World Politics

[scribe]

Many large corporations are multi-national, making it very difficult to enforce the keeping out of foreign interests in American politics. But all that is besides the point. Political contributions should be limited to individuals. Corporations needing protections of free speech with respect to political contribution is something that needs to be talked about more in light of the SC decision.

 

[ravens]

And in your (and Obama's) very next breath you will attack the Republicans for not wanting to work with your side.

News Flash: Bush is no longer President. At some point your side will be responsible for their results, or lack thereof.

He apparently is going to stick with the 'blame it on bush' strategy. I am OK with people who aren't the president carrying that water as a political defense, but this guy goes out there in his one major MAJOR speech each year (as opposed to his 400 other major speeches) and still pushes that line.

Amazing. If dyed in the wool supporters want to advocate that, then fine. I understand. His cultists are as married to him as they are to his ideas. I try not to stick too close to people as ideas as people will let you down and Obama is a huge letdown. His promises are not only NOT kept, he is almost exactly what he decried with his backroom deals, shutting out political opponents of the process and the endless partisanship and lack of honesty. I have doubts if his party will even stand by him running for re-election. he is killing them.

Let him keep pushing that blame bush line and let's see how far he gets with it. I think if he doesn't drop it in the next few months, it's really going to come back to haunt him. Let it happen, I say. I hope he ramps it up.

 

[Bala Verde]

Most sitting Presidents have enough class not to attack the Supreme Court in the SoU speech. It has not happened (according to reports) since FDR.

Even wrinkly old white guys don't appreciate the lies being told about them (read the decision. It specifically keeps in place restrictions on foreign Corporate campaign contributions. Obama knows this but needs a good red-meat issue to thow to the leftist base, even though it's a lie).

Unfortunately the Court has not pronounced a decision on direct foreign corporate donations or through US subsidiaries:

Because §441b is not limited to corporations or associations created in foreign countries or funded predominantly by foreign shareholders, it would be overbroad even if the Court were to recognize a compelling governmental interest in limiting foreign influence over the Nation’s political process.

In other words, no lies have been told. Nonetheless, Alito was generous enough to share his political opinions as an impartial judge, chosen for life. He reacted like a disgruntled politician, who was personally attacked while running for office. He's King in the Court for 365 days a year, for the rest of his life. Outside the court he has no opinions. If he can't live with that, he is not worth the robe he wearing.

 

[fatandfast]

If Alito is baited by a non-personal comment that took less than 60 seconds he his position on the bench should be reconsidered.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Most sitting Presidents have enough class not to attack the Supreme Court in the SoU speech. It has not happened (according to reports) since FDR.

Even wrinkly old white guys don't appreciate the lies being told about them (read the decision. It specifically keeps in place restrictions on foreign Corporate campaign contributions. Obama knows this but needs a good red-meat issue to thow to the leftist base, even though it's a lie).

Generally the Supreme Court doesn't sell us out as badly as they did this time, criticism of that decision is warranted.

 

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately the Court has not pronounced a decision on direct foreign corporate donations or through US subsidiaries:



In other words, no lies have been told. Nonetheless, Alito was generous enough to share his political opinions as an impartial judge, chosen for life. He reacted like a disgruntled politician, who was personally attacked while running for office. He's King in the Court for 365 days a year, for the rest of his life. Outside the court he has no opinions. If he can't live with that, he is not worth the robe he wearing.

The decision did not review that which deals with foreign corporate capaign contributions so therefore was not overturned. The laws exist as they did before the recent SC decision. When the President said:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities".

he lied. Or his incompetence as an attorrney was on full display as well as his lack of comprehensions skills. I'm thinking he just lied.

Alito was not terribly impressed. We can argue weather his mouthing the words "not true" were appropriate but the basis for his reaction is what it is.

 

[Anonymous]

Newsflash: Your ideological theory for governing is tried and tested as FAILURE. You have no business criticizing the left while your heroes in the Senate work to obstruct legislation.

