Will Colorado Legalize Pot?
Are Colorado voters going to pass Amendment 64 in November, which would legalize recreational (not just medicinal) marijuana use for all adults in the state? The bigger question, should this come to pass, is what is the federal government going to do about it?
Recent polls show a marked lead for the ballot initiative. The most recent put the pro-legalization position at 51 percent, to only 40 percent for the antis. That's an impressive gap, although polling on such a dicey question is notoriously hard to do accurately. California had a vote on a similar issue two years ago, and the polling looked good, but it lost by almost 8 points on election day -- which none of the polls had predicted. So counting chickens beforehand isn't always wise.
I wrote, back during the convention season, that Barack Obama could do himself a lot of good in Colorado (which could become a crucial state for him to win) by at least announcing that the federal government won't interfere in Colorado's legal experiment, should the voters approve recreational marijuana use. No crackdown would be on the horizon, in other words.
So far, Obama has not chosen to do so, which is a shame. He may, in fact, lose support in Colorado to third-party candidate Gary Johnson, who is unashamedly pro-legalization. Johnson is polling (when he's included in the poll sampling) up to six percent in one poll, which doesn't sound like much but may indeed be enough to swing the other 94 percent towards a Romney win.
If Barack Obama wins a second term, and if Amendment 64 passes in Colorado, then Obama will have to instruct his Justice Department what to do about the situation. What he chooses to say, and what policy he chooses to set could matter a great deal. If Eric Holder leaves the administration and is replaced by a new Attorney General, who gets picked might wind up being either part of the problem or part of the solution.
So far, there is little actual room for optimism. Obama has cracked down even more severely than George W. Bush on medical marijuana -- which is legal in one-third of the United States, now. Democrats have shied away from appearing "soft on drugs" or "soft on crime" ever since the 1970s, and Obama continues this tradition.
But in a second term, Obama would not have to worry about getting re-elected ever again. Which is why I suggested a few weeks ago that he "evolve" his thinking on the issue. Even Tom Tancredo has now announced his support for legalization, providing political cover on the right.
Obama has so far been content to address the issue as little as possible, and usually in an awfully dismissive fashion. Should he win a second term, though, he may be confronted by a decision on what to do about Colorado (and, possibly, Washington and Oregon as well) legalizing marijuana. Obama can get behind the "will of the voters" or he can continue to fight what is almost certain to be a losing battle. There are a lot of folks in Colorado who will legally enjoy marijuana, and there simply aren't enough federal police or federal jail space to contain them. Whether Obama even tries this tactic or not may set the stage for the next decade or so of marijuana policy in this country.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
don't necessarily quote me on this, but i would bet a few quatloos that romney would be better on legalization than obama. mitt might talk tough, but unlike obama, i sincerely doubt he would care enough about the issue to try to stop a state from legalizing.
Stoned Roman Soldier 1 - So, do you care if it falls?
Stoned Roman Soldier 2 - What?
Stoned Roman Soldier 1 - The Roman Empire.
Stoned Roman Soldier 2 - F*** it!
~history of the world: part 1
don't necessarily quote me on this, but i would bet a few quatloos that romney would be better on legalization than obama. mitt might talk tough, but unlike obama, i sincerely doubt he would care enough about the issue to try to stop a state from legalizing.
This would also be in keeping with the GOP's theme of State Rights uber alles...
Michale.....
CW,
He may, in fact, lose support in Colorado to third-party candidate Gary Johnson, who is unashamedly pro-legalization.
Isn't Johnson, running as a libertarian, likely to take votes from Romney rather than Obama? This is pretty much what every single poll in every State shows (some they draw equally, but that's about as close as it gets) - it seems not bringing Ron Paul on board in some way was a huge mistake for Romney (maybe this can be Plan F in October??)...
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it isn't the Presidents place to simply disregard the law. He has no such authority. Unless he believes the law's unconstitutional Obama has no business giving Colorado a pass for their experiment.
Nor should Colorado think that their initiative, if passed, would trump federal law. They know it won't. I don't condone the President ignoring his oath to faithfully execute the law and I don't condone state officials violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution.
The abuse of ballot initiatives to seek voter approval of clearly unconstitutional actions is a great argument against democracy, and shows just why the Founding Fathers were against democracy.
In disclosure, I'm a Colorado voter, so I have a direct interest in it.
I support it, but am cautiously pessimistic. Popular Gov. Hickenlooper is against it; never mind what he may or may not say on any given day. The Governor's business success was in making and selling beer, and some grumble about that, but I don't think that's the issue. The Democratic party in the state is against it, and the Republicans don't seem to want to spend any political capital on it one way or another.
Colorado is the most diverse state in the intermountain West, culturally and politically.
The largest private landowner in the country (John Malone, with hundreds of thousand of acres more Ted Turner's holding) lives there, while the state has one of the largest proportions of publically owned land in the country.
Boulder is one of those towns, like Berkeley or Madison, where "The People's Republic of ..." is pre-pended to the name in normal conversation. On the western slope, there are compounds of survivalists, polygamists, and cults, along with Native American reservations.
Over half the state to the east is politically and socially indistinguishable from Nebraska, Kansas, or Oklahoma, while much of the year Aspen and Vail are indistinguishable from Beverly Hills or the Hamptons.
And, of course, there's Colorado Springs.
In that melting pot, there's plenty of voters who support it, or at least see no reason to to just finally get it out in the open. As someone said to me last week, whenever you can get hipsters and libertarians on the same side of an issue, there's a lot of potential energy.
Down to the wire on these state-level prohibition repeals, though, the establishment always attacks with discredited by serious sounding arguments of health costs, social costs, crime, and enforcement jurisdictional nightmares. And of course: "THINK OF THE KIDS!!" These are all covered, except the issue of jurisdiction.
