patrick.net

BTW, you know who made attempts to charge Ellsberg with the Espionage Act? Nixon. It was the only attempt in his Presidency, even though he faced a lot more civil disobedience, press hostility, and general disorder than this President ever had.

This President can't stop charging people under the Espionage Act for Whistleblowing and Journalism. He holds the record for more charges combined since 1945:

Most tallies, like the one by the investigative service ProPublica, begin with Daniel Ellsberg and the release of the Vietnam War era documents known as the Pentagon Papers. Including Ellsberg, the government has used the Espionage Act 10 times to prosecute government workers who shared classified information with journalists. If we push back to 1945, there is one more case. So of those 11, seven have taken place while Barack Obama has been president.

Law professor David Pozen at Columbia University, has researched the culture of unauthorized disclosures in the nation’s capital and said generally, there has been an uptick in these prosecutions on Obama’s watch..

"There’s not really any doubt," Pozen said."The spirit of the assertion is correct."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/

This can't be laid at the door of Congress, it's 100% the Administration.

impressions on Presidential tone

Based solely on demeanor not politics or policy
Nixon paranoid trickery
Ford- standin to be tolerated
Carter hard working incompetence (other than Camp David)
Reagan early optimism & strength, later out to lunch
Bush-bureaucratic entry level competence
Clinton-confident & informed but slick, esp. towards the end
W Bush -bumbling incompetence almost throughout other than 9/12-9/13
Obama- arrogantly out of element

val x = "Keynesian remedies"
x: java.lang.String = "Oxymoron"

thunderlips11 says

Good thing Daniel Ellsberg didn't leak the Pentagon Papers today, he'd be in Gitmo or Solitary and most of the press and BOTH party talking heads and politicians would be defending his incarceration.

Perhaps we can rename ourselves, the Banana Republic of America. And then, it won't be hypocrisy anymore.

New Poll Is A Disaster For Obama

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/poll-disaster-obama-114026503.html

Republican report card: Solid F for Fuck 'em, substantially?

I give the voters a bad grade.

We should add these too:

National Security & NSA .............A He has done his best to keep us safe.
Obamacare .............? Too hard for me to decipher.
Golf skills ..............? Too hard to decipher
Reducing Crime .............. C Hasn't done much. Recession?
Reducing Welfare .............. C Hasn't done much. Recession?

If there was a third term:
Ronald Reagan would have made it.
Bill Clinton would have made it.
George Bush would not have made it.
Barack Obama 50/50

Strategist says

If there was a third term:

Ronald Reagan would have made it.

Bill Clinton would have made it.

George Bush would not have made it.

Barack Obama 50/50

Yep and that squares with my tone analysis above

Reagan might not have made it due to age and the perception he was slipping but putting that aside he could have been reelected

Obama is a C-.

At the very least he should have:
1- let the banks fail down to $2,
2 - bought/nationalized them for $2 each.
3 - guillotined their leaders on general principles and decreed a 85% tax on bonuses above $20K.
4 - forced them to liquidate foreclosures
5 - Restored Glass-Steagall and broken down public banks to enforce it.
6 - recapitalized and sold the resulting operations.
7 - done no stimulus until business leaders force house members to beg him publicly to run one.
8 - let the Bush tax cut expire the first time around and let the republicans beg him to run a new tax cut based on social security contributions (i.e. targeted at the first 100K revenue or so)
9 - only after all this take up healthcare.
10 - he should have left a big force in Iraq.

Obama is too kind. He doesn't have the badassness necessary for this job.

Strategist says

If there was a third term:

Only FDR did that (4x), the constituents were really ignorant back then. But today with all the information technology are we any smarter?

Heraclitusstudent says

Obama is too kind. He doesn't have the badassness necessary for this job.

Yeah, he needs an edge...............

CL says

That's why I'd give Obama a better than 50/50 on a hypothetical 3rd term. The public doesn't buy what the GOP is selling, and they can't resist the crappiest candidates and platforms.