What part of "they can't stop anything the dems want to do" don't you get? 58 democratic senators and 2 independents (who had signaled they would vote for the plan) keeps the other side from having a voice. There is also a democratic majority in the house. The house and the senate could not agree and yet you blame the repubs. Just priceless.


My idoelogy a failure? Ok, whatever you say.

 

[Anonymous]

(1) At least as it relates to the Senate and it's cloture rules, this is not true. Majority rule is no longer the basis for passing legislation or otherwise conducting business in the US Senate. And both houses of Congress must agree before a bill is presented to the President for his signature.

(2) Obama is President of the United States, whether you like it or not. Frankly, it is the Congress that is doing this country a disservice. The President is neither King nor Dictator. He does not enact legislation. He implement and enforces. To the extent the legislative body has become Californized, our country will continue to struggle to address the problems confronting us. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem (that's not directed to you specifically).

(3) Obama will be re-elected by a substantial margin in 2012.

Only if he starts governing from the center. He keeps pushing his current agenda and he's an ex-president after 2012.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Not many people are talking the specifics, because from what I saw last night, there weren't many. Mostly more of the same from Obama. A push for health care, and more top down tax measures that probably won't trickle down to working people with any noticeable substance at all. And some tough talk on banks and the Supreme Court ruling - with no teeth.

Nothing from the GOP side other than resistance. No solutions other than the magic of less government somehow fixing everything.

Just a side note-Jimmy Carter was a detached technician who, with Paul Volker; made all of us swallow the bitter pill that made for a real productive economy in later years. No conservative or liberal wants to acknowledge it but the pill has yet to be shown to us or swallowed.

Interesting comparison. What many people forget is that when Carter first got into office he wasn't nearly as liberal as people think. It was the far left and entrenched Dems in his own party that railroaded many of his plans for things like cutting the budget even. Carter also had an aggressive energy plan (that I spoke of here before) that was ignored by all, but had it been implemented we'd be hardly importing any oil at all today. But he had such a dour attitude half the time, and like Obama didn't put his foot down when he should have, or could have.

 

[scribe]

What part of "they can't stop anything the dems want to do" don't you get? 58 democratic senators and 2 independents (who had signaled they would vote for the plan) keeps the other side from having a voice. There is also a democratic majority in the house. The house and the senate could not agree and yet you blame the repubs. Just priceless.


My idoelogy a failure? Ok, whatever you say.

That's it. Your time has come and gone via Contract with America, Bush/Cheney terms and the great Palin hope. You SHOULD polish your views to match the center of the country, which will require agreement with many Democratic proposals, and maybe you can win seats back with a positive message.

Or you can keep lobbing barbs and hope your reps in congress successfully block a bunch of legislation, while hoping America is too dumb to recognize what is going on.

Considering many millions of Americans voted a moron in for a second term in 2004, the second option is the more likely course of Republican action.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Only if he starts governing from the center. He keeps pushing his current agenda and he's an ex-president after 2012.

His whole problem is that the center is exactly where he is trying to govern from now. With just about every politician in DC in the pocket of big business that is not likely to change, although his comments about the supremes make me think he wishes it could.

 

[scribe]

Not many people are talking the specifics, because from what I saw last night, there weren't many. Mostly more of the same from Obama. A push for health care, and more top down tax measures that probably won't trickle down to working people with any noticeable substance at all. And some tough talk on banks and the Supreme Court ruling - with no teeth.

Nothing from the GOP side other than resistance. No solutions other than the magic of less government somehow fixing everything.

Top drawn taxes goes directly into the budgeting equation. We can mince words on who it impacts directly, but an overblown budget is a big problem that needs addressed.

It was interesting to note that many banks have actually paid back the funds. And other tarp funds are shown to be an investment that will return to the government substantially. I have yet to see the data, but NPR ran a program on what truths were stretched during Obama's speech. The rest of the tough talk on banking bonuses will remain just that. If they pay back the money, they can do as they wish regarding bonuses.