President Obama could simply say something to the effect that, on this issue, Federal agencies would be instructed to waive to the state constitution (this is an Amendment) in enforcement matters within the scope of the Amendment, and he would support changes in Federal anti-drug laws that would permit that under law. Not only would that put this way over the top, but open the dialogue to do something at the Federal level.
But he won't. Absent a clear Federal position, I'm pretty sure it's going to lose.
Correction: "or at least see no reason to to just finally get it out in the open."
should read:
or at least see no reason ^not^ to just finally get it out in the open.
Regardless of any stand Obama may make before the election, I am rooting for Amendment 64.
The Prohibition of Marijuana is utterly silly and dangerously counter productive. It flies in the face of pharmacology and risk assessment. Hell, alcohol is simply much more dangerous than pot. We can live with it being out in the open, we thrive in fact.
Faced with the choice between interacting with a stoner and a drunk, I'll take the stoner every time. Neither drives all that well, but the stoner drives better and gets in far fewer fights.
Munchies are a boon to the Convenience Store industry.
It's not like pot is actually suppressed all that much. Pot is already the biggest cash crop in not a small number of counties in not a small number of states. Tax it, regulate sale and purity and watch it boost the economy.
Good luck Colorado, and please, please, please, don't forget to vote. Write a reminder on your hand with a Sharpie!
This is off-topic, but I'm going to be out, and wanted to say it, because it honestly made me sad.
I watched the YouTube of the Ohio rally where MR introduces Paul Ryan, the chanting "RYAN, RYAN" starts, and MR stops them, reminding them they want to be chanting "Romney Ryan, Romney Ryan."
That's not what made me sad. It was that in the background was a huge banner: "America's Comeback Team." No, No, No! Campaign, the chant is "Dead Heat, Dead Heat."
^ Lol @ the Dead Heat comment!
Sam at Princeton Election Consortium has a good post on the great 'liberal poll conspiracy' we've been seeing lately: http://election.princeton.edu/2012/09/26/vast-liberal-conspiracies/
For those that don't want to click (cough Liz):
"The Popular Vote Meta-Margin just hit 5.0%, its highest value of the campaign. I will only briefly address the wishful thinking of Romney supporters, despite its occasional forays into Hitler-in-the-bunker hysteria. Some fantasies involve the assertion that party weighting is off. Others suggest that undecided voters (currently 5.0 +/- 1.7 %, median +/- estimated SEM, n=6) will all go in one direction. These ideas are wrong. I advise Jay Cost and Unskewed-Man to drop the silliness.
Party self-identification is more fluid than is commonly realized. Not only does voter enthusiasm change on either side, but some people seem to change their self-report. In any event, this hypothesis would require a simultaneous, coordinated effort by all the pollsters (except for brave Scott Rasmussen) to stop doing what they did so well in 2004 and 2008 (see left sidebar)."
UnSkewedPolls dot com: the Baghdad Bob of quantitative analysis.
"Live by the polls, die by the polls"
-Old Political Proverb I Just Made Up
:D
Michale.....
nSkewedPolls dot com: the Baghdad Bob of quantitative analysis.
Yet, the ONLY poll that actually have supporting facts in real life.. :D
Don't get me wrong. It's still shit, as all polls are shit...
THAT one is just a little less shitty because it DOES have supporting facts... :D
Michale....
I also decided that the polls were skewed, so I made my own 'unskewed' polls to take the skew out:
Obama: +1 gazillions
Romney: -1 trazillions
The fact I based them on was that Romney is an idiot and an awful candidate. So my poll is now one of your fact-based ones Michale ;)
The fact I based them on was that Romney is an idiot and an awful candidate. So my poll is now one of your fact-based ones Michale ;)
Only you, michty...
Only YOU could base a poll on an opinion and call it fact based.. :D
Michale.....
Michale you might like this site ;)
http://literallyunbelievable.org/post/31655656446/now-i-have-proof
Or http://literallyunbelievable.org/post/31459831765/the-american-people-may-be-gullible-at-times-but
Last one I promise! http://literallyunbelievable.org/post/31268710426/of-course-you-liberals-would-deny-it
That's what's so funny about you, michty..
You actually BELIEVE that crap like that is the SOLE province of the Right..
And yet...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-26/politico-s-paul-ryan-satire-the-joke-s-on-them.html
THAT actually happened...
:D
So, who's the more gullible??? Right or Left???
:D
Michale.....
I'm almost crying at this one: http://literallyunbelievable.org/post/29122175314/our-tax-dollars
Rush Limbaugh
"There's Gallup out there. Gallup doesn't show any of this, and Gallup's got Obama disapproval rising"
He reaaaally should've waited before Gallup made today's daily update before saying this. I guess that tomorrow Gallup will be back in the camp of liberal media bias lol.
I suspect Rasmussen will be send to Ohio/Florida tomorrow to show a closer/+Romney poll and might even adjust their national poll to +1 Romney in an attempt to stop his financial backers from deserting him...
I suspect Rasmussen will be send to Ohio/Florida tomorrow to show a closer/+Romney poll and might even adjust their national poll to +1 Romney in an attempt to stop his financial backers from deserting him...
Have you ever noticed how you have no problem thinking that poll takers will manipulate the polls to favor the GOP, but yet you cannot CONCEIVE that the polls would be manipulated to favor the DEMs...
Must be something in the kool-aid... :D
Michale.....
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it isn't the Presidents place to simply disregard the law. He has no such authority.
The question isn't whether the President has authority to disregard the law. The question is what discretion the law leaves to the President. My impression is that by default everyone in the executive branch, from presidents to local parking-enforcement officers, has discretion not to act. Rule of law means that the government has to leave you alone unless there's a statute on the books authorizing some action against you.
