You are currently browsing the daily archive for April 30, 2010.
h/t my reader cj:
In a sign that elections are coming, Obama is doning the “postpartisan” cloak again, using the Reagan lexicon about the excesses of the 60s and 70s.
Obama Times offers this unsurprising headline
Obama Says Liberal Courts May Have Overreached
WASHINGTON — In a seeming rejection of liberal orthodoxy, President Obama has spoken disparagingly about liberal victories before the Supreme Court in the 1960s and 1970s — suggesting that justices made the “error” of overstepping their bounds and trampling on the role of elected officials.
Here’s the Reaganesque quote
“And in the ’60s and ’70s, the feeling was — is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.”
So, as NY Times reveals – here’s what he’s ceding to conservatives
Mr. Obama’s comments, which came as he prepares to make a Supreme Court nomination, amounted to the most sympathetic statement by a sitting Democratic president about the conservative view that the Warren and Burger courts — which expanded criminal defendant rights, required busing to desegregate schools and declared a right to abortion — were dominated by “liberal judicial activists” whose rulings were dubious.
Which makes perfect sense from the Jane Crow president – I have to admire the consistency. Even if Obama Times is trying hard to make believe it didn’t actually happened
Still, Mr. Obama, who formerly taught constitutional law, did not cite any specific decisions. He has long been a supporter of abortion rights, and repeatedly defended the court’s interventionist stance during the civil rights movement because minorities were cut out of the political process, even while saying that such a role would be inappropriate today.
Hey, NY Times – name one instance of “support of abortion rights” from Obama.
I didn’t think so, but nice try.
Still, good on you quoting those who make clear what the difference between the two brands of activism is
his effort to establish a moral equivalency between the Warren court and the Roberts court.”
And the president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, Nan Aron, argued that the Warren and Burger courts had helped make progress on economic and social fronts for people who lacked political power, while the Roberts court is “tilted in favor of those who already have power and influence.”
.Of course, we knew all along what Obama thinks of civil rights and progressive principles. What is surprising is that adopting this “post-partisan” attitude, he thinks people would have any reason to vote for the “D”s in November.
In B0botland they are confused, considering previous awakenings
Most are trying to blame the reporters for misreporting this – didn’t happen so stop saying that
Given how much the reporters mischaracterized his remarks here, I don’t accept their indirect quote.
“….even while saying that such a role would be inappropriate today.”
Sorry, Savage, you’ll have to show me the direct quote and context – I don’t believe for a minute that your interpretation is accurate.
19. The NYT strikes again.
We all know they will whore for the $ client.
or see the multidimensional chess again
16. actually, he didn’t say that
he used purposely vague rhetoric.
Here, he really is playing chess.
.But some do get it
1. That isn’t the hope and change I thought I was going to get.
91. With one comment he legitimized all conservative criticism of Roe v Wade and other landmarks
Does this guy have a CLUE when it comes to politics? The best interpretation is that he doesn’t. I don’t even want to consider the idea that he knows exactly what he’s doing.
.Well, he did that before the comment, with the Jane Crow EO , demanding that contraceptives be taken out of the stimulus, when he said abortion is not a matter of women’s freedom but a moral issue etc. But good on you to notice now.
Apparently Glen Greenwald who reported this yesterday also had people scolding him for misrepresenting Obama. In his original post he links the actual interview where the quotes come from. Here’s the whole thing:
Well, I mean, here’s what I will say. It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically. And in the ’60s and’70s, the feeling was, is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach.
What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.
and just because I found this great list of logical fallacies, here’s the one applicable to what Obama is doing:
if one does not understand a debate, it must be “fair” to split the difference, and agree on a compromise between the opinions. (But one side is very possibly wrong, and in any case one could simply suspend judgment.) Journalists often invoke this fallacy in the name of “balanced” coverage.
“Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth lies probably somewhere in between.”
Television reporters like balanced coverage so much that they may give half of their report to a view held by a small minority of the people in question.
