Elections Have Consequences, 1st Day Of Winter Edition

[chris_gerrib]

Now, I am absolutely not a fan of the indefinite detention parts of the NDAA. And, when somebody like this fellow calls the signing of the Act a "scene from a failed Presidency" I feel his pain. I really do.

But then I see things like:

A) This kiss, which, prior to Obama, would have been grounds for immediate courts-martial of both parties

Comments

[daveon]

I believe there will be a presidential statement on the NDAA prior to formal signing. Or so was reported yesterday. We'll see.

I am waiting to see how today's Charlie Foxtrot plays out for the GOP - they are not having a good end to the year.

[jordan179]

The announcement of new clean air rules that will finally get dirty coal-fired plants grandfathered in the 1970s out of service.

Coal is the dirtiest form of power production in common use. Having said that, Obama's continued blockage of cleaner power -- oil and nuclear -- has already resulted in rises in both the prices of fuel and electricity.

[chris_gerrib]

So when the Wall Street Journal notes that, after the Japan tsunami, Obama Administration stands behind nuclear, including a quote from the President's press secretary, that's somehow a sign of him blocking nuclear power?

Get your facts straight.

[jordan179]

Obama can verbally "stand behind" nuclear power all he wants -- this doesn't change the fact that the US Government is still blocking new reactor construction by making it far more legally difficult than the construction of any other kind of power plant. Get your realities straight: action trumps oratory.

[chris_gerrib]

What actions has Obama taken to block nuclear power? Hell, he approved loans to two new nuclear plants under construction in the US.

[jordan179]

This is on top of health care, saving GM and Chrysler, leaving Iraq, etc., etc. If John McCain were President, none of this would have happened.

"Health care" didn't happen, because Obama and Pelosi passed it in a form unlikely to survive the court challenges, under the delusion that Obama was God-King rather than President.

"Saving GM and Chrysler" involved funnelling public monies into private hands for private ends. This worked out great for the owners and employees of GM and Chrysler -- not so great for the taxpayers, or the consumers.

Of course we would have left Iraq. We won the freaking war. As for your point that

Hell, we'd not only still be in Iraq but probably bombing Iran by now.

I would argue that, thanks to Obama, we probably won't be "bombing Iran" until Iran uses nuclear weapons against either our allies or ourselves, and all those who the Iranian warheads kill will be deaths on Obama's doorstep.

[chris_gerrib]

Opinions differ as to the Constitutionality of health care. I would say that if it's found unconstitutional, laws against growing pot for private use would also have to be struck down.

Saving GM and Chrysler is great for the taxpayers, since otherwise we'd have to pay the former employees unemployment benefits.

John McCain was quite adamant about not leaving Iraq, and of the current Republican candidates, only Ron Paul is in favor of leaving.

[jordan179]

Opinions differ as to the Constitutionality of health care. I would say that if it's found unconstitutional, laws against growing pot for private use would also have to be struck down.

Probably not -- though I would like such decisions to be so wide in their effects, as our criminalization of marijuana cultivation is stupid.

Saving GM and Chrysler is great for the taxpayers, since otherwise we'd have to pay the former employees unemployment benefits.

And you don't see any moral hazard in bailing out failing companies -- but only really big ones? Maybe really big ones who contribute to the correct candidates?

[chris_gerrib]

Health care and growing pot in your basement are both regulated under the Commerce Clause. Kill one implementation and you kill the other. Since the Supreme Court knows that, and has long been against pot, I suspect they'll rule accordingly.

Moral hazard - yes, I do see it. I also see cutting off your nose to spite your face, which is what letting GM fail would have amounted to.

[bdunbar]

Banning gays made very little sense back in the day (1993, when I EASd) and make no sense now, fer sure.

Obama gets the credit, sure. But the gay ban and DADT were going away eventually.

In the long run the damage dealt to the Bill of Rights will outweigh the short-term gains from letting POs smooch on the dock.

[chris_gerrib]

Well, who's the alternative? Of the Republicans, only Ron Paul is against the NDAA, and he's batshit crazy.

If my choice is a guy who didn't want indefinite detention and probably won't use it or a guy who thinks it's the cat's meow, I choose #1.

[bdunbar]

he's batshit crazy

There is a post in the idea that a) not really and b) how 98% of what Paul espouses are right in line with the Constitution and c) How is that crazy?

I'll make some notes. Maybe write them down on my blog. Or not: got annulment papers to finish so I can take Communion at church and stop getting weird looks from my fellows at Mass.

....

I don't think Obamba, or his successor, is going to use the power. Or if he does it might be for an actual bad guy. Or two, or three. Hey - they're _bad_ guys, and power is tempting: we understand. Which presents some theoretical problems but whatever: not here nor there.

What bothers me is 10 or 15 years this power gets mis-used by a Nixon or a Roosevelt: some guy with no scruples or principles.

[chris_gerrib]

I'm looking forward to that post.