Five For Friday: A Hug, Sweat, Bushbama, The Mayor Who Can’t Quit You and More

That Goldsmith article was excellent, Scherer. Thanks for the link. I’m not as taken as your glib “Yes, similar.” though I recognize you are doing a weekly wrap.

One reason the Obama practices are so close to the late Bush practices is that the late Bush practices were much different than the early ones. In 2001-2003, both fear of terrorism and Bush unilateralism were at their height.
.
The Obama policies also reflect the fact that the Bush policies were woven into the fabric of the national security architecture in ways that were hard if not impossible to unravel.
.
A third reason for the closeness of the Bush and Obama policies is that many of the Bush policies reflect longstanding executive branch positions.

.
If ONLY we had decent, thoughtful journos in Washington who could write a decent article like this, rather than the “mano-a-mano” bullcr@p that we have suffered with all week. How about you, Scherer. Why not take a crack at it?

RE#2: Mayor Lown’s website: http://www.jwlown.com/articles/view/6
.
Check out the ‘fireman’ pic

Jack Goldsmith is of course famous as the man who rescinded the Yoo opinions that legalized torture in the first place. His comparison between the Obama and Bush GWOT strategies is depressingly accurate but he’s hardly a disinterested party.
.
The difference between the administrations on the proper role of the Presidency relative to the other two Branches is not only exceedingly significant but is one of the few bright spots I cling to as Obama continues to disappoint in so many other ways.

MS,
I’m still waiting for you to weigh in more directly with your own views on indefinite detention. I can’t imagine that you’re comfortable with the status quo…..

headline of the week, perhaps, but it was a nice, even a bit moving article about a spot of relatively stand up behavior by the mayor. Best of luck to him.

James LA
.
David Brooks has an interesting column up, mentioning the Goldsmith article. And he says Obama has made us safer. (And yes, I know many/most here don’t like Brooks. But this is a significant departure from the usual Republican line. And it makes clear Cheney is passe)
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/opinion/22brooks.html?_r=1

Ditto on the Goldsmith–excellent, objective, fact-based deconstruction of the dominant MSM narrative (i.e. Cheney bad = Obama good). Nothing new in his piece for people who get their news/education outside of the inbred, stunted MSM. And one wonders why the Bourne films were so damned popular–art reflecting life.

That middle point, PD, is the kicker, I think. And I don’t think you can discount the impact of the political difficulties associated with the GOP-dominated political press either. Obama’s never been combative. Anyone who had illusions about him should have lost those when he voted for FISA. Nevertheless, I don’t think anyone’s going to sit down and shut up about it, as the administration and the Village People would prefer.

kathy,
thanks, I guess I was behind the times, since I tend to avoid Brooks like the plague. No one could have predicted that he’d write something us normal people would agree with.

jc, I don’t see where you *get* that: “(i.e. Cheney bad = Obama good)” It’s just the opposite. All the wannabe Villagers are chasing after the Cheneys and hanging on their every word. Am I reading the same stuff you are reading?

1. People magazine
2. National Enquirer
3. SportsCenter comes to Politico (assuming there’s ever been much of a difference)
4. OK, decent – albeit someone else’s work
5. Cracked meets OK! meets CNET meets National Geographic.
.
20%. F.
.
Michael – even though it’s the day before a long weekend there’s still real work to be done. Please have your parents call to schedule a conference

JLA–I see the equivalent attn. paid to both, but to me the dominant narrative is, despite that equality, Cheney is a crazy troglodyte but he’s a quote machine who helps us peddle our polarized & reductive b-s. Meanwhile, Joe, Brooks & Mikey in his latest incarnation as Dowd in Drag, hold up that false polarization to conclude that Obama is in fact different, better, more moral and just and less tone deaf. I guess a kinder gentler national security state. Of course, this is deconstructed wonderfully by Goldsmith, GG, Digster, Maddow et al, or anyone not exclusively drinking MSM koolaid.

Interesting take, jc. Of course, Cheney *is* a crazy trglodyte. The stuff I’ve been reading, NYT, AFP, stuff like that, portray the two arguments with equal weight and equal seriousness. So your differing perspective is surprising. Your “reductive b-s” is interesting too. Peter Baker said the same thing this morning in a pretty good analysis. No one, notably, has discussed the *fact* that Obama was chiding the strawman on the left along with the predominant GOP spox on the right. i.e. “In the reductionist debate in Washington, either any sacrifice must be made to win a pitiless war against radicals, or terrorism does not justify any compromise with cherished American values.” Pretty offensive. I don’t know of a single person who has appeared on television, or on the comment threads for that matter, who has said that “terrorism does not justify any compromise with cherished American values.” Maybe I’ve missed it.

