If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Bob Woodward, new conservative hero, appears to have lost his mind over the sequester. Now he is slamming Obama for not doing flagrantly illegal stuff, saying that Reagan and Bush would have simply ignored the law, as though that's a good thing   (politico.com) divider line 210
    More: Interesting, Bob Woodward, President Obama, Ronald Reagan  
•       •       •

2894 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Feb 2013 at 1:18 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



210 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-27 10:50:58 AM
This is some truly insane stuff. The basic position of everyone in the media these days seems to be "Obama is touting the correct position, the GOP is being completely unreasonable, so its Obama's fault for not convincing the GOP to be more reasonable".
 
2013-02-27 10:58:25 AM
Must be Stockholm Syndrome...
 
2013-02-27 11:03:52 AM
It's Politico.  Don't go there expecting intellectual honesty or integrity.
 
2013-02-27 11:05:10 AM

Elandriel: It's Politico.  Don't go there expecting intellectual honesty or integrity.


In this case Politico is just reporting what happened. Granted, it happened on Morning Joe, so that's hardly better.
 
2013-02-27 11:09:54 AM

DamnYankees: The basic position of everyone in the media these days seems to be "Obama is touting the correct position, the GOP is being completely unreasonable, so its Obama's fault for not convincing the GOP to be more reasonable".


Ayup.

Link
 
2013-02-27 11:12:10 AM
Wait... Dubya not invading Iraq would have been bad... how?

/f*cking imbecile
 
2013-02-27 11:17:11 AM
Yeah, let's just go back to Bush's off-book budget keeping.  That's the smart idea.
 
2013-02-27 11:25:01 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: DamnYankees: The basic position of everyone in the media these days seems to be "Obama is touting the correct position, the GOP is being completely unreasonable, so its Obama's fault for not convincing the GOP to be more reasonable".

Ayup.

Link


I honestly struggle to see the way out of this. I think we're creeping more and more towards the end result of almost all Presidential systems; constitutional crisis with a collapse of the government. As far as I'm aware, the United States is literally the only presidential system in which this hasn't happened yet, given a long enough period of time.

Presidential systems are innately unstable, because they grant independent sovereignty to separate governing bodies. The legislature and the President both rightly feel that they have the true legitimacy, so when you have protracted fights you basically end up with collapse. This happened all the time in South America, which in the last hundred years routinely adopted a Presidential system which then collapsed into dictatorships - some less benign than others.

The U.S. has managed to avoid this so far, mostly in part (in my opinion and those of smart people I've read; I don't claim to have invented this theory) due to the fact that our political parties have historically been very non-ideological, due to the clusterfark that was the Jim Crow South, which was always Democratic no matter ideology because of the Civil War. But since the Civil RIghts era, this is breaking down and we're becoming more ideologically consistent. And it's leading to disaster because our government isn't built to deal with that.
 
2013-02-27 01:21:47 PM
"Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can't do what I need to do to protect the country. That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."

wait - Obama is a jedi?
 
2013-02-27 01:23:14 PM
Bob, Bob, Bob...how are you, of all people, not familiar with IOKIYAR yet?
 
2013-02-27 01:27:27 PM
NEW GOP Talking point: Obama is evil because he is not ignoring the Constitution.
 
2013-02-27 01:27:30 PM
As the Atlantic WIre points out, not only that but WOOWARD HIMSELF reported on George W. Bush doing the very thing he claimed Bush would "never do".  Anybody else remeber the troops in Iraq begging for Uparmored humvees and raiding Iraqi scrapyards to keepthemselves safe while Rumsfeld mumbled something about going to war with "the army you have, not the one you might want or wish to have"?

I think Woodward's seduction by  the Derp Side is nearly complete

/Help us Obi-wan Bernstien, you're our only hope
 
2013-02-27 01:30:18 PM
Well as linked to me yesterday there was a grand bargain on the table, Cantor and his tea-party backers killed it to make the fiscal debate the focus of the election. The GOP lost the election, they have no leg to stand on in the negotiations now because of that and they turned down what would have been their best deal six months ago.

So now Woodward is saying Obama changed the deal? He is dealing with the JV, kicking their ass all over the field and people are crying about it is more like it.
 
