We have seen in the Republican primary how candidates have engaged in a type of race to the bottom in embracing torture and suggesting that they would launch attacks against Iran and other countries. In this debate, the law and the Constitution are often dismissed as weak considerations for a strong president. Not to be outdone in such macho posturing, the Obama campaign has mocked Mitt Romney for even suggesting that he would consult with lawyers before launching attacks or taking critical actions. Stephanie Cutter, President Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager, delivered the message on MSNBC that Obama was strong because he didn’t need no stinkin’ lawyers.
Cutter appeared on MSNBC to offer this analysis of Romney:
The most egregious falsehood would be the President’s position on Iran, whether it’s Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, attacking the President for not being tough enough on Iran. Ask any foreign policy expert out there, we have the toughest sanctions in place today than we’ve had in decades thanks to this President. . . . Now look at Mitt Romney. What he didn’t say on the stage tonight is that just four years ago, when asked the same question on Iran, he said he’d have to check with his lawyers. That does not make a Commander-in-Chief, somebody who has to check with his lawyers.
Of course, Obama has shown repeatedly that he has the “strength” to not only ignore lawyers, but ignore the law. On torture, he promised CIA officials that they would never be prosecuted despite his acknowledgment that waterboarding is torture — a war crime under controlling treaties. On Libya, he launched a war without achieving authorization from Congress. [For full disclosure, I represented the members challenging this war in federal court]. For areas ranging from privacy to detention, Obama has proven the type of strong leadership that Cutter describes. Her comments vividly illustrate that the White House has little concern for the objections by civil libertarians and will continue to model Obama on the image of George Bush — the strong leader who refuses to be weakened by lawyers.
Cutter’s comments should be condemned by the President but they will not be. It was not even challenged on MSNBC at the time or in later segments. After all, this election is only about “them” and not “us.” Moreover Cutter was reading from a script that has been followed since the very beginning of Obama’s term. The image of the strongman, so popular in places like Russia, has found a place in the United States. In this new paradigm, the law and the Constitution are synonymous with weakness. Even consulting with lawyers is an indication of a lack of character and strength.
By the way, Cutter is a lawyer (trained at Georgetown).
Glenn Greenwald has an excellent piece on the comments.
Today is the birthday of Marbury v Madison and some still say the birthday of “judicial activism”.
Why isn’t “presidential activism” given a special birthday, instead of that old catchall “president’s day?”
DonS
Simply pass a law that sets a limit of what can be spent on a campaign at the Federal level. In other words something like 50 million total in the general election for president. That would make it fair for both sides.
Jim:
I’m still waiting there, Jim. If you don’t want to accept the challenge you’ll be just another religious zealot in a long line of closed minded people blinded by their faith and self-fulfilling prophecies. You can believe anything you please for any silly reason you please, but when you try to impose that stupidity on me and mine you’re going to get push back from the rational majority (yes even the nominally Christian ones) as your conservative brothers in the Virginia legislature learned this week. It’s an important lesson to keep in mind. I wonder if you “prayed specifically” for that transvaginal ultrasound bill to pass. If you did, I suspect we’ll never know.
Jim,
The Obama administration has deported thousands more aliens than his predecessor and has enlarged the presence on the border. Check your facts the next time you are done praying.
Mike S, perhaps I did misconstrue your comment, by the juxtaposition of two disparate thoughts : )
I too see the imperative of breaking the corporate two party system. It’s not going to come from within the democratic party; there is no progressive wing to speak of. I should have recognized that earlier.
Fact of the matter is I don’t see where it will come from. Maybe organizing around single issues — but I think it’s only a matter of time before ordinary citizen political pressure becomes smothered by our sick system.
We’ve said “get the money out of politics” forever; and all the movement has been to increase the influence of money. As we’ve seen from ‘wall street”, there is no morality where large sums of money are involved. Without the system reforming itself from within it’s hard to imagine an external force that can overcome the ruthless greed we now have built in.
MESPO
All I can tell you is that when I pray specifically for something, it happens just as I prayed. I have numerous times where I was awakened with the feeling to pray for something that was not even on my mind before I went to sleep only to have the prayer answered. God is real and I know it just as much as I am sitting here at my computer. Others may doubt but I can’t doubt what I have experienced. This is why I will not compromise on my political views which are based soley upon what God wants.
mr ed:
“She prosecutes other attorneys for their licenses.”
******************
Is she a nag by any chance? 😀
Jim:
“I can’t wait till the SCOTUS reverses Affirmative action.”
*****************
And I can’t wait until Jim responds to my challenge on the Santorum thread!
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/19/my-crucifix-is-bigger-than-yours-santorum-charges-presidents-agenda-springs-from-aphony-theology/
Mike S
OBAMA is a JOKE! He speaks to Hispanics yesterday but when he had an overwhelming majority in the House and a flibuster proof 60 vote in the Senate for two years he did nothing about immigration. I would never vote for him.
