The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What John Boehner told me the night before he said he was quitting - The Washington Post

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

thank god, not that whomever replaces him will be able to change anything...

Pretty much this.

It's nice to see the last of him (until he joins up with a left-leaning activist group or decides to head up the Neville Chamberlian Appreciation Society) but I don't have any confidence that his replacement will be any meaningful improvement.

[Edward64]

I've been critical of Boehner and don't think he did a good job nor was effective. But it's true that the next speaker will likely fail too. There is this internal strife with the extremists that hasn't worked itself out yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/25/politi...tle/index.html

During his press conference Friday afternoon, Boehner effectively endorsed McCarthy. "I am not going to be here to vote on the next Speaker. But that's up to the next members. But having said that, I think that Kevin McCarthy would make an excellent Speaker," Boehner said.

Two sources familiar with McCarthy's lobbying efforts told CNN Friday night that they feel he's in a good place to get the votes to become Speaker. He spent the whole day talking to people and will continue to talk to every single member of the GOP conference, the sources said.
:
But McCarthy is expected to face a challenge for the speakership, though it's unclear how serious that fight will be. The chamber's conservative faction may instead choose to focus on winning another post -- such as majority leader or whip -- instead.

Among the lawmakers who could seek the majority leader spot are Reps. Steve Scalise of Louisiana (the current Whip), Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state and Tom Price of Georgia.
:
Rep. Raul Labrador, a favorite of conservatives who ran unsuccessfully for majority leader in January, declined to say Friday if he would run for Speaker. Several members of the House Freedom Caucus have pointed to Labrador as a possible candidate for Speaker or Majority Leader. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina., who offered a resolution this summer that would have stripped Boehner of the Speaker's gavel, told reporters Friday he would not run to succeed Boehner.

Rep. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the influential House Ways and Means Committee and the Mitt Romney's vice presidential running mate in 2012, also will not run for the Speaker post, according to an aide.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Holy crap. That's huge. The fight for his successor is going to be ugly.

I wonder if this was the price for getting the budget passed on time.

Looks like it.

Following Boehner’s announcement, House Republicans said there was agreement to pass a clean spending bill to keep the government open though mid-December while broader negotiations on spending levels are held. Several members of the Freedom Caucus, the conservative group that led the revolt against Boehner’s leadership, said they will now support the spending bill without demands that it include language to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood.

“The commitment has been made that there will be no shutdown,” said Rep. John Fleming (R-La.).

[albionmoonlight]

No shutdown is nice.

[Edward64]

Russia trying to extend its influence to Syria and now Iraq & Iran. Russia and Iran both want Assad to stay in power and both want to isolate US more. I can't blame Iraq for getting all the help they can.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/middle...eal/index.html

Iraq says it has reached a deal to share intelligence with Russia, Iran and Syria in the fight against ISIS militants.

The announcement on Saturday from the Iraqi military cited "the increasing concern from Russia about thousands of Russian terrorists committing criminal acts within ISIS."

The news comes amid U.S. concerns about Russia's recent military buildup in Syria and would appear to confirm American suspicions of some kind of cooperation between Baghdad and Moscow.

A U.S.-led coalition has been carrying out an aerial bombing campaign against ISIS positions in Iraq and Syria since last year. But now Russia is upping its presence in the region.

[Dutch]

So the only possible win from going in to Iraq was a partnership with the new Iraq....but it looks as if we are squandering that away as well. The Russians can possibly turn this into a big win politically and economically.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

No shutdown is nice.

It's remarkable that at this point in history our greatest hopes for Congress are merely that they don't destroy the country.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Russia trying to extend its influence to Syria and now Iraq & Iran. Russia and Iran both want Assad to stay in power and both want to isolate US more.

Fine with me. More than happy to see Russia & China suffer the slings and arrows of foreign entanglements as much as we have.

Originally Posted by Dutch

So the only possible win from going in to Iraq was a partnership with the new Iraq....but it looks as if we are squandering that away as well. The Russians can possibly turn this into a big win politically and economically.

Or, more realistically, they can get just as bogged down with "foreign advisers", military aid and infrastructure spending, and since the barrel of oil doesn't look set to rise dramatically anytime soon, they still won't see a big profit from their involvement.

[Dutch]

We are making assumptions either way.

[JPhillips]

The previous head of the IDF has a realistic view of the Iran deal.

“I do agree a better deal could have been reached,” one that more extensively restricted uranium enrichment, Benny Gantz said Friday of the sanctions relief for a nuclear restrictions deal reached in July between Iran and six major powers.

