Obama Doctrine and Bipartisan Consensus

[Millard]

For all you political junkies who think actual principles are more important than "calling yourself" a Republican or Democrat, a conservative or a liberal, this is an interesting read.

Really, instead of making a past-time out of one-sided attacks on either Republicans or Democrats, recognize that both parties are relatively similar with little loyalty to the conservative and/or liberal principles they supposedly espouse.

Barack Obama - Salon.com

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout

Yesterday's speech and the odd, extremely bipartisan reaction to it underscored one of the real dangers of the Obama presidency: taking what had been ideas previously discredited as Republican or right-wing dogma and transforming them into bipartisan consensus. It's not just Republicans but Democrats that are now vested in -- and eager to justify -- the virtues of war, claims of Grave Danger posed by Islamic radicals and the need to use massive military force to combat them, indefinite detention, military commissions, extreme secrecy, full-scale immunity for government lawbreaking, and so many other doctrines once purportedly despised by Democrats but now defended by them because their leader has embraced them.

That's exactly the process that led former Bush DOJ official Jack Goldsmith to giddily explain that Obama has actually done more to legitimize Bush/Cheney "counter-terrorism" policies than Bush and Cheney themselves -- because he made them bipartisan -- and Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin made the same point to The New York Times' Charlie Savage back in July:

In any case, Jack Balkin, a Yale Law School professor, said Mr. Obama’s ratification of the basic outlines of the surveillance and detention policies he inherited would reverberate for generations. By bestowing bipartisan acceptance on them, Mr. Balkin said, Mr. Obama is consolidating them as entrenched features of government.

"What we are watching," Mr. Balkin said, "is a liberal, centrist, Democratic version of the construction of these same governing practices."
​

Most of the neocons celebrating Obama's speech yesterday made exactly that point in one way or another: if even this Democratic President, beloved by liberals, announces to the world that we have the unilateral right to wage war and that doing so creates Peace and crushes Evil, and does so at a Nobel Peace Prize ceremony of all places, doesn't that end the argument for good?

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2009/12/11/obama

 

[dennis]

I believe the main difference bewtween the two parties is this: Democrats want big government.
Republicans want smaller government.I dont trust any government to be honest with you.I just try to choose the lesser of two evils.

 

[Millard]

I believe the main difference bewtween the two parties is this: Democrats want big government.
Republicans want smaller government.I dont trust any government to be honest with you.I just try to choose the lesser of two evils.

In theory, yes. But actual practice, no.

While you may support the principle of smaller government, the Republican party has not always been loyal to that principle. A prime example is the massive expansion of government spending under Bush.

Republicans who criticize big government spending of Obama should not have been so silent during the Bush administration simply because Bush was a Republican. They should have stood on principle.

Similarly, all the Democrats that complained about the war during Bush shouldn't be so quiet during Obama's continuation of the war under the "Obama Doctrine". They likewise should stick to their principles.

Instead, principles have become increasingly irrelevant. The name of the party in power, whether Democrat or Republican, seems to be the only thing people focus on.

 

[dennis]

In theory, yes. But actual practice, no.

While you may support the principle of smaller government, the Republican party has not always been loyal to that principle. A prime example is the massive expansion of government spending under Bush.

Republicans who criticize big government spending of Obama should not have been so silent during the Bush administration simply because Bush was a Republican. They should have stood on principle.

Similarly, all the Democrats that complained about the war during Bush shouldn't be so quiet during Obama's continuation of the war under the "Obama Doctrine". They likewise should stick to their principles.

Instead, principles have become increasingly irrelevant. The name of the party in power, whether Democrat or Republican, seems to be the only thing people focus on.

Millard, I do support smaller government and do not need them to take care of me.I want to pay less tax and would support a fair tax in America.About Bush and spending..and what I said about the lesser of two evils..look at deficit while Bush was in office and look at it now..then add in gov run health care,cap and trade and whatever other back room deals are being crammed down our throats..all the while we are losing more and more power.I am feeling the effects of taxation without representation as we speak.Millard, A good majority of us who work are drug tested at our place of business..we have to pass screen in order to keep our job and get paid.Would you support a bill that said welfare recipients also had to pass the same drug test in order to recieve their checks?

 

[moto1]

People had a problem with Bush because he backed up his policies.He stated I will go to your country dethrone your dictator and kill our enemies. This does not sit well with democrats who would like to talk about it. Bush had his flaws but you have to admire his spine , he was absolutely loved by our military , unlike Obama , they despise his weak ass apologizing loser.
Sorry no offense to Obama lovers, cannot stand this guy.
moto1 out

 

[dennis]

People had a problem with Bush because he backed up his policies.He stated I will go to your country dethrone your dictator and kill our enemies. This does not sit well with democrats who would like to talk about it. Bush had his flaws but you have to admire his spine , he was absolutely loved by our military , unlike Obama , they despise his weak ass apologizing loser.
Sorry no offense to Obama lovers, cannot stand this guy.
moto1 out

Dont apologise if that is the way you feel....