In Obama's speech, he is pushing for legislation that would curtail the floodgate of corporate spending on campaign finance. What this sets up is a signal for the Judicial branch to get ready to test additional laws as it pertains to the constitution.

 

[Bala Verde]

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities".

I don't see how Obama lied, when he stated what he believes will be the effect of Citizens United v. FEC on future American elections. He basically concurred with judge Stevens (as well as Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer) on the issue:

Identity-Based Distinctions

The second pillar of the Court’s opinion is its assertion that “the Government cannot restrict political speech based on the speaker’s . . . identity.” Ante, at 30; accord, ante, at 1, 24, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 49, 50.

[...]

The Government routinely places special restrictions on the speech rights of students, (41) prisoners, (42) members of the Armed Forces,(43) foreigners,
(44) and its own employees.(45) When such restrictions are justified by a legitimate governmental interest, they do not necessarily raise constitutional problems.(46)

[...]

More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could “‘enhance the relative voice’” of some (i.e., humans) over others (i.e., nonhumans).

[...]

In short, the Court dramatically overstates its critique of identity-based distinctions, without ever explaining why corporate identity demands the same treatment as individual identity. Only the most wooden approach to the First Amendment could justify the unprecedented line it seeks to draw.

[...]

Unlike voters in U. S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled.(70) Unlike other interest groups, business corporations have been “effectively
delegated responsibility for ensuring society’s economic welfare”;(71) they inescapably structure the life of every citizen.

I can't wait for permanent residents to start challenging the identity-based restrictions and limitations placed upon their first amendment rights (no voting, no donations et. al.). Or foreign corporations, or prisoners, or members of the armed forces, or government employees.

Don't be afraid of the UN to curb US sovereignty. It's your own legislation such as the aliens tort act and now citizens united v. FEC that has the most potential to undermine that holiest of holy concepts.

Anyway, despite of all the lofty words in a SotU addres, it's back to business as usual in DC today

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

What part of "they can't stop anything the dems want to do" don't you get? 58 democratic senators and 2 independents (who had signaled they would vote for the plan) keeps the other side from having a voice. There is also a democratic majority in the house. The house and the senate could not agree and yet you blame the repubs. Just priceless.


My idoelogy a failure? Ok, whatever you say.

+1
It's funny to me that Obama blamed the GOP for things not getting done, but his party holds the majority in the house and senate. You gotta love a guy still passing blame a year into his term.

 

[BroDeal]

+1
It's funny to me that Obama blamed the GOP for things not getting done, but his party holds the majority in the house and senate. You gotta love a guy still passing blame a year into his term.

Flunked out of civics class I see. It does not surprise me. Less than sixty seats in the Senate is not worth much.

 

[Anonymous]

Most sitting Presidents have enough class not to attack the Supreme Court in the SoU speech. It has not happened (according to reports) since FDR.

Even wrinkly old white guys don't appreciate the lies being told about them (read the decision. It specifically keeps in place restrictions on foreign Corporate campaign contributions. Obama knows this but needs a good red-meat issue to thow to the leftist base, even though it's a lie).

Like allowing corporations to usurp voter rights of individual citizens is some smoke screen? No, your party ramming up the back side and not even offering a reach around. Its okay, we know it is the fault of the poor anyway. They are the real problem, right?

 

[Anonymous]

He apparently is going to stick with the 'blame it on bush' strategy. I am OK with people who aren't the president carrying that water as a political defense, but this guy goes out there in his one major MAJOR speech each year (as opposed to his 400 other major speeches) and still pushes that line.

Amazing. If dyed in the wool supporters want to advocate that, then fine. I understand. His cultists are as married to him as they are to his ideas. I try not to stick too close to people as ideas as people will let you down and Obama is a huge letdown. His promises are not only NOT kept, he is almost exactly what he decried with his backroom deals, shutting out political opponents of the process and the endless partisanship and lack of honesty. I have doubts if his party will even stand by him running for re-election. he is killing them.