“But I see the half-full part of the glass,” he said. “I see the achievement of keeping the Iranians, 10-15 years into the future, postponing their having a nuclear capability at the right price.”

[Edward64]

The Donald and I agree on Russia in Syria. That's a surprise, I may have to give him a look.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politi...mon/index.html

If Vladimir Putin wants to launch airstrikes inside Syria, that's no problem for Donald Trump, who said Wednesday that he believes Russia's military moves in Syria are targeting ISIS and that the United States shouldn't interfere.

"They don't respect our president. They really don't respect us anymore. And that's why they're doing this," Trump told CNN's Don Lemon in a wide-ranging interview at Trump Tower Wednesday. "At the same time, if they want to hit ISIS, that's OK with me."

Trump's remarks came in response to the latest escalation of tensions in the Middle East, where Russia launched its first airstrikes in Syria. Moscow claims the target is ISIS.
:
:
Trump told CNN Wednesday that he tends to believe Russia's goal is to go after ISIS and that the U.S. shouldn't strive to be the "policemen of the world."

"I hear they are hitting both," said Trump, apparently referring to ISIS and non-ISIS Syrian opposition forces.

"If Russia wants to go in and if Russia want to fight -- in particular ISIS, and they do and one of the reasons they do is because they don't want ISIS coming into their country and that's going to be the next step. So that's why they're there," Trump said. "I think they will be fighting ISIS."

He called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a "bad guy" who has killed hundreds of thousands of people, and that Russia is "probably trying to prop up Assad and help him out."

[flere-imsaho]

Trump neatly encapsulates the complexity inherent in the situation while given no indication whatsoever that he understands it.

[JPhillips]

Alabama decided to close some DMV offices to save money. They also have a Voter ID law.

So this...

Every single county in which blacks make up more than 75 percent of registered voters will see their driver license office closed. Every one.

[Coffee Warlord]

Hey, Donny is now 1 for about 850,000 for correct statements!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Alabama decided to close some DMV offices to save money. They also have a Voter ID law.

So this...

Of course that omits the fact that every single office that closed was a "satellite office" rather than a full-time one. And that the state recently added online renewal as an option, with some 40,000 renewals in the first two months alone. And most importantly, it leaves out that the 21 (of 31) satellite offices closed happen to be in the 25 smallest counties in the state.
This seems like seeing correlation but assuming causation.

We saw the same thing here in Georgia years ago, the end of a lot of traditional "one-day-a-week" satellite locations. Many of those that were closed were heavily white counties. I grew up in one of those, which is why it comes to mind.

edit to add: The reason I stopped at 21/31 is because I grew tired & bored with matching up the lists once the obvious pattern emerged.

[Dutch]

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm not following you, Sack. Are you saying that Netanyahu, because Israel uses force to defend itself from rocket attacks, must feel that he wants to kill every man, woman and child in Iran?

You don't pound the drum for military strikes above all else and try to sabotage any attempt at diplomacy as being clearly an effort to sell you down the river if you're a cuddly peace-loving sort.

Netanyahu is many things. There is nothing in his political history to suggest to me that he is conflict-averse, and I'm not just speaking about Iran, here.

The problem as I see it is that Netanyahu's stance is that anything which isn't pre-emptive military strikes is de facto an anti-Israel position.

it's really hard for me to reconcile that with "do you really think he wants to hurt anyone in Tehran?" I believe he wants a war, and I believe he's wanted one for some time. The specific motives behind that desire are a matter for another discussion, and I'm not going to impute good or ill will to those motives here. But wars have costs, particularly civilian costs.

Because the promise from Iran, combined with their unprovoked attacks and military buildup in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza, seems fairly clear.

Iran is trying to establish themselves as a power player in the Middle East with the fall of Iraq creating a vacuum. They have the opportunity now they couldn't create in the 1980s, and they think Israel is the best focus for getting the rest of the region to rally around them.

But, look: it's been an...I don't know if "open secret" is the right word, but I don't think there are many people in the world who honestly believe that Israel are not themselves possessed of nuclear weapons. I think Iran, revolutionary True Believers or not, know that. To the extent they want the Bomb, it's because they think once they have it, it will protect them from Israeli nukes. That doesn't mean there is no scenario under which Iran would USE that weapon. It means I don't think they're stupid enough to build and drop *a* bomb knowing that Israel would wipe their country from the face of the map if they were stupid enough to try and nuke Tel Aviv.