To make it mandatory for some part of the government to do something, you pass a law saying that another part of the government is authorized to do something about it if they don't. It may simply be that a bureaucrat's boss can fire them if they don't do their job, or it may be something that takes full-blown court proceedings against a department, or anywhere in between. But my understanding is that in the absence of such a provision, anyone in government can decline to take action on anything.
Have you ever noticed how you have no problem thinking that poll takers will manipulate the polls to favor the GOP, but yet you cannot CONCEIVE that the polls would be manipulated to favor the DEMs...
Must be something in the kool-aid
This is why I always refer to the RCP Average - it cuts through the 'noise' from either side to give a more realistic picture (that has been extremely accurate in previous elections).
I bring up Rasmussen more to just laugh at their feeble efforts. I think it's funny that they and they alone (not even Fox or other Republican pollsters like Civitas) are carrying the Republican burden of convincing their big money backers that this election is winnable and the polls aren't that bad...
I bring up Rasmussen more to just laugh at their feeble efforts. I think it's funny that they and they alone (not even Fox or other Republican pollsters like Civitas) are carrying the Republican burden of convincing their big money backers that this election is winnable and the polls aren't that bad...
Like I said..
You are completely convinced that polls will skew to favor the GOP..
But you can't possibly fathom that polls will skew to favor the Dems..
Have another drink of the koolaid.. I am sure you are parched.. :D
Michale.....
Michale
You are completely convinced that polls will skew to favor the GOP..
But you can't possibly fathom that polls will skew to favor the Dems..
You have an amazing inability to be able to read what I say especially where I'm actually criticising or talking about both sides. It's like I do this and it's written in white ink to your eyes and you completely ignore it time and time again...
Here try again, this is what I said - I've added some bold to help you out:
"This is why I always refer to the RCP Average - it cuts through the 'noise' from either side to give a more realistic picture (that has been extremely accurate in previous elections)."
This is different to your view on polls which is: 'Obama=evil usurper, if poll doesn't agree it is wrong and ignoring this 'fact''. lol
Allow me to bold for you so that YOU can comprehend..
I bring up Rasmussen more to just laugh at their feeble efforts. I think it's funny that they and they alone (not even Fox or other Republican pollsters like Civitas) are carrying the Republican burden of convincing their big money backers that this election is winnable and the polls aren't that bad...
So, basically, you are saying that Rasmussen is skewing their polls to "carry the Republican burden of convincing......"
So, if you can believe that Rasmussen are skewing their polls to carry the Republican burden, why can't you believe that OTHER polls would be skewing THEIR results to "carry the DEMOCRAT burden"???
It's not that your biased.. It's that your IGNORANT of your bias and you try to pretend you HAVE no bias...
Me?? I freely admit my biases.. While I have no love for Romney, I actively DISLIKE Obama. I would vote for the wart on my big toe or the pimple on my ass before I would vote for Obama..
The difference between you and me and is that MY bias is personal...
Your bias is political based on the fact that you are enslaved by political Party dogma...
Michale.....
Michale
So, if you can believe that Rasmussen are skewing their polls to carry the Republican burden, why can't you believe that OTHER polls would be skewing THEIR results to "carry the DEMOCRAT burden"?
I mean I don't know how else to put it. It's like you can't read English.
Yes other polls with skew their results to Democrats. Again I'll repeat: This is why I always refer to the RCP Average - it cuts through the 'noise' from either side. Do you know what an average is or how it works?? Lol amazing lack of comprehension.
Your bias is political based on the fact that you are enslaved by political Party dogma?
I've said it before a hundred times, it's amazing that you think this given that I don't belong to a political party in America, don't live in America, can't vote in America etc etc. All of this is completely lost on you lolol. Heck I've even written 2 articles to this very site showing that I favour Obama only because of his policies, which I believe to be vastly superior in terms of the economic and social future of the world.
You on the other hand don't care about policy and have a complete and utter bigoted hatred of Obama. And you accuse ME of being enslaved by dogma. Irrrrrrony!
"President Obama could simply say something to the effect that, on this issue,Federal agencies would be instructed to waive to the state constitution (this is an Amendment) in enforcement matters within the scope of the Amendment, and he would support changes in Federal anti-drug laws that would permit that under law..."
Except the Constitution specifically says the Federal Constitution supersedes state law, including state constitutions. So again, you are advocating Obama ignore the Constitution and the law. The President has no such authority. And anyone who'd do that shouldn't be President.
You on the other hand don't care about policy and have a complete and utter bigoted hatred of Obama. And you accuse ME of being enslaved by dogma. Irrrrrrony!
You assume that my dislike of Obama is because of bigotry..
Well, in a way I guess you are correct..
I am usually bigoted against people who lie to me for self-gain....
My dislike of Obama is PERSONAL... It always has been.. Likely always will be...
Michale......
Yes other polls with skew their results to Democrats.
OK
So.. We're agreed.. Polls will skew results towards Democrats to pursue their agenda..
Other polls will skew their results towards Republicans to pursue THEIR agenda..
Ergo, the best course of action is simply to disregard ALL polls..
Glad we could find common ground...
Michale......
The Governor's business success was in making and selling beer
i think i have a new favorite politician!
The Governor's business success was in making and selling beer
I heard 'beer', then what??? :D
Michale.....
RE: LewDan [29]
I'm not talking about the President repudiating the Supremacy clause. After all, it's unambiguous, binding, and like any good Constitutional language, is one sentence long. And the President does know a few things about the Constitution.
Look back at what I wrote: "Federal agencies would be instructed to waive to the state constitution in enforcement matters within the scope of the Amendment."
I meant this to be in the context of, e.g., the Ogden Memo, which clarified the Justice Department's position on what it deemed to be the prudent allocation of its scarce resources inside the enforcement umbrella over Federal law, in regard to medical marijuana.