JLA–Perhaps my diff-perspective is due to geography, well, at least the TV component of the debate. I know, you were referring to print, but being in the states, even if you make a concerted effort to escape that inane bubble, it tends to assault you at every turn: your car dealer, barber, the sports bar, if you mistakenly turn on “liberal” NPR… Or maybe it’s b/c I spend far more time reading fellow “deviants,” and I’m not as dialed into the MSM as I could be (thank god that). Plus, here there’s still raving about piggy flu and could give 2 sh!ts about O or Che.
~
Re: the strawman you mention, I’ve attempted (inarticulately, I’m certain) to broach that topic on MS/JK’s threads in recent days. Funny thing is that GG, in his otherwise great response to the dueling speeches, seemed to let it go, not that he hasn’t offered variations on the rejection of that meme in the past. Surprising in that in Obama’s equivalence GG = Cheney.

there’s -> they’re

jc, Ah! Maybe that’s it. The only TV I catch is an occasional MADDOW and even more seldom KO. Plus, my week was dominated by *being at work* in which we are prohibited YouTube and Twitter, leave alone cable news. I too spend a lot of time reading the far left-wing socialist commie extremists, to balance out the Republican-dominated legacy media. But I wasn’t counting that.
.
The strawman: you know, I don’t think the Michael Sherers and the Joe Kleins actually *get it* wrt their loyal readers. They are conditioned by their GOP masters to believe that we are extremist tree-hugging commies rather than the perfectly sane, reasonable centrist Democrats and Independents that we really are. they cling to that idea in order to believe they are not center-right. That’s the propaganda they have willingly absorbed lo these twenty-odd years, since the rightwing message machine took over the mainstream media. That’s why they can’t see that Obama is using a strawman argument.
.
But this was interesing:
Ambinder: “…whereas the White House does not give a scintilla of attention to its right-wing critics, it does read, and will read, everything Glenn Greenwald writes. Obama, according to an administration official, finds this outside pressure healthy and useful.”
.
Greenwald: “Ambinder doesn’t mean me personally or exclusively; he means people who are criticizing Obama not in order to harm him politically, but in order to pressure him to do better. ”
.
I’m down with all that.

I was just going to comment about Ambinder’s post but I see James in LA has got it handled. Still here is the link for anybody that wants to read it.
.
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/the_rubicon_of_indefinite_detention.php
.
I don’t have the link to GG’s response.

Run Pee…a gift to pregnant women everywhere. Thanks for the link.

Has anyone else considered the possibility that the whole reason Meghan McCain is getting behind gay rights is personal, i.e. one of the McCain sons might be gay? I have zero evidence of this assertion but her conviction seems too solid to just have gay friends.

yutsano
.
I would say its a lot more likely that she is supporting gay marriage so strongly in order to get attention. Think about it, she can’t write worth a damn. And the only reason people paid any attention to her last year with her sh*tty blog was because her dad was running for Preznit. With that all over she had to come up with a knew shtick. So now she is championing gay rights because she know people will pay attention and give her writing gigs at the Daily Beast and inviter her on the view and the Colbert Report. Besides it makes her a Cool Kid. When her little buzz dies down I fully expect her to come out for being pro choice.

Oregon JC:
.
Thanks so much for contributing; (while you and I have substantial disagreements on certain issues) I enjoy reading your commentary greatly.

I guess we’ll see Sgw. Right now the focus is off on other children of older Republicans so maybe she’ll have to do something more outrageous like get her belly button pierced or an Obama tattoo.

Thanks Stuart, but before we can get to disagreements we’d have to acknowledge that you’re simply a better writer, that you have a firmer handle on your ideas and thus capacity to explain them, and, I might add that you take thoughtful blocks of time to craft your missives. Whereas I’m a lesser writer, don’t have a solid command of my own ideas (they’re ever-shifting and intellectually elusive, but hey that’s OK, knowing our limits is a good thing) and I post at times without serious consideration (and yes, I know it shows).
~
JLA
~
I like the psychological rationale you offer re: Klein/MS et al. I agree that in Joe’s mind, he’s still a ’60′s “liberal” or that MS still thinks he’s a subversive Mo-Jones thinker. Makes it easier to grapple with the costs of selling out, whether for money or fame. But speaking for myself, centrist democrat I’m not. I’m a proud socialist-dem with libertarian leanings. In fact, I’m volunteering with the J-communist party here, though ironically I can’t vote. But, of course, I don’t think these isms are pejorative terms, and neither do a growing # of young Americans:
~
http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/blog/bring-socialism
~
And, yeah, I’d read that Ambers quote. But given Obama’s rhetoric, his speeches & books, this is no surprise to me. Few spend as much time around academia as he did and fail to come away with a progressive ideology. But whether that leads to any type of action is another thing entirely. Unlike some progressives, I do genuinely think Obama’s on the right side of issues, but he’s also first and foremost a politician, and that’s what informs his calculus. I thought the scope of the crises we face and his enormous popularity would have resulted in a far bolder admin. On reflection that was naive, but I still maintain he was the best viable option. But from what we’ve seen thus far, I’m convinced it’s not enough.

jc,
Well, I probably shouldn’t have spoken so broadly about the specific politics of commenters in threads of liberal blogs and Swampland. Me, I’m a longtime labor Democrat and I know there are plenty of my fellow Swamp People who are way more liberal than me. But what I was getting at, and said poorly, about Obama’s straw man (those who think that “terrorism does not justify any compromise with cherished American values”) is that no one on our side has appeared on talk shows or political shows or opinion columns or anywhere else to espouse that view.
.
Even Goldberg’s excellent piece contains this strawman:

1. War v. Crime
Many Obama supporters and most allies sharply disagree with the war characterization, and maintain that the criminal justice system–arrest, extradition, civilian trials, and the like–suffices to meet the terror threat.