2013-02-27 01:30:33 PM
FTFA: The Pentagon announced earlier this month the U.S.S. Harry Truman, which was supposed to leave for the Persian Gulf, will remain stateside due to budget concerns...."And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can't do what I need to do to protect the country. That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."

i.imgur.com

Damn man. Trolling the budget hawks against the defense hawks. That's farking brilliant. I mean...wow. We're through the Clintonian looking glass, people...
 
2013-02-27 01:32:26 PM

DamnYankees: I honestly struggle to see the way out of this. I think we're creeping more and more towards the end result of almost all Presidential systems; constitutional crisis with a collapse of the government. As far as I'm aware, the United States is literally the only presidential system in which this hasn't happened yet, given a long enough period of time.

Presidential systems are innately unstable, because they grant independent sovereignty to separate governing bodies. The legislature and the President both rightly feel that they have the true legitimacy, so when you have protracted fights you basically end up with collapse. This happened all the time in South America, which in the last hundred years routinely adopted a Presidential system which then collapsed into dictatorships - some less benign than others.

The U.S. has managed to avoid this so far, mostly in part (in my opinion and those of smart people I've read; I don't claim to have invented this theory) due to the fact that our political parties have historically been very non-ideological, due to the clusterfark that was the Jim Crow South, which was always Democratic no matter ideology because of the Civil War. But since the Civil RIghts era, this is breaking down and we're becoming more ideologically consistent. And it's leading to disaster because our government isn't built to deal with that.


Yep. One of the main strengths of the parliamentary system is that it presumes ideological differences and opposition as a given, and uses their existence as facets of the system to improve the functioning of the whole system. There will be factions and ideological differences in a parliamentary system, and that's ok because the system is designed to function with those differences in mind, whereas the USA founding fathers deliberately set out to create a system where there would be a collegial air to the whole thing, and no party politics - and of course ultimately failed in that goal.

It's a specific example of the unfortunately cynical truism that if you build a system expecting people to live up to their higher aspirations, it's pretty much doomed to fail, but if you build it expecting their baser nature to win out in the end, you're probably good to go.
 
2013-02-27 01:32:27 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Wait... Dubya not invading Iraq would have been bad... how?

/f*cking imbecile


Yeah I know, right?  I was listening as I got ready for work and thought I must have misunderstood.  Guess not.
 
2013-02-27 01:33:11 PM
"What if George Bush hadn't deployed carriers to Iraq for a silly budgetary reason?"
Well, some of my friends and teachers would still be alive or able to sleep peacefully at night, that's what, you farkwit.
 
2013-02-27 01:33:14 PM

Yakk: So now Woodward is saying Obama changed the deal?


No, Obi-Wan Bernstein is saying that Darth FartSidious has altered the deal. Just pray he does not alter it further.
 
2013-02-27 01:33:14 PM
I think it's been pretty much proven that Bob Woodward was a "right place/right time" winner working at the Washington Post as a young starry eyed guy during one of America's all time most corrupt Administrations (and that's saying something) and stumbling across a phenomenal inside source  that basically fell in his lap, and was then lionized by a hit movie portrayal.      He's done nothing remarkable since, or as Joan Didion put it  created "books in which measurable cerebral activity is virtually absent".
 
2013-02-27 01:34:30 PM

Magorn: /Help us Obi-wan Bernstien, you're our only hope

herp.

no, there is another.

/Actually there is lots more.
 
2013-02-27 01:35:14 PM

KiltedBastich: It's a specific example of the unfortunately cynical truism that if you build a system expecting people to live up to their higher aspirations, it's pretty much doomed to fail, but if you build it expecting their baser nature to win out in the end, you're probably good to go.


What's interesting is that the Founders thought they were doing the latter. The Federalist Papers are full of these types of arguments. They thought  by forcing "ambition against ambition" you would create forces which require compromise.

Part of the problem is, like you say, that they designed a system which wasn't intended to be party-based. But the other big part of it is that our system wasn't designed to be a democracy. Only the House was designed to be a body of elected officials by popular vote. So the current structure doesn't really work as designed.
 
2013-02-27 01:37:20 PM
Bob Woodward can't imagine the President not doing something illegal?

Mind = blown
 
2013-02-27 01:37:31 PM

DamnYankees: What's interesting is that the Founders thought they were doing the latter. The Federalist Papers are full of these types of arguments. They thought  by forcing "ambition against ambition" you would create forces which require compromise.