Nobody said you have to buy what the GOP is selling, there's more than Republicrats and Demoplicans. In the grand scheme of things, they are one and the same - throw in some public theater on fringe issues, but when the US needs to go to yet another war or the bankstas need yet another Fed bailout they stand united.

indigenous says

mell says

In the grand scheme of things, they are one and the same - throw in some public theater on fringe issues, but when the US needs to go to yet another war or the bankstas need yet another Fed bailout they stand united.

Spending is the only real issue and the only one neither party will bend on.

Not that this is newsworthy but it illustrates more of the same on and on, this time for opulent spending on the facilities to house Frank Dodd to the tune of 200 million spent autonomously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfRc8Sn5hiY&feature=youtu.be

Strategist says

Jonathan Johnamp; NSA .............A He has done his best to keep us safe.

Obamacare .............? Too hard for me to decipher.

Golf skills ..............? Too hard to decipher

Reducing Crime .............. C Hasn't done much. Recession?

Reducing Welfare .............. C Hasn't done much. Recession?

No - let's really grade these areas:

National Security and NSA - C he's gotten lucky on National Security and NSA has WAY overstepped it's bounds WITH his approval.

Obamacare - F only because there isn't a lower grade. Lied about the cost, lied about keeping your own insurance. Quality is lower, more government regs ... a dismal failure.

Golf skills - C despite spending LOTS of time on the course, he's still not that good.

Reducing crime - F haven't seen anything that makes it look like crime has been reduced OR that he's had anything to do with it (beyond a beer summit).

Reducing welfare - F sort of depends on what you classify as welfare, LOTS more people getting government handouts of one type or another, the man is a walking disaster.

mmmarvel says

Reducing welfare - F sort of depends on what you classify as welfare, LOTS more people getting government handouts of one type or another, the man is a walking disaster.

Where he really fails and is a liability to this country is with legislation that will do nothing but grow. Same as LBJ and FDR. The lefties think the ACA or Consumer Protection Act will not grow, but they are denying history.

Objectively, Obama hasn't been that good a president.

Reagan took a $600B government and nearly doubled it to $1.1T

W, same thing, $1.8T to $3.5T

On Obama's watch, gov't spending has only gone up 10%, to $3.9T.

Can't continue to have the greatest nation on the planet with such a paltry increase in its spending.

Having lost his Congressional supermajority after less than a year in office, and the House completely after 2 years -- and the Republican House one of the most comically hostile (to the Executive) bodies in all of history AFAIK -- Obama's been pretty much a "nothing burger" for the nation.

His greatest failure was not being the man we needed in 2009, after the Bush Economy went to complete shit on us.

He was a centrist, like Carter appointing Volcker in 1979, and his advisors did not (apparently) understand the severity of the bomb the previous administration's utter incompetence had set up for him, 2003-2008:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=DJW

shows credit was expanding at a sustained ~20% pa clip during this period, something not seen ever. Losing this money showering upon the entire economy was going to really hobble the 'recovery', but nobody apparently understood this simple dynamic.

Commander-in-Chief-wise, I don't see any intelligent criticism to make of his performance. He's appointed Republican DOD secretaries FFS, and followed a centrist line.

Like Nixon, he's had to extract the Army from a loser of a war. Two, actually.

The Dems have been lackluster for a very long time, but the GOP has been a total clownshow for even longer.

This is not a (D) vs (R) issue as much at is a left vs. right thing.

Conservatism -- anti-abortion, anti-evolution, anti-labor, pro-corporatism, anti-redistribution, pro-globalism, pro-guns, pro-war, pro-racism -- is destroying this country, and since conservatives have taken over the GOP, this cancer is a largely GOP thing now, though of course there are still a few conservative Dems rattling around.

It's amusing to hear those on the right acting like barack is the second coming of marx/lenin because when you listen to real "leftist" outlets like KPFA radio from their perspective Barack is the same old american imperialist war monger like all other presidents who also bows down to corporate interests.

It's also amusing to hear them pretend to think Bush was a disaster - not that they'll say it very often. They're too busy whining that liberals won't renounce Obama.

The next Republican president we get, there will be war. And every staunch conservative and pretend libertarian will support it wholeheartedly.

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

The next Republican president we get, there will be war.

Funny all but the Iraq/Afghanistan war were started by Democrats.

I think the stage is set for war above the presidents pay grade.

