Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
In light of the all the hoopla about President Obama’s upcoming State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, I have been thinking of all of the ideas and issues that I would like the President to address in his talk with the country. Since I am a Bears fan and used to dreaming, here it goes.
The first issue that I would like to hear President Obama discuss on Tuesday is the Economy. I don’t mean just “jump starting” the economy. I want to hear about the plans to reach full employment. I am not suggesting that the unemployment rate should be zero, but if we are not shooting for that, how will we get the unemployment rate down to an “acceptable” number? I want the President to tell me that he will be starting government jobs programs to assist cities and states with their infrastructure. I am talking about WPA type programs to give every willing worker a job. Whether it is rebuilding and renovating our National Parks and National Monuments, or helping out in State parks and recreation areas; the result is the same. Having jobs that pay people to actually help our country and get paychecks to people who will spur the economy as a whole.
The next issue that I would like the President to talk about is one that will probably be very contentious. I want him to challenge the Congress, on national TV to reintroduce the Assault Weapons Ban to control some of our deadliest weapons. That would include restricting the size of the magazines or clips that could be used on semi-automatic weapons. I would also want to hear that the gun show loop-hole must be “fixed” and made part of the legislation. This will create a firestorm from the Right and from the Left, but if he really wants to help save lives, this is a good first step.
When I read in the papers and on this blog that the Republicans and some Democrats want to repeal and/or defund “Obama care”, my blood just boils. To that end, President Obama needs to outline every single benefit of the health care reform legislation that will die or not be initiated if the legislation is repealed or starved to death financially. When the public hears what the Insurance industry funded Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats want everyday Americans to lose or do without, Americans everywhere will “inform” the Republicans and the Democrats just what is important to them. Since I am dreaming here, I would also want the President to challenge any legislator who votes to repeal or defund the legislation to give up their government-funded health insurance. If you don’t want Americans to have insurance coverage, you shouldn’t take any coverage from the government. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Finally, the President should reaffirm his vow to end any and all torture by our military and intelligence authorities. The President could reignite his base by going one step further to say that he will be instructing Attorney General Holder to investigate any past instances of torture during the Bush Administration including the actors and the officials who authorized it. It will be a bombshell, but justice deserves this kind of bombshell. If he really has grown a set, he could also mention Pvt. Manning by name and vow to end his solitary confinement and treat him like any other person who has only been charged of a crime.
Now that I have gone out on a limb to give you several of the items on my State of the Union wish list, it is time for you to go out on that limb and tell us what you want the President to discuss on Tuesday evening. It will be interesting to see if the President actually discusses any of our items. This will give us something to talk about after the Bears beat the Packers today!
Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
Jill,
They are just not ready to admit their god is mortal.
They often do admit such things AFTER their god/man is out of office and the damage inflicted is in the past.
This way they don’t have to burst their little bubbles.
Jill,
On Gitmo we (President Obama and the anti-torture movement) got beat by the Republicans – or don’t you remember their making the closure of Gitmo politically untenable with their NIMBY arguments… You seem to have delusions that the president has god-like power and can take action in one area and not have it impact another – in my opinion, that is pretty naive. You also seem to think that a Democratic majority in Congress means that the Democrats have Congress in an iron grip – I hate to break it to you, but any blue majority will, of necessity, have more blue dogs than Anthony Weiner clones… It’s been pretty well established that high government officials (and their co-conspirators) are exempt from punishment in Republican administrations (Nixon, Reagan, North, Dick the war criminal, Libby, (pick a Bush administration lawyer), etc. So now you ask me to give up any potential progressive gains from a strong Obama administration in order to hold a Democratic president to a higher standard that his predecessors without giving any hint of how such a position would accomplish anything at all. Sorry, Jill, I’m not buying.
Since there were only 245 detainees left at Guantanamo in 2009, Obama could not possibly have released as many as Bush.
First rafflaw, let’s look at the idea that it’s all congress’ fault that Obama didn’t close gitmo. As I cannot do a better analysis than this poster from Common Dreams, I will simply quote from his excellent work: From Visiting Professor at Common Dreams on this subject: “● The most important fact about this entire incident is that, as the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, Barack Obama has full authority to demand that the Guantanamo prison be closed, and insist that his order be carried out….
