Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

Why discuss drones and the Constitution when you can talk about Harry Reid:

On the Sunday talk shows, Republicans expressed outrage over Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) unsubstantiated claim that Mitt Romney has not paid taxes in 10 years, flatly accusing the Senate majority leader of lying.

On ABC’s “This Week,” an incensed Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called Reid a “dirty liar,” saying he “complains about people with money but lives in the Ritz Carlton here down the street.”

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/republicans-reince-priebus-harry-reid-dirty-liar-romney-taxes.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
“It’s ridiculous, it’s wrong, it’s untrue, and it’s just going to hurt the president,” he said of the claim, accusing President Obama of inciting “division and hatred.”

c'mon Mittens, be as transparent as the secret-kill-list guy.

one problem is that any 'discussion' is seen as capitulation by the ppl most concerned about civil liberties.

― Mordy, Monday, August 6, 2012 6:01 PM (1 hour ago)

not really seeing this -- most of the mainstream articles i've seen have expressed unease and discomfort with the ethical and constitutional ramifications of o's assassination policy, not outright condemnation.

Find out the neighbors' political affiliation in seconds!

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/06/is_your_neighbor_a_democrat_obama_has_an_app_for_that_salpart/

Funny

x-post

Would folks like Greenwald oppose a quasi-judicial/FISA Court mechanism and say that Americans abroad in a country we have not declared war on should have to be indicted and given due process rights; and incorporating some quasi judicial mechanism without due process is unconstitutional

i would say probably yes

the fact that we execute them without even TRYING to take them alive and put them on trial is the problem imho

like, okay, you killed dude resisting arrest in a foreign country, eh I'm not gonna lose too much sleep - but that's very different from killing someone (and a bunch of innocent bystanders) with a robot from a million miles away

Bbbbb....But's that putting American soldiers in danger and creating a political situation--American soldiers on a mission in Yemen who we are not at war with.

expediency is often the enemy of justic

justice even

Countdown to militias 3D printing their own flying death robots.

x-post--The military and CIA would say it's not about expediency its about not risking the lives of American troops when they do not have to (Holder & Justice have given them the comfort to believe so with the memos decreeing constitutionality).

that... is a form of expediency, or maybe convenience is a better word

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/07/unrestrained_savagery/

Greenwald on Al Queda in Yemen and the US CIA both targeting folks attending funerals

that... is a form of expediency, or maybe convenience is a better word

Give me convenience, ... and give me death!

The Huffington Post ‏@HuffPostFeed
Obama Outlaws Protests At Funerals, Says Bombing Them "More Dignified"

I lol'd

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/us/politics/obama-is-an-avid-reader-and-critic-of-news-media-coverage.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120808

As president, however, he has come to believe the news media have had a role in frustrating his ambitions to change the terms of the country’s political discussion. He particularly believes that Democrats do not receive enough credit for their willingness to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security, while Republicans oppose almost any tax increase to reduce the deficit.

Um Mr. President, most Democrats do not want to cut Medicare and Social Security and certainly do not want credit for it. I think you have been reading too much Tom Friedman and David Brooks and not enough Digby. If you add some different selection to your I-Pad you would learn about ways to reform Social Security and Medicare without going after the middle and working class

I'm sorry I haven't given the prez enough credit for his rare courage in supporting cuts to SS and Medicare.

I think you have been reading too much Tom Friedman and David Brooks and not enough Digby.

this is self-parody now right

this entire thread is self-parody!

can you really ever read too much david brooks? i mean really.

the way the nyt article addresses false balance is kind of hilarious:

Privately and publicly, Mr. Obama has articulated what he sees as two overarching problems: coverage that focuses on political winners and losers rather than substance; and a “false balance,” in which two opposing sides are given equal weight regardless of the facts.

...The term “false balance,” which has been embraced by many Democrats, emerged in academic papers in the 1990s to describe global-warming coverage.

“I believe this type of ‘accuracy’ and ‘balance’ are a huge thing afflicting contemporary media,” said Josh Marshall, editor and publisher of the left-leaning Web site Talking Points Memo.

Conservative pundits see things differently. “Obama is used to the press cheerleading for him so any time a story gets reported straight he’s likely to think it represents a false equivalency,” said John H. Hinderaker, a Minneapolis lawyer behind Power Line, a conservative political Web site.

so, in the part of the article that focuses on false balance, the author quotes two people, one from each side of the argument, without any substance that might provide the reader some sort of information upon which to make a judgment.