While then-Asst. AG David Ogden wrote in 2009, AG Holder affirmed it was still policy in force last December, replying to a direct question by Rep. Polis (CO), (i.e, if it were still current and enforced), with the direct answer: "Yes."
Whether federal actions this year still reflect that is not relevant here.
The Amendment, as presented for vote, doesn't read with the simplicity and power of, e.g., the Supremacy clause; it reads like statue. That's out of both political and legal necessity in this case.
From a political standpoint, the exactitude recollects the Amendment defeated in the last cycle largely because the vagueness of its constitutional language was pounced upon as having the potential to open up all manner of societal ills.
From a legal standpoint, federal Justice Department officials - or the President himself - could, in this proposal, see exactly the scope of the State's intention, and could view that through a lens of effective and prudent resource allocation.
I hope I've made my point clearly enough to return it back to you for comment.
Note: I'm gun-shy now about links; any of the factual matter is easily and generically referenced simply by search.
Corrections: I hate not having "edit" capability...
...it reads like "statute", not "statue."
Any others: read them like I meant them, not like I wrote them.
I mean I don't know how else to put it.
You could just give up.
Except the Constitution specifically says the Federal Constitution supersedes state law, including state constitutions. So again, you are advocating Obama ignore the Constitution and the law.
Federal law trumps state law, where they conflict and the federal government is within its authority. But it does not follow that this particular federal law leaves no discretion as to its enforcement. Does the law in question grant the president the authority to take action, or does it provide a mechanism whereby he can be compelled to take action? If the latter, what is that mechanism?
LD,
I honestly can't see any difference between Obama utilizing "discretion" in the enforcement of Federal Drug Laws like he used "discretion" in the enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you support Obama in his use of discretion in the immigration instance..
Don't get me wrong, I think this type of "discretion" is being used as a political tool and that royally sucks...
And I am CERTAIN that ya'all would agree with me if Bush or a GOP President used this kind of "discretion" to garner votes...
But I am sincerely curious as to why you would think (if you DO, in fact, think that) Obama could have discretion in one area of enforcement, but not in the other area of enforcement.
Michale.....
So.. We're agreed.. Polls will skew results towards Democrats to pursue their agenda..
Other polls will skew their results towards Republicans to pursue THEIR agenda..
Ergo, the best course of action is simply to disregard ALL polls.
Lol nope. You are assuming that ALL polls fit into these 2 categories. And ignoring the prior accuracy of the RCP poll average. But you can continue to ignore them all you like, I will continue to point out that the times you break this pledge is only when the polls support your own view...
dsws
You could just give up.
Yes I should take this advice much more often!
You are assuming that ALL polls fit into these 2 categories.
A logical assumption that has yet to be refuted..
And ignoring the prior accuracy of the RCP poll average.
Like yer ignoring the prior accuracy of Rasmussen?? :D Works both ways... :D
But you can continue to ignore them all you like,
Danke
I will continue to point out that the times you break this pledge is only when the polls support your own view...
I have to admit that you are partially correct in this. In mentally reviewing the last five years here on CW.COM, I can recall many a time where I got carried away and referred to polls..
However, those instances are few and far between. Anyone here can tell you that my opinions on polls has been 99.5% consistent, regardless of what the polls actually said..
More often then not, I throw the polls out there just to show everyone that polls aren't everything. :D
Yes I should take this advice much more often!
CW told ya right from the get-go that NO ONE ever gets the last word in with me. :D
We've known each other for over 5 years and, if ANYONE is an authority on my online crusades, it would be CW... :D
Michale.....
Regarding polls, let me put it this way..
What would have been ya'alls reaction if, at the height of all the "BUSH LIED" crap and all the Abu Ghraib stuff, all this was going on and Bush's poll numbers stayed completely consistent. Never dipping at all, despite all the negative goings on...
Wouldn't ya'all think that something was off with the polls?? Of course ya'all would. Don't even try to deny it..
And yet, with all the bonehead things that Obama has said and done, knowing from DAY ONE that Libya was a terrorist attack, but still floating that BS load of crap for over a week...
All of this crap coming down and Obama's poll numbers never dip...
I realize it's hard, but just TRY to be objective when it comes to Obama...
If you can't, then just imagine if it was a GOP president and all this was happening..
Ya'all would be screaming to the high heavens about rig'ed polls...
Michale.....
I really think what we're seeing here is MR in his post Dukakis-in-the-tank period (with the 47). Dukakis did not have a generally likeable personae; GHW Bush did. The Tank was the icon that freed people to like Bush.
Same is true of MR vs the President. MR gave people the excuse they needed to like Obama again. In truth, it was probably just a matter of time until MR did that, just as it was with Dukakis. And again with John Kerry.
Since Reagan, Americans will not elect a stiff. The pizza guy is right: he'd probably be beating the President right now.
LeaningBlue,
I take your point but allocating zero resources is not prioritizing or allocating finite resources, its unconstitutionally refusing to enforce the law. And deferring to a state instead of pursuing the will of Congress, as expressed in lawfully executed legislation, is a repudiation of the Supremacy Clause, no matter how you try to spin it. The President cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution such that the Supremacy Clause doesn't apply to Colorado. The President has no such authority. Its a clear violation of the Constitution and his oath of office.
Michale,
I supported Obama on Dreamer's because he did not refuse to enforce the law. He did not give Dreamers an exemption from the law. Pursuing adult and criminal offenders, at this time, instead of Dreamers, since we don't have enough cops, jails, money, or time, to actually pursue every illegal at once is exercising proper discretion to allocate finite resources. And it is well within the authority of the President to do so.
LB,
I really hope you're wrong..
While I am sure I can survive the humiliation (I've had worse :D) I don't think this country could survive 4 more years of Democrat "leadership"..