* * *
FOR THOSE KEEPING SCORE: BUSH – 500; OBAMA – 38
● Democrat Barack Obama had control of both houses of Congress, and nothing would have stopped him from enacting his presidential order if he so desired. Instead, the reality is that Congress’s VERY RECENT action gives Obama a handy excuse to pretend that he still would like to do the right thing and close this American gulag—but now he can’t do it, no matter hard he tries. It is the perfect tool for a pretender like him. (For the record, Obama signed the Defense Authorization Bill on January 7, 2011—two weeks ago. He has had two years to close Guantanamo prison.)…
* * *
“Still, the Obama administration has managed to arrange the find new homes for 38 Guantanamo detainees in 16 countries, including Bermuda, Bulgaria, Palau and Portugal.”
● Okay, the “progressive” Obama administration has been able to place a grand total of 38 detainees in 16 countries. But further down in the article, (placed so that it is difficult to make a direct comparison), we read that the right wing Bush administration—in spite of the political and logistical difficulties of arranging re-locations—was able to transfer “more than 500 detainees, nearly all to their home countries.”
More than 500 detainees! Bush re-located 462 more detainees than did Obama, and accomplished all of this without signing any presidential order.
Guantanamo prisoners were innocent of any charges, having simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time when the sweeps occurred—or having been betrayed by acquaintances for the $5,000 bounty paid by the U.S. military for al Qaeda suspects…
WHO’S IN CHARGE HERE?
…Another fact…President Obama signed the very legislation that this anonymous senior Obama official is complaining so vociferously about:
“Under the Defense Department appropriations bill that Obama SIGNED INTO LAW two weeks ago, the administration not only can’t use Pentagon funds to bring detainees to the United States for trial, but must certify that countries meet a set of security conditions before the U.S. can send detainees to them.”
“In a signing statement, Obama objected to those restrictions, but he did not say he’d ignore them.”
● If Obama felt so strongly about the Guantanamo issue, he could have vetoed the measure. He did not. And regarding his “signing statement”, it is a certainty that Obama’s signature on this document will be just as meaningless as his signature on his prior presidential order to close Guantanamo—because perception is his goal, not action.
* * *
… the process was delineated at the beginning…of Obama’s term in office two years ago. As the Commanding Officer, all Obama has to do is order that the prison in Guantanamo be closed, and that order must be carried out. This logic is about as coherent as it gets.”
I will address you other issues later.
Jill,
A few small corrections in your last statement are necessary. First of all, increasing the military footprint in Afghanistan was a campaign promise by Obama so you or Code Pink should not have been confused by that. I would want our troops home from both locations asap as well, but I voted for Obama knowing he was going to increase the activity in AFghanistan and increase the use of drones. Gitmo is not closed due to actions by the Congress to prevent its closure. Senator Sanders has now applauded President Obama’s decision to not accept the deficit panel’s recommendation to alter Social Security benefits.
I agree wholeheartedly with you that the past torture needs to be fully prosecuted, no matter who is involved and any current torture needs to be stopped and fully prosecuted all the way to the top. I have to say I have not seen any good evidence that torture is currently being allowed, but I am willing to look at anything that you might have on that. The Good news is the stink over Pvt. Mannings detention situation may be improving. the Left has to stay on top of the administration on that issue as well.
I agree with Slart that working within the system is best if there is a hope of success. I still see some hope there, but the Spanish situation upset me along with the Torture twins still being allowed to cheerlead for their torture tactics with no prosecutions. Pres. Obama may have to answer for the lack of prosecution of the past torture and if it still being done, for any current torture on his watch.
Actually, the promises to not prosecute Bushies for torture began in 2008 but even if we begin from 2009 this does not fit the definition of “instant”. In this same “instant” time period Obama did find time to send emissaries to squelch prosecutions in Spain, instruct his DOJ on every occasion to bar a day in court for Bush’s torture victims and go in front of the CIA to reassure them that there would be no prosecutions. That took some time. That took some effort, efforts that were coordinated with Republicans.
As for social security, I think it would be worth noting that Sanders has said progressives are correct to worry Obama will cut SS.
“Sanders recently told Raw Story that progressives are right to fear that President Barack Obama may also consider reductions to Social Security.”