Partly by defense contractor lobbyists, but mostly by mercantilism. I would be leery of China leaning toward war.

Bellingham Bill says

Objectively, Obama hasn't been that good a president.

Objectively is the problem.................I don't have any reason to lean toward one particular party. As was said above at the end of the day they are not that different and really don't care about you anyway.

On a purely economic standpoint... Obama should have an A+.

March 4th, 2009 - DOW 6000 ( 3rd month of Barack's presidency).
June 19th, 2014 - DOW 16871

Name another president who would have been deemed a failure when the stock market increased that much in 5 years!?

October 2009 - Unemployment rate was 10% (Barack caught a falling knife).
May 2014 - Unemployment rate is 6.3%

Name another president with unemployment rate that falls nearly a 1% a year, that would be deemed bad president?

******

Anyway... You can say all you want about the FED and inflation... But until the house of cards collapses... On paper.. Obama is an economic Houdini who deserves an A+ in that department.

komputodo says

They get upset if you disparage their team. Why bother. Your favorite team doesn't give a crap about you.

I always said politics was the same as rooting for your favorite sports team. Blind faith and allegiance isn't the way you should support a political party though.

But then again, while i played sports as a kid.. I never had a favorite sports team. I will admit, my college football team I felt some of that "US against THEM pride". But i didn't lose any sleep over them losing.

Maybe i don't have the same desire to BELONG to a group as some sports fans. I guess I can see the benefits of communal celebration and pride.

Similar to patriotism.... But people always take it to the extreme that I never could. Now when i GAMBLE on a team... and lose.. THAT can make me lose sleep... and money :)

Call it Crazy says

Yep, a real Houdini!!

Houdini was famous for smoke and mirrors, right?

komputodo says

hmm..Let me see..those that are doing well in this economy are going to give him a higher grade and those that aren't are going to give him a lower grade..I think that pretty much explains it.

There is also disappointment with any President when someone gets their high expectations not panning out. The perfect example is right here on these boards where many voters voted for Obama because of his opposition to the Patriot Act, Gitmo and American boots on foreign lands. After coming to power Obama realized his intentions are just not feasible, leaving a very disappointed voter in its wake.

Bellingham Bill says

W, same thing, $1.8T to $3.5T

On Obama's watch, gov't spending has only gone up 10%, to $3.9T.

That's awesome... Include within government spending the allegedly one-time bailout/stimulus funds, as the baseline level for government spending left by Bush. Then despite years of continuing resolutions, essentially keeping high spending levels in place, give Obama credit for not increasing government spending that much despite having a nearly consistent $.5 Trillion or more per year above the last actual budget to spend.

Yep, that's "objective."

Of course, one can't claim Obama was responsible for the stimulus as a member of Congress because he simply didn't vote at all on it. Too bad Congress didn't double the one-time stimulus and then allow half of it to expire after one year. Then you could claim Obama cut government spending by XX%... "objectively" that is...

Arguing over Bush vs Obama is like arguing over who was worse FRD or LBJ IOW they both suck so bad that it is hardly worth trying to figure out which is worse.

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

The perfect example is right here on these boards where many voters voted for Obama because of his opposition to the Patriot Act, Gitmo and American boots on foreign lands. After coming to power Obama realized his intentions are just not feasible, leaving a very disappointed voter in its wake.

And STILL defend him even AFTER he failed to deliver on virtually every promise he made while campaigning..

That's a sign of a die hard party supporter. Works for repub too.
That's why I like being an independent. I can go by the issues and not by political affiliations.

Call it Crazy says

Because midterm elections are more a referendum on the White House occupant than anything else

Cook can be foolish sometimes. If Midterms are referendums on the White House occupant, then wouldn't it stand to reason that Americans NEVER approve of the resident in the Whitehouse--the one they just elected or re-elected?

If I recall, when Clinton and the Ds gained seats in 1998 it was the first time that had occurred since FDR. Of course, he was also the first Democrat re-elected since FDR too. We could just as easily posit that 2nd term midterms always go the opposite of the President's party, unless it's a Democrat.

The sun rising is a referendum on Obama.