All it shows me is that the founders were sh*tty game designers, and included way too many broken mechanics that allow people to completely sideline the game if they don't like the outcome of a round.
 
2013-02-27 01:38:02 PM
FTFA: "Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need'...because of some budget document?"

i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-27 01:38:36 PM
Sooooo.....Republicans still suck and it's all their fault, or is it Obama's fault because he energized a racist voter base into electing a congress of frothing morons?

Also, I want to see more discussion of the wetness of water, the blueness of the sky, and insights into the health values of oxygen.
 
2013-02-27 01:38:58 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: DamnYankees: What's interesting is that the Founders thought they were doing the latter. The Federalist Papers are full of these types of arguments. They thought  by forcing "ambition against ambition" you would create forces which require compromise.

All it shows me is that the founders were sh*tty game designers, and included way too many broken mechanics that allow people to completely sideline the game if they don't like the outcome of a round.


Basically correct. If the Civil War was anything, it was a staggering failure of structuring a government.
 
2013-02-27 01:39:17 PM

DamnYankees: This is some truly insane stuff. The basic position of everyone in the media these days seems to be "Obama is touting the correct position, the GOP is being completely unreasonable, so its Obama's fault for not convincing the GOP to be more reasonable".


If they haven't figured this out in four years why would they suddenly have that epiphany?
 
2013-02-27 01:39:21 PM
Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need

I don't know about aircraft carriers, but not having enough asses in boots to secure an entire country certainly didn't stop Bush from trying to do just that.
 
2013-02-27 01:39:43 PM
Wonder what happened to Woodward, seems like some people want to be fair and balanced no matter how dumb they look.
 
2013-02-27 01:40:03 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: All it shows me is that the founders were sh*tty game designers, and included way too many broken mechanics that allow people to completely sideline the game if they don't like the outcome of a round.


The Constitution would not have been ratified otherwise. Even after the Articles of Confederation failed, lots of people were still very paranoid about some unifying Federal power. They wanted their own protected or they weren't going to come to the table.
 
2013-02-27 01:40:07 PM

DamnYankees: I honestly struggle to see the way out of this. I think we're creeping more and more towards the end result of almost all Presidential systems; constitutional crisis with a collapse of the government. As far as I'm aware, the United States is literally the only presidential system in which this hasn't happened yet, given a long enough period of time.

Presidential systems are innately unstable, because [snip]


You're really pessimistic. The current political fight over the proper level of taxation and spending is a greater existential crisis than the War of 1812, the Civil War, or the Great Depression?  Sure, we've had an economic shock, but we have the ability to heal ourselves, we're just having a national argument over the details.

Our national system is very healthy, we have low corruption, people and businesses (by and large) pay their taxes, effective enforcement of laws, and a democracy that allows for rapid changes. So I don't think we're at some sort of expiration date, at all.
 
2013-02-27 01:40:23 PM
"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need'

If only.
 
2013-02-27 01:40:24 PM
Does anyone have insight on Woodward here. Has he slipped to the right or was he always there but they weren't crazy before? I've only read his 'Plan of Attack' Iraq book. He does have some hard questions for Bush at the end of it.
 
2013-02-27 01:41:14 PM

Weaver95: "Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can't do what I need to do to protect the country. That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."


That's just farking ridiculous. Is Bob Woodward seriously arguing that the President is Constitutionally empowered to ignore the Constitution and US laws and do whatever he wants as long as he deems it "necessary to protect the country"?
 
2013-02-27 01:41:31 PM

Weaver95: "Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can't do what I need to do to protect the country. That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."

wait - Obama is a jedi?


Not just Obama - every President.
And presumably, vice-presidents would be as well, or at least they'd have force potential.

All hail Darth Cheny!
 
2013-02-27 01:41:41 PM

StopLurkListen: The current political fight over the proper level of taxation and spending is a greater existential crisis than the War of 1812, the Civil War, or the Great Depression?


When did I say that? It's obviously not as bad as the Civil War, which was a complete breakdown in government. The War of 1812 doesn't really have anything to do with this topic.

StopLurkListen: Our national system is very healthy, we have low corruption, people and businesses (by and large) pay their taxes, effective enforcement of laws, and a democracy that allows for rapid changes. So I don't think we're at some sort of expiration date, at all.