Here is an example of liberal groups standing up to Obama. “We wanted to give Obama good grades, but in all honesty we couldn’t,” says CODEPINK cofounder Medea Benjamin. “Since coming to office, he has escalated the war in Afghanistan, authorized more drone attacks in Pakistan that have killed more civilians, kept Guantanamo open, supported Israeli war crimes and raided the homes of peace activists. And in a time of budget cutting and economic hardship, he has actually increased military spending. Sorry, but that just doesn’t make the grade.”
What: Press Event
Where: In front of the White House
When: 12 noon, Tuesday, January 25th
The group will also deiiver a petition signed by over 150 prominent activists, authors, and academics with a statement that begins:
“We the undersigned share with nearly two-thirds of our fellow Americans the conviction that our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should be ended and that overall military spending should be dramatically reduced. This has been our position for years and will continue to be, and we take it seriously. We vow not to support President Barack Obama for renomination for another term in office, and to actively seek to impede his war policies unless and until he reverses them.”
Obama took office in 2009, and it is only the beginning of 2011.
Slart,
You need to answer both my questions: On torture, despite reams of evidence you deny that it’s happening. When evidence doesn’t matter in a discussion, there’s no way to proceed. I’m also curious why you call several years (from 2008 to 2011) “instant”. That isn’t a normal definition of instant and interestingly, the president is one phone call away from stopping torture as commander in chief. Yet, torture has increased under his watch at Gitmo and he has appointed known torturers to run his war in Afghanistan. That’s a very strange way to repudiate torture, (that and going around the world and at home preventing people from being prosecuted for it.)
Now, I didn’t see you address the idea of compromise with Obama about his claimed right to kill Americans on his say so, should he declare them terrorists. This will be without judicial or Congressional review? Is there a compromise there?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012501935.html Paul Ryan wants to dismantle Social Security.
Jill,
How does taking a position that working with the president compromises your integrity accomplish anything towards addressing your moral issues? On torture, the president has said that we do not torture – he should be held to that statement by widespread reporting on any torture that is still going on, but it is unrealistic to think that practices at our prisons changed instantly when the president said we don’t torture any more. President Obama is responsible for any torture he knew of and did nothing about, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that. As for assassination of Americans, I think the court decision highlights the problem with the SCOTUS right now (which I don’t see how to fix unless Justices Scalia and Thomas can be impeached…) I think that the administration’s position was deplorable (I’d like to know how the position came about and was articulated by the Justice Department, and if ‘burrowing’ by Bush administration appointees played a role). But you either have to work for change within the system or outside of the system and I haven’t given up on change within the system. I think that taking a position that denies the possibility of working with your opponent is the act of a petulant child – especially when the failure of Obama’s presidency will mean failure for our country. I don’t think that it’s worth giving up the good that could be accomplished in President Obama’s 2nd term with a strong Democratic Congress and accepting how the harm to the American people is increased by the power of the Republicans to get… nothing – you offer no way to achieve the moral purity you demand. As I’ve said before, the torture issue will never be addressed until the economy recovers, yet you suggest throwing the president under the bus – which would just make recovery slower and less likely (but I’m sure that the Republicans are itching to investigate torture and reduce executive power – good luck with that). When it comes right down to it, people don’t care about torture right now – they care about the economy and as long as that is the case, elections are going to be perceived in that context.
Regarding the Democrat’s power in the Senate, what do you think the effects of the 130% increase in filibusters between the 109th and 110th Congress were? How did that affect President Obama’s legislative agenda?
Blouise,
I am trying to erase my image!
rafflaw
1, January 24, 2011 at 11:12 pm
………
Blouise,
I am an old white liberal, but I don’t drink much anymore. A little wine every once in awhile.
====================================
Yeah, but I have an image to uphold …
Buddha,
I saw some of that, I just didn’t respond.
Blouise,
I am an old white liberal, but I don’t drink much anymore. A little wine every once in awhile.
Laurence O’Donnell who is taking over the Olberman Spot went ballistic over the fact that the Tea Party Caucus has just had a secret meeting with Justice Scalia. And Thomas wife just disclosed she worked for the Heritage foundation for 12 years. How much you want to bet that the liberal judges will be the only ones at the State of the Union. Alito will be in Hawaii and will address the Hawaii State Bar this Wednesday.
raff,
You ought to see the crap she’s been making up about the Constitution and health care on the Marine hospital thread.