Of course, it’s the first one which is funnier, as the operatives already try to use this premature news to attack the other side
7. Any comment from the queen of drill baby drill
or is she still hiding in Arizona.
Umm, for a comment – there would have to be some actual news.
The funnier still is the apologists effort to whitewash Obama retroactively
16. Obama didn’t believe in drilling in the first place
And he said so. His view was that allowing drilling is a fair compromise to get the rest of what he wants.
to which assorted good answers are given,
31. So he doesn’t stand up for what he believes in? That’s just great.
this being the best
55. What does ‘believing in’ something have to do wtih anything?
It’s like politics has become a religion.
It’s the results of policies that matter. Maybe he’ll bail out on this drilling proposal because of this disaster, maybe not, time will tell. It’s sort of twisted how the timing worked out on this, isn’t it?
and one very healthy reaction
49. WTF??? Because until this spill, it was not conceivable?
WTF kind of thinking is that?
Raise of hands, who didn’t know that something like this spill was possible?
Indeed. Considering what Gibbs said to reporters on Wednesday
“I doubt this is the first accident that has happened, and I doubt it will be the last,” Gibbs said.
The snarky thread on the spill pretty much takes care of all the compliments of the apologists
Obama was against Atlantic coast oil drilling than rethunk it and is now rethinking it again!
I wonder what President Obama will think in August and later this November about Atlantic coast offshore oil drilling?
Obama was for single payer health care and than rethunk it.
Later Obama was for a public option in health care and than rethunk it.
President Obama rethinks stuff a lot!
and in there someone does notices, at the end of the day that there is not yet any official statement on this
4. It’s be nice if he gave US a clue
Like, say, telling his Press Secretary what his official position is.
I’ll close with a lucid post from the hopeful thread
Like he has a choice right now
The timing couldn’t have been worse from his perspective (or that of the industries whose interests he supports).
I highly doubt there will be any significant change in our overall energy strategy as a result of this. In a year people (who don’t live in affected areas) will forget this, or the oil industry will announce new safety measures, and we’ll be right back here where a Democratic president supports offshore drilling.
It’s not like this disaster wasn’t a possibility as of a few weeks ago when Obama announced his drilling plan – this ‘accident’ was the inevitable result of mediocre regulations and the absence of any political force willing to challenge the status quo. It’s not like the first and only oil spill ever. Is our nation’s collective memory capable of going back further than a month at a time?
I guess the good news here is for the coal industry – we’ll be so worried about the oil spill we’ll forget all about the recent mining accidents.
Does anyone else feel like they are just having the same nightmare over and over again?
You have to wonder: where were the wits of these people two years ago?
Meanwhile, the MSNBC leaked rethink on the leak finally gets official.
.I find it fascinating that such an important policy decision is made public by political henchman Axelrod, rather than say EPA, or Energy secretary or such. Geez, I wonder why?
And sure enough, nothing is changed
President Barack Obama on Friday, in a largely symbolic gesture, promised that no new offshore oil drilling leases will be issued unless rigs have new safeguards to prevent a repeat of the explosion that unleashed the massive spill threatening the Gulf Coast. The assurance had no immediate impact because no new leases are scheduled for the coming months.
Or, as they say in B0botland
9. Is this sorta like he was against the drilling before he was for it, and
now he’s leaning toward against again but only if they’re not really careful?
I will have two covers of the day – one for each of the major topics today.
For putting it into a huge headline, NY Post gets the Goldman Sachs cover
.and for putting the AP headline on page one, Orlando Sentinel gets the oil spill cover
.Washington Times has a hopeful headline on elections: all the cash in the world doesn’t affect polls anymore – maybe Obama accomplished something after all
if you overlook the fact that the amounts are now ten times higher than before his POTUS billion
.The Wall Street Journal startles by how it hides the Goldman Sachs news under the oil spill – literally
.In New York City, the papers offer us a variety of trivia