I didn't say any of that would stop. You can have a constitutional crisis without EVERYTHING falling apart.
 
2013-02-27 01:41:47 PM
This line of thinking implies, of course, that Nixon was No True Republican. Have fun with that, GOP.
 
2013-02-27 01:43:02 PM

qorkfiend: Weaver95: "Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can't do what I need to do to protect the country. That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."

That's just farking ridiculous. Is Bob Woodward seriously arguing that the President is Constitutionally empowered to ignore the Constitution and US laws and do whatever he wants as long as he deems it "necessary to protect the country"?


it's been done before.
 
2013-02-27 01:43:25 PM

Decillion: Does anyone have insight on Woodward here. Has he slipped to the right or was he always there but they weren't crazy before? I've only read his 'Plan of Attack' Iraq book. He does have some hard questions for Bush at the end of it.


Fair and balanced.
 
2013-02-27 01:43:26 PM

Somacandra: Yakk: So now Woodward is saying Obama changed the deal?

No, Obi-Wan Bernstein is saying that Darth FartSidious has altered the deal. Just pray he does not alter it further.


And now I will have that bit from Robot Chicken stuck in my head all day. Spectacular...
 
2013-02-27 01:44:52 PM
Woodward has become an unlikely conservative hero in recent days for calling out the administration over whether Obama had "moved the goalposts"' in negotiations over the sequester.

To which the rest of the media said "WTF are you on about Bob?"
 
2013-02-27 01:45:13 PM

Weaver95: qorkfiend: Weaver95: "Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can't do what I need to do to protect the country. That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."

That's just farking ridiculous. Is Bob Woodward seriously arguing that the President is Constitutionally empowered to ignore the Constitution and US laws and do whatever he wants as long as he deems it "necessary to protect the country"?

it's been done before.


Yes, but usually you don't have "reputable" journalists saying that not only can the President become a dictator, he  should be one.
 
2013-02-27 01:47:44 PM

qorkfiend: Weaver95: qorkfiend: Weaver95: "Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can't do what I need to do to protect the country. That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."

That's just farking ridiculous. Is Bob Woodward seriously arguing that the President is Constitutionally empowered to ignore the Constitution and US laws and do whatever he wants as long as he deems it "necessary to protect the country"?

it's been done before.

Yes, but usually you don't have "reputable" journalists saying that not only can the President become a dictator, he  should be one.


well...the GOP kinda already considers Obama to be an out of control dictator.  so it's more of a formality at this point.
 
2013-02-27 01:47:56 PM
Conservatives Authoritarians want an autocrat, not a democratically elected president constrained by law.
 
2013-02-27 01:47:56 PM

DamnYankees: This is some truly insane stuff. The basic position of everyone in the media these days seems to be "Obama is touting the correct position, the GOP is being completely unreasonable, so its Obama's fault for not convincing the GOP to be more reasonable".


I do not understand how the current financial situation is not accurately blamed upon President Obama. By allowing himself to be re-elected, he denied Mr. Mitt Romney the opportunity to allow House Republicans to do whatever they want by promising to sign any budget that they approved into law.
 
2013-02-27 01:48:48 PM
I'm so confused.
 
2013-02-27 01:49:26 PM

qorkfiend: Weaver95: "Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can't do what I need to do to protect the country. That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."

That's just farking ridiculous. Is Bob Woodward seriously arguing that the President is Constitutionally empowered to ignore the Constitution and US laws and do whatever he wants as long as he deems it "necessary to protect the country"?


It is not even that.  It is the reaction by the president that come friday all of these services have to cut extensively even though we have until Sept for the books to even out.
 
2013-02-27 01:50:00 PM

StopLurkListen: a democracy that allows for rapid changes.


Truman proposed a national health care system. Obama implemented it.

The 14th amendment was adopted during the Andrew Johnson administration. 1964 saw the Civil Rights Act.

Tell me again how our system of governance responds quickly.
 
2013-02-27 01:50:04 PM
Is that the same guy as "new liberal enemy Bob Woodward?"
 
2013-02-27 01:50:05 PM

qorkfiend: Yes, but usually you don't have "reputable" journalists saying that not only can the President become a dictator, he should be one.


i.imgur.com

Its been done before.
 
Displayed 50 of 210 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report