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.
Make no mistake … Stephanie Cutter is no low level lackey … she is very powerful within the Democratic Party and has been for years. She is a real, honest to God, politic operative who will remain in power (she’s only in her 40’s) long after Obama retires. There are campaigns and then there are Party(s) …
Jim 1, February 24, 2012 at 4:37 pm
“MESPO
That bill was wrong. A regular sonogram is perfectly acceptable to me. What is your challenge so that I may try and answer it?”
=====================
Add to that vaccines of all varieties, especially that for HPV….
Now that lawyers are practicing medicine, I can hardly wait to see what happens when doctors start practicing law.
But Jim, Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and what is God’s to God? Isn’t that a separation of church and state?
I think Americans do want a strongman. Republicans wanted that in Bush and Democrats want that in Obama. It’s an understanable desire given the dire circumstances we are in, yet this has nothing to do with our system of govt. In fact, this desire is helping to destroy our own govt.
Early in the thread Democratic supporters argued that this spokeswoman is a low level lackey who isn’t able to articulate obama’s position correctly. The truth is she articulates his position quite accurately. This is despite whether she is a low, medium or high level lackey. She is staying on message! Nothing is left to chance in this hyper managed campaign. So the real question becomes why Americans keep basically seeking a benevolent dictator to make things “right” again. Why do people whose anscestors threw off a king, now desire one?
Things are very bad now. The economy, the environomnet, social justice, civil liberties–all are at terrible risk. The govt. engages in constant warfare and has broken with the rule of law. These are terrifying times. Obama presents himself as the benevolent father who will take care of all these things for us. Of course, nothing is further from the truth. He is making all these things much worse, even worse than Bush did. But this is his marketing strategy and it works on many, many people.
No strong man or woman can make right the wrongs we face. That is a mistake in our collective thinking which has proved disasterous. This will take the will and skill of as many people as possible. Belief in a strongman savior will stand in the way of understanding and taking our own power to right these horrible wrongs.
Hi there Jim … what’s God got on His Mind today?
“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” (eniobob)
Except me and thee … the problem is, neither Party will give us stage time.
rafflaw
Bible! That speaks very clearly on what I said above.
Which part Jim? The bible part or the Ceasar part?
idealist707
Don’t worry, when you pass away your very next memory will be all of your opportunities here on earth and you have an eternity to reflect how wrong you were. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord!!
Anonymously Yours
Then Obama should never inject the Bible into a political debate.
rafflaw
That is your opinion!!
Raff.,
I wouldn’t say the entire bible is a book of fiction…..the karmic law is always apt…..
Jim,
The Bible is a book of fiction. No government should merge religious law and civil law. You know , the whole what is Ceasars thingee.
Mike Spindell
First, If I were president I would eliminate medicaid and cap unemployment insurance at 26 weeks. Second, I would lower the top income tax rate to 20% and capital gains tax to 5%. I would completely eliminate the death tax. I would pass a 2% sales tax that can only go and pay for the national debt. I would get a law passed that would REQUIRE a birth certificate to attend public schools and only citizens would be allowed in. I support e-verify and would pass a law that if an illegal immigrant shows up to the hospital, after care they will be deported. I would work to get a balanced budget and make other cuts to ensure it happens. With what I already said, you know I am serious. With my approach America will not follow the path of Greece. OBAMA has not courage and neither does our Republican candidates.
.Jim,
I wouldn’t vote for you for dogcatcher, much less President. As for life after death, boy will you either be surprised after death, or feel nothing.
Despite what your preacher tells you Jesus was a liberal.
MESPO,
Why would I accept the world view? The Bible says to come ye out of the world and be separate and that strait and narrow is the way to heaven. Never would I accept a world view.
Dredd,
Could be. Have a vague memory of somebody attacking the government for all its reservations as to conventions signed, not just the Geneva.
Which one of those covered torture. That may answer, and provide something to search on.
I’ll check my saved links meanwhile. Check you later.
Jim,
I can’t wait hoping that God soon creates a lottery where a billionaire or millionaire gets selected, once a month. The selected will be deprived of all his possessions, the proceeds will be distributed to poor also lottery selected, and the former rich person will be sent either heaven or a pillar of stone in the desert so long he/she/it may live. Those in heaven will be mightily disappointed in all the lack of accustomed fun.
idealist707 1, February 24, 2012 at 11:06 am
Without having read other comments, I shall pose a question to JT.
Did not the USA sign the Geneva convention on torture with the reservation that the CIA specifically would practice torture?
I have a fairly recent memory of that being one of many reservations we have imposed when signing conventions
.
And the question follows which President and which Senate?
=================================================
JT has not appointed me to answer for him.
The first Geneva Convention was 1864, the second 1906, the third in 1929, and the 4th in 1949.
The CIA was created by The National Security Act in 1947.
You be trippin’ dude? 😉
Jim:
“What is your challenge so that I may try and answer it?”
*************************
I’m not doing your work for you Jim. It’s on the thread. I cited it in my comment, and you’ve ignored it. I’ve got my answer about you as I suspect many on the blog have as well. Dream on!
MESPO
That bill was wrong. A regular sonogram is perfectly acceptable to me. What is your challenge so that I may try and answer it?