We would end up the Greece of the Western Hemisphere...
Michale.....
"But my understanding is that in the absence of such a provision, anyone in government can decline to take action on anything."
dsws,
The President is required to faithfully execute the laws of the United States of America. It isn't optional. Granted, it isn't always done. But, when it isn't, its always unconstitutional. That said though, if a President genuinely believes executing a law is impractical or dangerous then as the chief executive and a co-equal branch of government he should be expected to ignore the law. Not because he has explicit Constitutional authority but because his primary job is to ensure the functioning of the government and he is a co-equal branch specifically so he can "check and balance" Congress at need.
The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. Its authors tried to anticipate the thorniest issues and provide a framework for handling the rest. It isn't at all rare for things to be done unconstitutionally in extremis. But I don't consider pot in Colorado to be a national security issue.—Yet...
Michale
The point you are missing is that the average American has already forgotten about the attack in Libya. In fact they probably care more about a Presidential candidate stating that he didn't give a crap about half the country because they are all a bunch of lazy bums than this attack.
This IS reflected in reality: since 47gate Romney has plummeted in the polls. Not just dropped - PLUMMETED. It is so damaging that Obama has an ad out today which has no narration, no comments, nothing - just replaying the 47% comments for all to hear.
Of course you are blind to this because you live in right-wing/Michale world where the Romney comments are totally ignored (or, even worse, passed off as a great move by him spreading the 'truth').
Sadly for you and luckily for the rest of the world, the polls do in fact reflect the real-world - not Michale-world or right-wing world. This is why you don't trust polls, since you live in a right-wing bubble you can't see reality.
Sadly for you and luckily for the rest of the world, the polls do in fact reflect the real-world - not Michale-world or right-wing world.
I guess we'll know if that's true or not in a few weeks, won't we?? :D
I see a CROW Feast in your future! :D
Michale.....
The point you are missing is that the average American has already forgotten about the attack in Libya.
And you know this because you are so well versed in the American Psyche, right?? :D
I can assure you, Joe Sixpack is thinking VERY much about how our Ambassador was brutally murdered and Obama et al KNEW it was a terrorist attack and tried to lie and pass it off as a "bump in the road"...
The hypocrisy is staggering...
Michale.....
"What would have been ya'alls reaction if, at the height of all the "BUSH LIED" crap and all the Abu Ghraib stuff, all this was going on and Bush's poll numbers stayed completely consistent. Never dipping at all, despite all the negative goings on..."
Michale,
You, and all the other "politics as usual" crowd who keep insisting that economy, deficit, unemployment, and mid-east turmoil should automatically mean Obama's defeat, simply ignore the fact that none of that are due to anything President Obama has done and all most all of it is due to what the Republicans have done.
I understand that the conventional wisdom, and certainly the storyline you, personally, would prefer, is that Obama should be toast. But, while I will grant its unlikely, unprecedented even, it is still possible that people aren't as stupid as the Republicans have been counting on.
The economy and unemployment are the result of the "no new tax" pledges and deregulation championed by conservatives, particularly Republicans, since Reagan. The deficit is due to the proliferate spending of the last Republican President and Congress, as is two-thirds of the national debt, without bothering about how to pay for it.
We've managed a modest economic recovery in spite of Congress doing nothing to help and everything to prevent progress:
Over one-hundred-thirty filibusters! A reduction in our credit rating, for the first time ever! due solely to a Republican Congress playing chicken with the debt ceiling, costing us billions more in debt. And the creation of a "fiscal cliff" that could bring the entire economy down as much as the last disaster the Republicans created and bequeathed to the President.
Now, I'll stand with you, gawking in amazement, if it actually turns out that people are not as stupid as they've always appeared, but, unlike you, I won't cry any tears over it.
I can assure you, Joe Sixpack is thinking VERY much about how our Ambassador was brutally murdered and Obama et al KNEW it was a terrorist attack and tried to lie and pass it off as a "bump in the road"...
Right, he knew that because the Presidential Astrologer told him so?... Oh, wait, we don't have one of those anymore, do we?
Telling people what he really knew, at the time, instead of speculating, like your boy Mitt isn't a "lie." What your boy Mitt did was lie.
And Bush and the Republicans destabilizing the entire area with their senseless war on Iraq, and their international jihadist recruitment campaign with indefinite detention and torture without trial, had nothing to do with Egypt, Syria, or Lebanon?
I know, you and the Republicans are so tired of us blaming Bush and the Republicans for all the things they did. But you seem to keep forgetting how reality has such "a liberal bias!"
I know, you and the Republicans are so tired of us blaming Bush and the Republicans for all the things they did. But you seem to keep forgetting how reality has such "a liberal bias!"
The fact that you actually BELIEVE such hogwash is a perfect example of YOUR bias.. :D
Michale.....
Greg Gutfeld, on Fox's "The Five," on why we should pay no attention to polls:
"...like the [Grateful] Dead, polls are just noise that makes hippies dance."
That triggered the following thought. I've been puzzled by Fox losing the 25-54 group to MSNBC in prime time for the two days following the release of _47_. I attributed it to the fact that even regular Fox viewers know what they hear there is filtered, manipulated propaganda. Those who wanted to find out what Gov. Romney _really_ knew they'd have to go elsewhere to find out.
Might those two nights have been like the first turned leaf of autumn? Is the Fox demographic really so old that they think that quote is going to resonate?
Have to run, but +1 on LD's economic comments, and why later.
LD,
And Bush and the Republicans destabilizing the entire area with their senseless war on Iraq, and their international jihadist recruitment campaign with indefinite detention and torture without trial,
Are you referring to the torture and rendition and indefinite detention that Obama has continued AND EXPANDED on???
Or maybe you are referring to the extra-legal assassinations of American citizens??
