of the the religious right, corporate flacks and rightwing paleoconservatives.

any one the KKK and the communist party disparage is probably doing a pretty good job.

geo.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

good lord, when are you people gonna let go of that christ complex bull**** and deal with what is actually happening?

most of the people I know that voted for him voted for him because he is liberally minded, exceptionally intelligent, exceptionally capable and respecting of people and the law. all in all, a far better qualification than Bush's good ol' boy pretense.

he is no where near as liberal as many of us hoped, but at least he does not have his head firmly placed up the ass of the the religious right, corporate flacks and rightwing paleoconservatives.

any one the KKK and the communist party disparage is probably doing a pretty good job.

geo.

"exceptionally intelligent"?


"exceptionally capable"?


I think this is arguable....



Bush good old boy = Obama chi-town political pool.

 

[Magill]

An Obama true believer?? What does that mean?

The places where Obama has disappointed me are the areas where he has continued with bad Bush policies and kept Bush appointees (mainly judges). How I wish Obama was the leftist that so many accuse him of being.

 

[Geo Patric]

I think this is arguable....

fine. so argue it.

Bush good old boy = Obama chi-town political pool.

"pool"? you mean "pol"? redundant, but... what the hell. we can begin the 'capable' argument there.

OK... i buy into the 'chi-town political machine' argument. But anyone who succeeds in any of many big cities, especially eastern big cities, belongs to the that region's political machine. It can certainly be argued that those environments are rife with corrupt individuals (mayor Daly... Blagovitch, democrats, are both fine examples), but that doesn't mean that ALL are. Most probably are not. the Boston machine is notorious and JFK earned his spurs there. He turned out the be a pretty decent man. Cuomo and the NY environment? He too, though a republican seems a pretty good guy. It does certainly develop political muscle. I would hope that m. Obama will have done so and will soon begin to flex 'em a little. So far, he has shown himself to be disinclined to do so, tryijng to get everyone to 'play nice'.

Hell, I am as liberal as they come and even I voted for a Republican... once.... though he was running as an independent. I think George I was a good man and a decent president, for the most part, though, sure, i disagreed with many of his policies. Clinton? Hell, on a personal level, a swine. Politically, a conservative in liberal's clothing. But, he did a pretty good job.

Ideologues suck. Obama is NOT an ideologue. I do not like Bush (to put it pretty mildly) because of what he DID in the white house. He trashed my nation. history will record it that way, i think.

But, that of course, it the crux of our differences.

geo.