Jim,
Why would you think I’d expect you to vote for Obama? You don’t follow “The Golden Rule” in your political leanings, think you have a direct conduit to God which is blasphemous and lack understanding of the Constitution. You will vote for someone just as misguided as yourself.
Mike S.
The 99% have to push the agenda. No
matter who is president.
I can’t wait till the SCOTUS reverses Affirmative action. With Kagan out it will be a 5 -3 decision to reverse it
I wish to assert we have passed the “cusp of corporate feudalism”.
By that I mean the passing of power from elected governments to corporate tyrannies. And that is not sloganizing the issue.
Simply put, the control of finances has passed out of the control of governments. It has been a gradual process. It was happening under Clinton. It has gone further now, viewing the demise of the Eurozone, etc.
Most industrialized countries are in hock, the US also. That’s my uninformed view.
Ann Coulter is an attorney. All the Watergate felons were attorneys. Megyn Kelly is an attorney. Stephanie Cutter is an attorney. Would you listen to any of them?
My sister’s an attorney. I listen to her. She prosecutes other attorneys for their licenses.
It would be really, really nice if Obama would listen to her, too. Based on who his advisers are, I wouldn’t listen to them, either.
anon nurse,
you mention critcising Obams,
I do it most weeks. The WH menu does not include civil rights as a policy issue. But I complain anyway under “other”. The campaign people are more heads up on that, as civil rights is there on theirs.
No answers of course. But maybe I get in the statistics, 2 opposes Mr President on civil rights policy. under “other”.
“by the time Obama is reelected (which will likely be the case, unless something dramatic happens), it will, in all likelihood, be about getting another Democrat elected in 2016… And so it will go… on and on and on…”
AN,
I agree with your viewpoint that if things stand as they are after 2012, then it will be the same old, same old. However, starting with OWS and looking at the Komen victory and that in Virginia, we don’t let it have to remain that way. I’m all in favor of a mass movement, or even a third party, but that needs time and organization. The burden to contribute to that movement is on all of us and I think the stakes are high enough that we mustn’t fail. However, I’ve been through the Left’s ineffectual posturing in the 60’s (and was part of it myself) and while we accomplished certain gains, our victories were short lived as we succumbed to the power of money, both personally and in politics.
“I’ve seen folks make the argument, wait until the second term, then it’s all about legacy (and, implicit, we’ll see a radical change).” -DonS
I, too, thought about a turnaround after the 2012 election, once upon a time, but by the time Obama is reelected (which will likely be the case, unless something dramatic happens), it will, in all likelihood, be about getting another Democrat elected in 2016… And so it will go… on and on and on…
(Wicked, wicked things going on in these United States right now… The difference from days gone by? All the money that’s been made available to various folks, not to mention the new technologies and high-tech gear, etc… But until “the comfortable are afflicted”, to borrow that phrase, little will change, I suppose…
This isn’t the article I wanted to post, but it will have to do for now:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/senate-panel-keeps-secret-patriot-act-under-wraps/
Anyway, if one isn’t doing anything wrong, there’s really little to worry about, right? )
One foot out the door here… Gotta run for now.. Back to this later. Good points, DonS.
(I’ll get back to your point later, eniobob…)
anon nurse:
After reading DonS post let me restate mine.
“It seems as if all of these “gentlemen” on the stage have this thing in common of don’t worry about what I’ve said before,just trust me now”
AN, thanks for the JT/LA Times link/reminder.
I’ve seen folks make the argument, wait until the second term, then it’s all about legacy (and, implicit, we’ll see a radical change). I don’t think so: the strong trajectories set in motion can’t be significantly altered without becoming the “two faced” president; a president doesn’t spend three years on a tear to the right in order to prepare to tack to the left — not even remotely logical; Obama’s already hitched his legacy to the compromise, post partisan vision. Unfortunatley, it doesn’t matter who the ‘real’ Obama is; his chance at greatness, demanded by the great needs of our era, has escaped his grasp because, IMO, he never even tried — I give him the credit of saying he understood the mandate he was given, but rejected it. Others would say he never pretended to be a transformational figure, except rhetorically.
And now we’re reduced to this pathetic show of hoping the repubs continue to self destruct; that the economy shows some recovery while the finanacial bandits continue to make off with the loot and praying that Netanyahu doesn’t require the US to start another war (although that could happen post election too).
anon nurse:
“” Can Paul really oppose such “fascism” while his campaign is bankrolled by one of the chief protagonists and beneficiaries of the very system Ron Paul claims to oppose?”
It seems as if all of these “gentlemen” on the Repuiblican stage have this thing in common of don’t worry about what I’ve said before,just trust me now.
This is a beautiful story about the love and greed of one man.