Or you possibly could be referring to how Obama has expanded the drone fleet a thousand-fold and has been using drones domestically to spy on Americans...
Do you REALLY want to discuss this??? Because I am ALL FOR such a discussion.. :D
Michale.....
Yes Michale, drone attacks are comparable to declaring war, invading another country and bombing the shit out of them. If you ask people to talk about major significant foreign travesties where many people were killed they usually talk about World War 2 and the 'Drone Attack of 28/10/10'
PS. I wrote the made up date the British/Canadian way because your way is stupid ;)
Michale,
Maybe you> truly thought you'd be getting Saint Obama on inauguration day, for some reason. I never did. I was against the Patriot Act precisely because once you grant the President those kinds of powers you ain't gettin' em back!
No President in U.S. history has ever voluntarily relinquished Presidential power. They wouldn't be doing their job if they did. The Founding Fathers' entire plan of Constitutional "checks and balances" depends on every branch of government attempting to gain more power at the expense of the others. Some might view them as cynical. I consider them realistically pragmatic.—and prescient.
The Republicans opened those doors, not President Obama. Congress passed those laws, not President Obama. President Obama campaigned for, and promised to act as, President of the United States of America; so, unlike you, I'm not outraged when he does.
That said, yeah, I'd be willing to discuss it—if I thought you really wanted to discuss it! But I'm really not in the mood to sit through you regurgitating the usual baseless Republican talking points.
OH wow..
So, even though Obama is being more Bush than Bush, it's STILL Bush's fault!!
SERIOUSLY!!!????
Why don't we just save everyone all the commenting hassles and just declare Obama is a saint and is hereby crowned Saint Emperor Barack The First...
My gods.. I think "reality" just took a sharp LEFT into WTF land...
Michale....
I just HAVE to do a double take on this..
So, just so we're clear..
Obama is assassinating American citizens without ANY due process whatsoever...
And ALL OF YOU say that it's NOT Obama's fault because BUSH gave him the power to do so!?????
I don't recall that Bush ever assassinated ANY American citizen.. I don't even think he ever ASKED to, but I could be wrong about that...
But regardless, Obama is NOT to blame, because it's ALL Bush's fault...
THAT'S ya'all's story??
My, how the mighty have fallen...
First, ya'all want to criminalize free speech and throw people in jail (or worse) for mocking a religious symbol, but (apparently) only a MUSLIM religious symbol..
NOW ya'all are defending a President who ASSASSINATES AMERICAN CITIZENS w/o ANY DUE PROCESS WHATSOEVER...
And ya'all are LIBERALS!!!????????
What kind of crazy frak'ed up Mirror Universe have I come into!!!???
Michale.....
Michale,
To begin, I'm unaware of any American citizen being assassinated. But aren't you the one always going on about being at war with terrorists. Because, my understanding, I may be wrong, is that only terrorists have been assassinated.
And, this may shock you, but I've never been overly concerned about the legality of our soldiers fighting our enemies. Torturing them, yes. Imprisoning people who may, or may not, be enemies, yes. But I've always been more concerned about "right" and "wrong," "effective" and "ineffective" than strict legality, for the simple reason that "legal" war is a "legal fiction."
The Constitution never legalizes murder, even if it is "war." But everyone knows that when it commands the government to maintain a military and defend the nation, that if murder is what it takes, and it usually will be, murder is what's expected.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Whatever is necessary to defend this nation is Constitutional. It's the whether its "necessary" part that gets us into into the weeds, and where I, frequently, take exception.
As I say, I don't know of any Americans being assassinated. If I did I'd want to know why not how. If they truly were a threat to national security, I've no problem with assassination. Trial by jury is meant to prevent government persecution, but if you truly are a traitor and a threat—This country has a looong history of ignoring the Constitution when it feels threatened.
I happen to believe that the Constitution, and the law in general, should be followed, not circumvented. But I also know the Constitution was never intended as an answer to every situation and neither is the legislative process. The former is intentionally general and the latter intentionally cumbersome. If there truly is a clear and present danger, or opportunity, and national security is at stake, necessary, unconstitutional action is not shock, its a Presidential prerogative. It is, in fact, one of the reasons we have a President.
The constitution is not a suicide pact. Its a guide and help in preventing governmental excesses and abuses but We The People, ultimately, are the only real defense, and we must evaluate and decide case by case.
BTW: Bush assassinated hundreds of thousands of people, on and off the battlefield. Every death in Iraq, due to his illegal war of choice, sold on fraudulent "intel," was an "assassination." Every innocent POW who died at GITMO was an "assassination."
Unlike you I don't care if they're American citizens. Their nationality is not what I'm going to judge the "rightness", or constitutionality, of their assassination on. The Constitution governs and limits the behavior of government agents. The nationality of those the agents act upon is irrelevant to determining if the government's actions are constitutional.
As far as I'm concerned everyone who's ever killed by military was "assassinated." Intentionally murdered by professional killers hired to kill people. That's the definition of assassinated. That's what "war" is. It doesn't make war legal or illegal, right or wrong, good or bad—that depends entirely on the why.
To begin, I'm unaware of any American citizen being assassinated.
Of course you are unaware..
But it HAS happened... Obama HAS ordered the assassination of American citizens without due process...
This is fact...
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Do you know who has said that ad nasuem???
Yep, you guessed it.. ME...
So, what you are saying is that you agree 1000% with me on how to prosecute the war on terror..
The only difference is that *I* believe that, REGARDLESS of who is President.
You only believe it when the President has a '-D' after his name...
BTW: Bush assassinated hundreds of thousands of people, on and off the battlefield. Every death in Iraq, due to his illegal war of choice, sold on fraudulent "intel," was an "assassination." Every innocent POW who died at GITMO was an "assassination."