It’s truly ridiculous with a large dose of paranoid to boot.
Elaine M.
1, January 24, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Swarthmore mom,
I’m one old white voter who isn’t trending to the right. I’ve actually become more liberal/progressive as I’ve gotten older. That’s one reason why I’ve been disappointed in Obama.
=======================================================
I was a young liberal white voter and now I’m an old liberal white voter … could be the alcohol …
anon nurse,
that was a great excerpt from Russ Feingold. It is a shame that he is not still in the Senate.
Tootie,
Once again, in all due respect, you can’t just make us things. The fact that the Obama administration has deported more criminal illegal aliens is the key component of what you are trying to argue. You argue that we are allowing Muslims in illegally. If they are criminals, more are being sent back than in previous administrations. For a Christian, you are not very well informed on Christian history. Ever hear of the Crusades? Who backed the Crusades? The Vatican. Last time I checked, Catholics are Christians. Didn’t Priests and minisers who are Christians have sex with children?
99% of Muslims are just the same as you and me. Being different is not bad, it is just different. To have true religous freedom means all religions must be free, not just Christians.
Lotta,
“Blouise: “Alito could always send his weeping wife as a stand-in … or sit-in … just give her lots of tissues.”
—
Holy S###! Alito is married to John Boehner? !!! I had no idea.”
🙂
=====================================================
Oh lord … now she’s really going to wail.
Between you and me … the only reason I’d tune in to the speech is to watch Boehner … I want to see how they do his make-up — I want to see if he’s sober — I want to laugh my beehind off at all the expressions that will be flitting across his face as he tries to look all important and serious. This guy is going to be great material for the next two years.
Lottakatz,
I don’t watch the Oscars–and I see politicians making fools of themselves every day.
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=695
Renewing the Patriot Act While America Sleeps
By John W. Whitehead
1/24/2011
“Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists. But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.”
–Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), voicing his concerns over Congress’ passage of the USA Patriot Act (Oct. 25, 2001)
Russ Feingold, a staunch defender of the rule of law and the only senator to vote against the ominous USA Patriot Act, recently lost his bid for re-election to the U.S. Senate to a Tea Party-backed Republican. From the start, Feingold warned that the massive 342-page piece of legislation would open the door to graver dangers than terrorism–namely, America becoming a police state. He was right.
The Patriot Act drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights, violating at least six of the ten original amendments–the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments–and possibly the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well. The Patriot Act also redefined terrorism so broadly that many non-terrorist political activities such as protest marches, demonstrations and civil disobedience were considered potential terrorist acts, thereby rendering anyone desiring to engage in protected First Amendment expressive activities as suspects of the surveillance state.
The Patriot Act justified broader domestic surveillance, the logic being that if government agents knew more about each American, they could distinguish the terrorists from law-abiding citizens–no doubt an earnest impulse shared by small-town police and federal agents alike. According to Washington Post reporter Robert O’Harrow, Jr., this was a fantasy that had “been brewing in the law enforcement world for a long time.” And 9/11 provided the government with the perfect excuse for conducting far-reaching surveillance and collecting mountains of information on even the most law-abiding citizen.
Suddenly, for the first time in American history, federal agents and police officers were authorized to conduct black bag “sneak-and-peak” searches of homes and offices and confiscate your personal property without first notifying you of their intent or their presence. The law also granted the FBI the right to come to your place of employment, demand your personal records and question your supervisors and fellow employees, all without notifying you; allowed the government access to your medical records, school records and practically every personal record about you; and allowed the government to secretly demand to see records of books or magazines you’ve checked out in any public library and Internet sites you’ve visited (at least 545 libraries received such demands in the first year following passage of the Patriot Act).
In the name of fighting terrorism, government officials were permitted to monitor religious and political institutions with no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing; prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they told anyone that the government had subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation; monitor conversations between attorneys and clients; search and seize Americans’ papers and effects without showing probable cause; and jail Americans indefinitely without a trial, among other things. The federal government also made liberal use of its new powers, especially through the use (and abuse) of the nefarious national security letters, which allow the FBI to demand personal customer records from Internet Service Providers, financial institutions and credit companies at the mere say-so of the government agent in charge of a local FBI office and without prior court approval.
end of excerpt