Let him keep pushing that blame bush line and let's see how far he gets with it. I think if he doesn't drop it in the next few months, it's really going to come back to haunt him. Let it happen, I say. I hope he ramps it up.

And how often did Bush refer to the Clinton years? Oh wait, he wears your jersey, so it doesn't count, right?

 

[ravens]

Flunked out of civics class I see. It does not surprise me. Less than sixty seats in the Senate is not worth much.

Most presidents get a lot more done even if they don't control even a simple majority in either house. this guy needs a rubber stamp majority that can just lock out any dissenters from the process.

Note that he 'lost' another healthcare vote today with a 56 vote majority. which means Democrats are flaking off, too.

Now help me with this. Why if the constituencies of those 44 no votes actually wanted any of this manure, would those politicians be bold enough to vote against their constituents' wishes and go to the mat to stop this pig with lipstick if it was political suicide to stop it? You don't mean to tell me that perhaps they are confident that stopping this thing at all costs is EXACTLY what their constituents want, do you?

Because they know we don't want this garbage, dummy.

The party is captive to a bunch of statist ideologues who will rule against voters no matter what. But we are supposed to tell ourselves we are just too stupid to know how good these health bills, cap and trade and terrorists on trial in stead of on the gallows are going to be for us in the long run.

Obama is really a very small man and an empty suit. And not nearly as smart as billed. He needs a teleprompter to talk to 20 people? He is a marionette! The speech was sarcastic and hostile. And I am loving it. He is going to be held to account before you know it. And you will spin that too, in order to keep from facing the truth.

Keep denying reality. I am loving that, too.

 

[Anonymous]

The decision did not review that which deals with foreign corporate capaign contributions so therefore was not overturned. The laws exist as they did before the recent SC decision. When the President said:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities".

he lied. Or his incompetence as an attorrney was on full display as well as his lack of comprehensions skills. I'm thinking he just lied.

Alito was not terribly impressed. We can argue weather his mouthing the words "not true" were appropriate but the basis for his reaction is what it is.

The decision is not capable of stopping a multi-national corporation from funneling funds through its American subsidiary and influencing an election. He didn't lie, he merely pointed out a significant weakness of the decision. Unless you believe that the government will hire Price Waterhouse to look at the books (and even they are of suspicious ethics), to suggest that foreign capital will be kept out of the kitty is ridiculous. Sorry you Republicans don't want to fight for the individual voter, but in this case you are carrying the water for people who can corrupt the election process like no other. The tea bagging populism falls on deaf ears for precisely that reason. And lets not even get into the fact that many of you decried the decision to bail out banks and AIG, yet neither you nor your party's leaders want to regulate those institutions because in reality, they are your base. Now that the Supreme Court has rubber stamped their right to buy elections, you guys are in great shape. You'll get the trifecta when they shoot down the theft of honest services criminal code. It must be sweet to have the most corrupt Supreme Court in history in your hands.

 

[ravens]

And how often did Bush refer to the Clinton years? Oh wait, he wears your jersey, so it doesn't count, right?

Your delusions amuse me. In case the prozac is finally starting to help you focus:

I WANT You To Keep Blaming Bush For Everything

It's a losing bet. So bet the farm on it. Quick, how many seats did Bush lose in the 2002 mid-terms?

 

[scribe]

+1
It's funny to me that Obama blamed the GOP for things not getting done, but his party holds the majority in the house and senate. You gotta love a guy still passing blame a year into his term.

Who said Obama wasn't getting anything done? (other than conservatives)

 

[ravens]

The decision is not capable of stopping a multi-national corporation from funneling funds through its American subsidiary and influencing an election. He didn't lie, he merely pointed out a significant weakness of the decision. Unless you believe that the government will hire Price Waterhouse to look at the books (and even they are of suspicious ethics), to suggest that foreign capital will be kept out of the kitty is ridiculous. Sorry you Republicans don't want to fight for the individual voter, but in this case you are carrying the water for people who can corrupt the election process like no other. The tea bagging populism falls on deaf ears for precisely that reason. And lets not even get into the fact that many of you decried the decision to bail out banks and AIG, yet neither you nor your party's leaders want to regulate those institutions because in reality, they are your base. Now that the Supreme Court has rubber stamped their right to buy elections, you guys are in great shape. You'll get the trifecta when they shoot down the theft of honest services criminal code. It must be sweet to have the most corrupt Supreme Court in history in your hands.