Oh gods, deliver me from people who have never served, doesn't have CLUE ONE about the military, yet feel qualified to make completely asinine statements such as this...
Unlike you I don't care if they're American citizens.
UNLESS the President has a '-R' behind his name.. THEN you care a great deal if they're American citizens...
Basically, you have two choices here..
You can condemn Obama for doing the exact same thing that Bush has done, except MORE so....
Or...
You can agree completely with me that THIS is the way to prosecute a war against terrorism..
Of course this ALSO means that you CANNOT change your mind when the President has a '-R' after his name...
So, which is it???
Obama is a war criminal even more so than Bush??
Or...
Michale is dead on ballz accurate on how best to prosecute the war against terrorists???
Not an enviable corner you have painted yourself into, is it??? :D
Michale.....
I am also constrained to point out that, according to the evidence, Democrat's opposition to Bush's policies of torture, rendition, Gitmo and the rest of the CT Policies was solely and completely based on partisan politics and NOT on any kind of moral stance..
In other words, Democrats put their own partisan ideological agenda ABOVE the safety and security of this country.
A FACT that pisses me off to no end..
A FACT that Americans will remember when they go to the voting booth...
Michale.....
On the positive side, I am flattered that a man of your intellectual prowess would co-op my "The Constitution Is Not A Suicide Pact" argument..
I mean that in all honesty and sincerity.. :D
Michale.....
I don't care if they're American citizens.
Neither do I, and neither does the Constitution. Most constitutional protections of rights refer to persons rather than citizens. (Voting rights and the privileges and immunities clause are the exceptions.) The equal protection clause refers to "any person within its jurisdiction".
Intentionally murdered by professional killers hired to kill people. That's the definition of assassinated.
No, it isn't. Assassination is killing of a public figure, for reasons related to their prominence as a public figure. See e.g. Webster's s. v. assassinate. Lincoln was assassinated, even though Booth wasn't a professional killer.
ACLU records show 64 percent growth in electronic spying since president took office
http://www.washingtonguardian.com/big-brother-listening
The silence of the Left is deafening...
And ya know what really the bitch is???
Is that the majority of the Left SUPPORT the policies!!!
I know that some Weigantians are of the mind that they support Obama, but don't really support the policies...
But that's the exception amongst the Left. Most (like LD above) point out the necessity of the policies and how they are they RIGHT thing to do..
But ONLY (apparently) when we have a POTUS with a '-D' after his name...
Michale....
"No, it isn't. Assassination is killing of a public figure, for reasons related to their prominence as a public figure. See e.g. Webster's s. v. assassinate. Lincoln was assassinated, even though Booth wasn't a professional killer."
dws,
My Dictionary (American Heritage) qualifies that with the words usually a prominent figure.
You are (1) making a distinction where there is no difference, murder for hire is murder for hire. How "legal" it is has nothing to do with how important, or public, the victim is. And (2) you are arbitrarily pointing to a definition that's sufficiently limited to "prove" your point, though that definition is neither comprehensive not universally applicable.
Victims of assassinations don't have to be either prominent of public figures. If they did then clearly whoever Michale is referring to, )should such a person actually exist,) couldn't have been assassinated, since no one had heard of him beforehand. But I'd have to agree with Michale that that argument would be ridiculous.
The equal protection clause refers to "any person within its jurisdiction".
And according to the last administration, and SCOTUS, The Constitutions "jurisdiction" ends at U.S. territorial borders. (Which I find absurd.) But, we denied constitutional protection to prisoners at Guantanamo because, while it was, under U.S. control, and technically U.S. territory, its not really part of the U.S. so the Constitution doesn't apply.
We detained, and handed to the military, a U.S. citizen at O'Hare International Airport in Illinois, because, even though he was standing in the middle of the continental United States, he wasn't really in the United States because the government had decreed that you weren't in the U.S until you'd "officially" crossed a magic line, so, of course he had no Constitutional protection either.
And no one has ever given me a logical or legal reason why either our military, which is formed under Constitutional Authority, our foreign ambassadors, who are appointed and confirmed under Constitutional authority, our treaties, which are executed and enforced under Constitutional Authority. or the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which was legislated under Constitutional Authority, have legal authority outside of the United States if the Constitutions' jurisdiction ends at our borders!
So, being a simple layman, I'll continue to believe the Constitution limits Federal power everywhere not just on U.S. soil, regarding everyone, not just U.S. citizens. That the U.S. routinely ignores the Constitution whenever it suits (often with the blessing of SCOTUS.) And that, in the final analysis, only public expectations and outrage restrain government, not the Constitution.
Michale,
See above for some of the flagrant unconstitutional abuses of Bush to which I objected. Did Obama "assassinate" a U.S. Citizen on U.S. soil? Because we have no police, or police authority anywhere else. So I fail to see how the equal protection clause comes into play. And the indiscriminately arbitrarily selective way the Constitution is or is not controlling when it comes to foreign affairs completely underwhelms me with our respect for the Constitution and rule of law.
So I'll continue to maintain that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, as I told you in 2008, while also continuing to object to flagrant unnecessary abuses claiming to be constitutional in the interest of "national security."
Bush way: Kill and maim over 600,000 Iraqis, kill over 4,000 Americans, spend over $800,000,000,000.
Obama way: Use a drone to assassinate an individual who's a threat.
Its obvious why you think America's warriors and the American people should be outraged! But your Faux News faux outrage over faux abuses by Obama have nothing to do with anything he's actually done; and certainly not because of your respect and reverence for the Constitution and the rule of law.
If they did then clearly whoever Michale is referring to, )should such a person actually exist,) couldn't have been assassinated, since no one had heard of him beforehand. But I'd have to agree with Michale that that argument would be ridiculous.