This preposterous statement just completely misstates the position. I object to the phrase “suffices to meet the terror threat.” That is just reductive and insulting. But no one on our side gets any TV face time to lay out our case and defend it. That makes it easier for the Kleins and the Scherers and Obama to willfully misunderstand and misstate our position, and keeps the “balance” of “acceptable” political discourse heavily weighted to the right.
.
I’m not enamored of several of the actions and positions taken by the Obama administration thus far, but then again I still thank the Lord every day that McCain didn’t win (“We’re all Georgians now!”), and that the dark, dark days of Cheney-Bush are over. None of it surprises me because if you read Obama’s campaign statements, there was lots of careful wording there. Plus, people *wanted* to believe.

Uh. I mean *Goldsmith’s piece.*

I didn’t want to disrespect the Memorial Day thread so at the risk of posting on a dead thread I wanted to let folks know that I have been invited to guest blog for Spencer Ackerman for a week while he is on vacation. I put up my first post this morning and I invite everyone to check it out.
.
http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/05/23/preventative-detention-revisited/

You waded into something there huh SGw? Good post BTW, it’s a problem with no easy answers and no matter what Obama is going to end up making someone unhappy because of it.

yutsano
.
Honestly I have to say that I actually thought I would get flamed a lot worse. My whole point in putting up the post was to get people to confront the reality of the situation and actually talk it out. I think I have had a reasonable amount of success of getting people to at least examine the notion but I am just a little dissappointed that many of the commenters are not facing the reality of the politics that is going to be involved in resolving that mess. Still I think its a discussion that isn’t really happening on our side of the blogosphere so I feel good about trying to spark it.
.
And thanks for the compliment

SG, that’s killer about your guest blogging stint. Is that a first? And a good 1st post too. I disagree but I can respect where you’re coming from.

jcapan
.
Yeah its a first and honestly kind of came up out of the blue. I comment a lot on Spencer’s site but I didn’t realize he had been checking out my blog. But yeah I am really happy about it and hopefully I can hold up my end of the bargain. Thanks for the compliment!

BTW in celebration of my first post on a major blog I am now drinking Captain Morgan’s private stock and watching Kung Fu Panda. Aint life grand lol.

sgw: Congratulations on your blogging work. Unless something else gets put up, this must be the open thread. I wasn’t going to disrespect the vets by hijacking the Memorial Day thread. I get to run my mouth and enjoy the freedoms I have because of their sacrifices. I did notice that the trolls couldn’t restrain themselves.

“I am now drinking Captain Morgan’s private stock and watching Kung Fu Panda. Aint life grand”
~
Indeed, it is. But as Herrick said: gather ye cuba libres while ye may SG. Hurricane season is only a week out!

Thanks sacredh
.
Yeah thats why I came here too. Its just phucking ridiculous that those ass holes couldn’t even lay off politicizing everything for one single solitary day. For them to make an issue out of President Obama saying we haven’t respected the military as much as we should have when these same clowns claim the same thing about liberals every single day is mind boggling. But hey, they have to be more “patriotic” than anybody else at all times right? Anyway yeah I say we make this an open thread. And as such I want to point out something that i pointed out on my blog. Why isn’t anybody talking about the 50 detainees Pres Obama said they have determined we can release to other countries in addition to the 21 the courts have ordered released? To me that should have been major news but for the “preventative detention” kefluffle.

sgw: I agree. There are items everyday I read and think should be major news items, but then again, if Pelosi wakes up in the morning or Jen has lunch with Brad, it’s “Stop the presses”. We’re an American Idol culture. If it’s going to grab the public’s limited attention span it has to require no thought and no effort.

I did manage to make it to see Star Trek this afternoon. Live long and pop corn.

lol sacredh, I am still trying to get away to see Star Trek. Was it as good as most are saying?

Hey all KT put up another post so we can talk there instead of disrespecting the Memorial Day thread. So we can all mozy on up to the CSPAN Thread.

sgw: It was better. What little I have left of my mind was blown. I had a grin on my face from the 1st minute it started. The casting was excellent. My wife doesn’t like sci-fi and even she liked it. She told me she’d go to see Star Trek if I’d take her to see Angels & Demons tomorrow. I wanted to see both so it was a win-win situation for me.