Gosh, so much indignation! Where was all this indignation when Clinton sold his office to the Chinese in the 90's? Nary a peep.

 

[BroDeal]

Most presidents get a lot more done even if they don't control even a simple majority in either house. this guy needs a rubber stamp majority that can just lock out any dissenters from the process.

Note that he 'lost' another healthcare vote today with a 56 vote majority. which means Democrats are flaking off, too.

Now help me with this. Why if the constituencies of those 44 no votes actually wanted any of this manure, would those politicians be bold enough to vote against their constituents' wishes and go to the mat to stop this pig with lipstick if it was political suicide to stop it? You don't mean to tell me that perhaps they are confident that stopping this thing at all costs is EXACTLY what their constituents want, do you?

Because they know we don't want this garbage, dummy.

The party is captive to a bunch of statist ideologues who will rule against voters no matter what. But we are supposed to tell ourselves we are just too stupid to know how good these health bills, cap and trade and terrorists on trial in stead of on the gallows are going to be for us in the long run.

Obama is really a very small man and an empty suit. And not nearly as smart as billed. He needs a teleprompter to talk to 20 people? He is a marionette! The speech was sarcastic and hostile. And I am loving it. He is going to be held to account before you know it. And you will spin that too, in order to keep from facing the truth.

Keep denying reality. I am loving that, too.

WTF are you rambling on about it? This rant has nothing to do with my statement. Sounds like someone has a few serious issues that he feels the need to vent about.

You must be the life of the party. I can see it now:

Some poor bastard: "How about the Knicks last night?"

Ravens: "Obama is really a very small man and an empty suit. And not nearly as smart as billed. He needs a teleprompter to talk to 20 people? He is a marionette! The speech was sarcastic and hostile. And I am loving it. He is going to be held to account before you know it. And you will spin that too, in order to keep from facing the truth."

"It's only a matter of time before we take over. The damned libs will rue the day. Rue the day, I tell you. We already have the camps set up, and we have the master list of who to arrest. The reeducation is coming. I am loving this. Loving it, I tell you."

Some poor bastard: "I had better go check on my wife."

Ravens: "Don't go. I have to tell you about the new torture practices we intend to use on those we deem to be not American enough. Boiling people alive under the Bush administration was too soft. We will..."

 

[Anonymous]

Gosh, so much indignation! Where was all this indignation when Clinton sold his office to the Chinese in the 90's? Nary a peep.

Uh, unlike you, I don't wear a jersey. I voted for Bush in 2000 for reasons just like that. Why not ask yourself why you don't have any indignation towards the current decision if you are so against the decision by Clinton? Oh wait, you don't do introspection.

Oh, and why not grow a set and debate economics like I suggested a couple of days ago? No, no, I get it, you are so above me in knowledge that you cannot be bothered...or is it that you don't have any real evidence that your fanciful theories work? Don't answer, I already know...

 

[ravens]

Who said Obama wasn't getting anything done? (other than conservatives)

That is true, as I said many posts ago, he is getting a lot done. His aim is to permanently wound this country in such a way that it can never fully recover. Government programs, once they get started, never go away. They never even get smaller. He wants the government running every detail and making every choice for its citizens as possible.

Right now it's a race against time and a battle to see which Democrats can resist the bullying to vote for things their constituents do NOT want. He has been doing and will continue to do as much as he can between inauguration and the mid-terms to do as much as he can to destroy freedom.

He loses one little seat and it's the end of the world? Only because the work they were doing was enacting crud that no one wanted in the first place. If it was any good, it would have sailed through even if he didn't control both houses.