LOL

dying actually

oh man

he was THIS CLOSE to actually providing some sort of substance, too! he mentions that academics and experts agree that false balance is a problem. surely there's some sort of study or set of data that provides evidence? but no, it would be better just to get josh marshall to say it's a problem and some conservative asshole to say the opposite.

see? balance!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QER_yqTcmjM

i would've disagreed before i read this (re 'false balance' in media criticism), but shafer otm here: http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/08/09/president-obama’s-imbalanced-view-on-journalism

hey guys, the US public rebelled when the media kept saying Reagan was uttering blatant falsehoods in '81. Hence, Nu Balance.

i would've disagreed before i read this (re 'false balance' in media criticism)

really?

i don't think schafer really 'gets' what false balance is

yeah i dont think shafer and obama are talking about the same thing

I am shocked - SHOCKED I say

just saw a brief Romney interview on NBC news - this guy is such a terrible candidate, he can't nail softball questions like "what do you want your VP pick to say about you?"

no one seems to have any respect for him, i've noticed. especially conservatives

Should I start a blog called The Android Mitt Romney y/n

Executive branch continues rotting below the Bam (sorry, I know you guys are busy with your Ryan/Munster pics):

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/14/secrecy_creep/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79746.html#ixzz23dNc44Ij

here's an act of domestic terror we're going to be hearing about from now until kingdom come

Meanwhile, Fox News has reported sources said the suspect was 28 years old, possibly posed as an intern, and had multiple weapons. According to a Fox News, a source said the suspect “made statements regarding their policies, and then opened fire with a gun striking a security guard.”

Jacqueline Maguire, a spokesperson with the Washington Field Office of the FBI, told POLITICO she could not confirm whether the gunman made any political statements at the time of the shooting.

Meanwhile, Beverly Crossley, who said she works in the adjoining building, said she saw the suspect in handcuffs. She described him as a “light skinned, middle-aged” African American who “had blood on his body” going down the left side of his tan pants. Maguire said she could not confirm Crossley’s description.

The FRC is a conservative Christian non-profit organization that advocates and lobbies for socially conservative policies.

great

honestly can't remember the last time there was a lefty-motivated shooting in America

FRC is, not for nothing, tracked as an anti-gay hate group by the SPLC.

See also: http://wonkette.com/481131/michelle-malkin-why-is-the-southern-poverty-law-center-always-shooting-the-family-research-council-with-guns

i'm less interested in michelle malking doing her thing that in the shooter himself. wtf is this guy.

I like Malkin's Hatfields vs McCoys attitude

let's rock n' roll

President Obama is set to end his term with dozens fewer lower-court appointments than both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush achieved in their first four years, and probably with less of a lasting ideological imprint on the judiciary than many liberals had hoped for and conservatives had feared.

Mr. Obama’s record stems in part from a decision at the start of his presidency to make judicial nominations a lower political priority, according to documents and interviews with more than a dozen current and former administration officials and with court watchers from across the political spectrum. Senate Republicans also played a role, ratcheting up partisan warfare over judges that has been escalating for the past generation by delaying even uncontroversial picks who would have been quickly approved in the past.

But a good portion of Mr. Obama’s judicial record stems from a deliberate strategy. While Mr. Bush quickly nominated a slate of appeals court judges early in his first year — including several outspoken conservatives — Mr. Obama moved more slowly and sought relatively moderate jurists who he hoped would not provoke culture wars that distracted attention from his ambitious legislative agenda.

“The White House in that first year did not want to nominate candidates who would generate rancorous disputes over social issues that would further polarize the Senate,” said Gregory B. Craig, Mr. Obama’s first White House counsel. “We were looking for mainstream, noncontroversial candidates to nominate.”

Mr. Obama has still put a significant stamp on the judiciary, appointing two Supreme Court justices — the same number as Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush each did in eight years — and 30 appeals court judges, roughly as many as either did on average per term. But his impact has been uneven. He has made significant changes to some appeals court circuits — which have the final word on tens of thousands of cases a year — while leaving others untouched.

In federal district courts, where trials are held, Mr. Obama has appointed just 125 such judges, compared with 170 at a similar point in Mr. Clinton’s first term and 162 for Mr. Bush.

Mr. Obama is virtually certain to leave more vacant federal judgeships at the end of his term for the winner of the 2012 election to fill than he inherited from Mr. Bush. Beyond sheer numbers, Mr. Obama has reduced his long-term influence by appointing judges who were more than four years older, on average, than Mr. Bush’s, according to data compiled by Russell Wheeler, a Brookings Institution scholar.

Mr. Obama has also largely shied away from nominating assertive liberals who might stand as ideological counterpoints to some of the assertive conservatives Mr. Bush named. Instead of prominent liberal academics whose scholarly writings and videotaped panel discussions would provide ammunition to conservatives, Mr. Obama gravitated toward litigators, prosecutors and sitting district and state judges, especially those who would diversify the bench.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/us/politics/obama-lags-on-filling-seats-in-the-judiciary.html?_r=1&hp&pagewanted=all

haha I was about to post the same story