In English we have a perfectly good word for killings of prominent people, where the motive for the killing depended on the person's prominence. That word is assassination. You claim it's ridiculous for there to be such a word. Why? About a billion people speak English, and previously no discernible number of them have demanded that the word "assassination" be either stripped of its current meaning or expunged from the language. So why should we do an about-face now?
I'll concede the "usually". Like almost every other word in English, this one is sometimes used in different ways besides its main meaning. If you want to suggest that the killer has some connection to 11th-century Persians, it's the word to use, regardless of its normal meaning. Nonetheless, it does have a meaning.
That doesn't apply here. To say that Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi were killed unlawfully is simply a claim about the law. To say that their killing was an atrocity is simply a moral claim. To say they were murdered is stretching the usage of the word, but only slightly. To say that they were assassinated is either mistaken or just not English.
And according to the last administration, and SCOTUS, The Constitutions "jurisdiction" ends at U.S. territorial borders. (Which I find absurd.)
Me too. US law must govern US actions anywhere in the world. Jurisdiction literally means saying what the law is. For US statute, regulation, and case law, that's up to Congress, members of the executive branch to whom Congress delegates the authority, and US courts, respectively.
dws,
Last time I looked the Oxford English Dictionary had over one-hundred definitions for the word "run." The only OED I have handy is the 11th edition and it says:
assassinate n.
1: Obs. 1. Murder, or an assault with intent to murder, by treacherous violence; assassination. b. fig. 2. = assassin 2. b. fig. = assassin 3.
n.
2: 1. a. trans. To kill by treacherous violence. b. absol. †2. trans. To endeavour to kill by treacherous violence; to attack by an assassin. Obs. 3. fig. To destroy or wound by treachery; to ‘stab’ reputation, etc. (Cf. murder v. 2.)
If you're going to appoint yourself the arbiter-of-what-is-the-English-language you really should realize that the definition which suits your prejudice isn't automatically the only possible definition that any literate person can reasonable employ.
I mean, I'm not looking for humility, but arrogance on the scale of geological time or astronomical distance is a bit much.
LD,
If they did then clearly whoever Michale is referring to, )should such a person actually exist,)
You honestly don't know???
Obama Assassinates U.S. Citizen
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/09/obama-assassinates-us-citizen
Now, I am not shedding any tears for this scumbag. I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with having this guy killed.. The guy was slime and I only wish it could have been a lot more painful for him...
So, while I don't give a rat's ass for this turd, I am just surprised that all of us here in Weigantia are on the same page... :D
And according to the last administration, and SCOTUS, The Constitutions "jurisdiction" ends at U.S. territorial borders. (Which I find absurd.)
And yet, the Left (including everyone here) was hysterical about giving terrorists Constitutional rights...
Can you explain this incongruity???
Because, as I see it, the ONLY difference between Bush's actions and Obama's actions is Obama has a '-D' after his name and Bush has a '-R' after his name...
Well, and OBAMA has been a lot more successful at it.. But that's easily explained by the fact that Bush had to fight his own countrymen harder than he had to fight Al Qaeda....
Michale.....
arrogance on the scale of geological time or astronomical distance is a bit much
Speaking of hyperbole ...
And yet, the Left (including everyone here) was hysterical about giving terrorists Constitutional rights...
OK, that's a bit unfair. By and large, Weigantians don't get hysterical.. :D
But ya'all were firmly supportive of the idea to give Terrorists constitutional rights...
Michale....
"But ya'all were firmly supportive of the idea to give Terrorists constitutional rights..."
Michale,
And I still am! That's the point I've been making. The Constitution doesn't say anything about citizens only, or borders. Its limits the power and scope of federal government with regard to everyone, everywhere.
When our astronauts were on the moon the Constitution still applied to them. So it applies to terrorists as well, wherever they are and whomever they are. That also means that anyone who's an enemy of the United States is fair game when it comes to military attacks, solely at the discretion of the President, being American citizens has nothing to do with it.
The Equal Protection Clause places limits on our justice system, not our military or the President acting in defense of the nation. A drone attack on an American citizen in Yemen (Thanks for the cite, I'd vaguely recalled something about it but didn't know if it was credible, probably because, to me, it was insignificant.) is perfectly constitutional, and hardly the first time an American-born enemy collaborator has be targeted by the military.
But, arresting supposed suspected terrorists, for trial on criminal activity, falls squarely under our justice system and is subject to the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The President does not have any authority to decide to create a justice system all his own, to be used instead. So what Bush did, on a massive scale, was unconstitutional. "Disappearing" a suspected terrorist apprehended on American soil on criminal charges also fell squarely under the Equal Protection Clause, terrorist or not. The terrorist being an American citizen simply made it even worse.
What Bush was doing was to claim suspected criminal activity justified his indefinite detentions but they were not subject to the Justice system. That violated the Constitution, which established our justice system precisely to handle criminal matters.
The actions he took militarily against so-called "terrorists" were often unethical, immoral, and sometimes illegal, but they weren't generally unconstitutional (technically.) Conversely, the action Obama took was neither unconstitutional nor unusual. He simply employed the latest, and most efficient, in high-tech sniper technology. America has long been a leader in deploying, and employing, advanced military hardware. No big surprise there.
That also means that anyone who's an enemy of the United States is fair game when it comes to military attacks, solely at the discretion of the President
That would mean that no one has any rights whatsoever.
The military is subject to law. The Constitution kind of belabors the point, specifying that Congress shall have the power to "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" and to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces", among other things.
The Constitution doesn't say anything about borders, but it does say something about jurisdiction. People within our jurisdiction cannot be denied the equal protection of the law, no matter whether the means of that denial is military or civilian. When someone is in custody, they're in our jurisdiction. When someone is in our territory, and the Civil War is not underway, they're in our jurisdiction. When someone is in our military, they're in our jurisdiction.