This is the biggest bullshit cop-out excuse ever, the Ultimate Author-i-tay that is inevitably trotted out when there really is no good reason. The morale hazard of accepting such an argument is extreme – that way lies the Police State.
I will never accept it as valid in the political sphere. The danger of accepting it is far greater than whatever imagined threat he is presumably protecting us from, that we shouldn’t worry our little heads about.
And let’s be blunt, the real reason is that Obama, like most who reach his position, likes his executive power. Jason’s quote from Ellsberg is spot on.
The only way you are going to see this country shift to the left enough to have real change, is for some sort of left-wing radicalism in a fashion similar to the Tea Party, or worse , come into this country.
Personally, I’d be all for seeing some Bull Moose sightings.
He wants to get re-elected and if there was a fatal terrorist attack on the country and he’d shot down part of the Patriot Act - he’d be further labeled as a secret Islamic who wanted to tear down the US from the inside.
Honestly, with 40% of American in the throes of idiocy, ignorance, and paranoia, this was the only thing he could do that makes sense for his future run.
I love how even something blatant like President Obama wanting to extend the Patrio Act is still blamed on the Tea Party or the Republicans. So the Repulicans are a bunch of idiots…but it makes perfect sense for Obama to base his policies on their “idiocy”? Who’s the more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows him?
I just find it interesting/expected/puzzling? that the same people who ranted and raved about what a Nazi Bush was for the Patriot Act find excuses for it to be perfectly OK for Obama to extend the act.
Fucking Obama. I like a lot of his policies, but he’s been absolutely terrible on personal liberties. I just don’t get it. Well, I do, but I wish I didn’t.
Which people are these? Because this thread seems to be mostly about people who were against the act under Bush and who are now pretty pissed at Obama on this issue. Including me.
Nor is this the first time. Frankly, I’d vote against him in 2012 if there were an acceptable alternative. The problem is the Republicans are currently much, much worse.
That’s funny. Looking upthread I do see a couple of people doing this – but one of them is [I]you[/I], so I don’t see why you’re puzzled.
Overwhelmingly the people I know who didn’t like it under Bush still don’t like it under Obama. A few cop-out with the Realpolitik angle, but more won’t vote for Obama again because of it.
Obama certainly doesn’t act like he thinks it’s awesome, and I think with a better political climate he’d advocate chucking it overboard. More importantly, “renewing stupid thing your predecessor did that you can’t politically get away with removing” is not the same thing as “come up with and pass terrible idea that’ll trap your successors”.
LOL! Busted. I actually wasn’t trying to make excuses as much as figure him out. But you are correct for calling me out on that.
But I just do think it is hypocritical, whether it is me or anyone else, to demonize Bush on this and then say “Well, it just isn’t politically smart to not support this” for Obama.
Haha, yeah, wouldn’t it be nice if Obama had to defend these kind policies, instead of endless debates and talking head discussions over whatever dumb shit palin did today.
Umm the reauthorization passed 86-12, and he voted no on it anyway, so what would have been the point of a fillibuster? There was no way a fillibuster wouldnt have been immediately voted down with that kinda of majority voting for the bill.
To hold up the works until they gave up? To sell the public on the rightness of his position? To take the right, doomed position in the face of certain loss? You know, the stuff proponents claim the filibuster is good for.
