Showing posts with label Rachel Maddow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rachel Maddow. Show all posts

May 14, 2009

Turley Said It Best

Today, Obama repealed his own policy.
No more transparency—even if it has to do with crimes committed by the previous administration.
Obama has flip-flopped on releasing the pictures of torture. You know, the pictures he promised to make public on May 28? Those pictures.

There is speculation that Obama’s administration fears the pictures will be associated with it instead of the people who actually authorized the torture. WTF? Do they truly think that?
I can tell them right now—just in case they’re wondering: The people who already hate them. The ones who call him a socialist. The ones who are still demanding to see his birth certificate. The ones who hope he [and thereby, the country] fails.
Those people will say, “See? We knew Obama tortured! We knew everybody does it!” But, no one else will.

On the other hand, those of us who used to think he was on the right track, those of us who believed him when he talked about transparency, those of us who are not among the 12% of the population who identify as Republicans, are deeply, deeply disappointed. And we’re heading toward rage.

So, here we go yet further down the slippery slope:
He asked Rick Warren, a gay-bashing-bigot, to pray at his inauguration.
He has maintained Bush’s policies in regard to “Faith Based Initiatives”—even down to allowing discriminatory hiring and proselytizing before dishing out the soup and handing over the cot.
He hasn’t repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, as he had promised. Gays continue to have their military careers ruined.
And he talks out of both sides of his neck when it comes to torture.

Tonight, on Rachel Maddow, Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University said, “It’s perfectly Orwellian.”
And, “What the president said today is diametrically against the Federal law.”
And, “If he succeeds, instead of having a transparent government, he would create this opaque government where you could virtually see nothing. The government could say, ‘This is going to be embarrassing. So, whatever is embarrassing to us injures national security.’”
And, “It’s just more evidence that this administration is becoming the greatest bait-and-switch in history. He is morphing into his predecessor.”

Rachel asked if these hundreds of new pictures suggest that there was an overall pattern that obviously reaches much higher than the ‘few rogue operators’ as both administrations have labeled them—and if that is the case, the whole thing will have to be investigated. And THAT is what Obama does not want to do. Turley agreed that that is exactly how this whole charade is beginning to appear.

The ACLU said it for me: When these photos come to light, “the outrage will focus not only on the Bush administration but on the Obama administration’s complicity in covering them up.”

Remember how much worse Watergate became after the cover-up started? Apparently, Obama doesn’t remember that little history lesson. And we all know what they say about those who forget history.
xxx
There is one [as Rachel would say] “teeny, tiny, tinee, teeeeeneee” little sliver of hope here.

Turley came up with virtually the same idea that I wrote about on April 21: that Obama is secretly hoping that he will be forced to release the photos—but that, for political reasons, he can’t just do it.

That COULD be the case, of course, but the more he plays these political games, the worse he looks to us hicks out in the sticks. To my mind, he’s choosing to mollify the wrong people.
Really, Obama, Cheney and Rush can't be any nastier to you than they're already being. Remember who put you where you are. Quit appeasing the criminals and start paying attention to the rest of us—or risk losing your head three-and-a-half years from now.

April 21, 2009

Our Wiley President

Rachel made my day, tonight.
She led off her show with an update about the torture and Obama’s statements that he would not prosecute the CIA operatives who “were just following orders.” Does that ring a bell? Remember Nuremberg?
But I digress.
Rachel actually brought us some good news.
Obama may SAY he doesn’t intend to go after the CIA agents. Rahm Emmanuel may go on This Week With George Stephanopoulos and say the White House has no plans to pursue the people who wrote the memos or the people who told the lawyers to find them some legal loopholes so they could play schoolyard bully with people who were tied up and tied down and couldn’t fight back.
Obama and Emmanuel can say whatever they want to say and they can say it till they turn blue. It makes no nevermind. It’s not their decision to make.

**sssshhhhhhhhh!** Don’t tell Obama, but it’s the Department of Justice that determines what laws were broken and who to prosecute and who not to prosecute.
xxx
So, do you want my take on all of this? Well, want it or not, you’re gonna get it. =)
1] Obama, unlike his predecessor, is a very smart man.
2] I’ll bet money he knows all about the separation of powers within our government. I betcha he knows full well he doesn’t get to decide what crimes were committed and what will be done about them.
3] I’ll also bet he knows politics well enough to know that nothing will get the supervisor of any department running up a full head of steam faster than somebody else daring to tread on his turf.
4] AND I’ll bet that this is one hell of a sticky wicket for Obama.
He was just about 11 years old when the news was All Watergate All The Time—so he probably didn’t pay a lot of attention while it was going on. But, I’m sure it was dissected in every civics and American history class he took in high school and college.
And he certainly knows that every Democratic President has had hell to pay ever since. Nixon/Watergate was the reason why Ken Starr spent 6 years and $40 million investigating Bill Clinton and finally had to settle for impeaching him for sleeping around. But he HAD to prove the old Republican talking point that, “Everybody does it.”

So, try this on for size:
Obama wants to prosecute. But he can’t SAY he wants to prosecute or he will bring down all kinds of hell on his head and the heads of every Democratic president who follows him for at least the next 40 years.

In fact, if he makes a point of saying he DOESN’T want to prosecute, he might get the Republicans to back off the constant attempts to find dirt in the backgrounds of every Democrat they come in contact with. [fwiw, Clinton wasn’t the first. They tried with Carter. They hounded Tom Eagleton off Mondale’s ticket. And, during his presidential campaign, they hunted for something, anything, on Gore. Not to mention the 'birth certificate' insanity that still haunts Obama himself—although he's smart enough to just ignore it.] It’s enough to convince any viable candidates that they can find lots better stuff to do with their time.

So, Obama, being the smart guy he is, just might have found a way out of the waters that were rising above his head:
By taking prosecution off the table, he steps on the Justice Department’s toes. And Eric Holder rises to the bait saying that HE hasn’t taken prosecution off the table by any means, thankyouverymuch.
Obama is forced to back down and apologize to Holder and his department. [He hasn’t done it yet, but—given the stink Holder is making—I’ll bet he does soon.]
Now, he’s on record as being against the prosecutions. He, and all the Dem presidents of the next half century, are off the hook.
And the prosecutions are more likely to move forward than they were before Obama stepped on Holder’s toes.
xxx
OK, yes, I’m reaching just a bit, here.
I WANT this nefarious scenario to be true. I want an excuse to vote for Obama four years from now.
Still, given the convoluted state of Washington, it COULD be true, couldn’t it?

March 14, 2009

Just in case you don't know Rachel, get acquainted with her here-- and watch her on MSNBC. I doubt you'll be disappointed.

December 18, 2008

Coal's Response to Rachel

On 12/12, Rachel Maddow was blamed by the “Clean” Coal Industry because its blog didn’t receive as many hits as it wanted after she had featured it on her program earlier that week.
Furthermore, it threatened her. When she said that it was offensive that the “Clean” Coal ad had used the hymn Silent Night to sell a product that pollutes and to spread lies about it, a related blog-site said that it could, in turn, publicize things put forth by Rachel that offended the developers of this ad.

Rachel’s response: "Oh! Is that a promise? My work here is done!"
Go, Rachel! =D