Call it Crazy says

I think what they were getting at is that only the informed people or pissed off people are the ones who turn out for midterms... I suspect it's more the pissed off ones who are unhappy with the direction of the previous 2 years, which is why you get the change of parties...

The bulk of the voting "sheep" could care less for midterms, as long as they have the newest iThingy....

I went to school on that post

indigenous says

Reducing welfare - F sort of depends on what you classify as welfare, LOTS more people getting government handouts of one type or another, the man is a walking disaster.

I carefully explained this before. The growth in welfare recipients is primarily a cause and effect of an economy that shifted from solid, middle class jobs at factories and entry level white collar jobs to jobs at big box stores and fast food chains- the largest employers of Americans at this point. As seen these companies pay so little that a huge percentage of those workers are on welfare by necessity.

So ask yourselves: Which party has been against raising the minimum wage steadfast from day one? There you go... blame the President and "Lefties" all you want. The real reason is exactly as I mentioned above.

edvard2 says

I carefully explained this before.

No matter how carefully you explain it, does not make it correct. You mutts want a sound byte explanation, unfortunately there are a more moving parts than that.

It has to do with advances in technology, demographics, mercantilism, and most of all not allowing the market to clear. (this includes welfare at both ends of the spectrum)

Well, one thing you can safely say about Obama and his legacy, it's all his fault.

Ceffer says

Well, one thing you can safely say about Obama and his legacy, it's all his fault.

That is not what Obama says?

edvard2 says

indigenous says

Reducing welfare - F sort of depends on what you classify as welfare, LOTS more people getting government handouts of one type or another, the man is a walking disaster.

I carefully explained this before. The growth in welfare recipients is primarily a cause and effect of an economy that shifted from solid, middle class jobs at factories and entry level white collar jobs to jobs at big box stores and fast food chains- the largest employers of Americans at this point. As seen these companies pay so little that a huge percentage of those workers are on welfare by necessity.

So ask yourselves: Which party has been against raising the minimum wage steadfast from day one? There you go... blame the President and "Lefties" all you want. The real reason is exactly as I mentioned above.

What's wrong with allowing costs of living, to realign with wages? Why are demsheep so hell bent on keeping everything so expensive? A simpler solution would be to allow housing costs to find their level, rather than subsidizing landlords and exhorbitant rents. Everyone knows that any raise in minimum wage will be instantly swallowed by rising rents

errc says

What's wrong with allowing costs of living, to realign with wages? Why are demsheep so hell bent on keeping everything so expensive? A simpler solution would be to allow housing costs to find their level, rather than subsidizing landlords and exhorbitant rents. Everyone knows that any raise in minimum wage will be instantly swallowed by rising rents

Nothing wrong, except It needs to be done at the individual level called "living within your means"
We need to realize money is limited, we can't have everything in life.

errc says

Why are demsheep so hell bent on keeping everything so expensive?

Who are "dem sheep" ???

Strategist says

We need to realize money is limited, we can't have everything in life.

... Says the guy who thinks his house value should go up 50% just because it's there.

indigenous says

No matter how carefully you explain it, does not make it correct. You mutts want a sound byte explanation, unfortunately there are a more moving parts than that.

It has to do with advances in technology, demographics, mercantilism, and most of all not allowing the market to clear. (this includes welfare at both ends of the spectrum)

I didn't even have to "carefully" explain it. Its super easy to see where that conclusion came from. So if you want to spend 2 seconds, look up what the largest employers in the country are. Then after that look at what those companies pay and how little they provide in profits and wages. Then look up the percentage of those employees on welfare. Great. Big. Duh.errc says

What's wrong with allowing costs of living, to realign with wages? Why are demsheep so hell bent on keeping everything so expensive

Why is the GOP and their eager and loyal subjects so hell-bent on racing to the bottom? Why is is that any and all suggestions made in which to perhaps improve the situation for the working, middle, and even the wealth classes are instantly berrated by the GOP with their bullshit reasons- that everything will get more expensive? So the answer is to keep everyone on such low wages they have to accept welfare? I mean- if this supposed Conservative utopia is all about keeping wages low and the populace impoverished then maybe they should go live in X number of 3rd world countries where people are really poor. Maybe then they would be realllly happy...