I don't know how you stop Iran from getting the bomb at this point. The money will bring them closer, as will the new weaponry from Russia that Obama has allowed. Bombing raids might delay it, but at a cost. Sabotage is a possibility. Trusting them to wait ten years when they say inspections are forbidden seems like a bad idea.

They haven't said inspections are forbidden. They've said inspectors must come from countries with diplomatic relations with Iran.

Which...I guess you can look at that from both sides, depending on how cynical you want to be. If Iran is being cynical, they're levying that restriction because they don't trust countries without diplomatic ties not to stack the deck against them. Americans being cynical see that, of course, as a sign that Iran plans only to allow inspectors who either share their anti-Israeli views, or can be suitably seduced by oil money so as to turn their heads the other way. When you have that level of distrust, that almost presupposes war, doesn't it? If you can't trust other allies to be as rigorous in their inspections as you yourself would be, then why are you even at the table?

I do agree with the rest of what you said, in that if Iran really wants a nuclear weapon, they can get one, but I think that's true with or without this deal, with or without pre-emptive facility strikes. What you're talking about isn't if they get one, but when. A year from now? Five? Ten? Twenty? Is the goal to push it so far back that by the time they get one, the True Believers will have died off?

Not sure that's a realistic hope.

[Dutch]

You don't pound the drum for military strikes above all else and try to sabotage any attempt at diplomacy

If only you had this sort of determined resolve with regard to Iranian leadership...

[Solecismic]

The only requirement Netanyahu has is that other countries must recognize Israel's right to exist.

Not sure that's a realistic hope.

But Israel does need leadership willing to defend the country from constant attacks. Iran has made its position crystal clear. Both in word and in action. Why aren't people listening?

[Warhammer]

I watched the speech on closed caption TV during lunch. I thought it was a good speech. His point was Iran has singled out Israel for destruction, you guys have given them the keys to get the bomb, and now you pat yourselves on the back? What are we supposed to do?

[cartman]

In Netanyahu's own words, Iran has been 3-5 years away from an atomic bomb for the past 20 years.

https://theintercept.com/2015/03/02/...-nuclear-bomb/

[Warhammer]

And? Iran has been actively trying to get the bomb for years. They have proclaimed that they intend to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, what is Israel supposed to do?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The only requirement Netanyahu has is that other countries must recognize Israel's right to exist.

Which is a thing the PLO did in 1993. We're talking over 20 years ago, and yet Netanyahu continues to promote additional Israeli settlement in the West Bank. That sounds more like a suggestion than a requirement. Didn't he just run for re-election with "I will never recognize a two-state solution" as the linchpin of his candidacy?

Not sure that's a realistic hope.

Netanyahu: Not sure that's a realistic hope. That is a beautiful campaign slogan for his political opposition the next time he tries to run for something.

But Israel does need leadership willing to defend the country from constant attacks. Iran has made its position crystal clear. Both in word and in action. Why aren't people listening?

Again, you're talking about a nation trying to establish itself as both a political and religious leader in the region. They're trying to grab the leashes for about ten different majority-Muslim countries and say "okay, boys, heel." Do they have legitimate (as opposed to for-show) antipathy towards Israel? Almost certainly. Is it realistic to think that they're going to pick a fight the second they get The Bomb? I don't think so. Israel's been widely assumed to have nuclear armaments for 40 years or more. If Iran nukes Tel Aviv (or pick your Israeli city if you like), Israel turns Iran into a glass parking lot. Iran knows that. Israel knows that. What Israel cannot countenance is the loss of face that comes from one of their antagonists successfully spiting them. To the extent you think Israel's security is threatened, the foundation of that security right now is predicated on a) having kicked butts up one side and down the other in 1967 and b) American backing.

That's partly why I think Netanyahu wants a war. He wants to move the timeline up 50 years from 1967, so that the security will be predicated on a much more recently victorious war and American backing. Maybe the issue can be resolved through diplomacy (and I think it can), but I think he thinks if he picks a fight with Iran now and wins that it'll be 40 years before another of their antagonists stirs shit up, and he'll go down in the history books as the Israeli Winston Churchill.

[Solecismic]

Never mind. Not worth it.

[Dutch]

Hmmm, I don't think you can fairly say Iran isn't trying to go to war and in the same breath say Israel is. It's your right, but if you can make that leap, then logically, you simply have to respect the far more realistic possibility that Iran--with all their efforts ($100B-$500B of sunk costs so far in their nuclear ambitions), their extremist views, their support of killing Jews, and their tons and tons of rhetoric--might actually and actively be trying to get into a position to go to nuclear war.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Hmmm, I don't think you can fairly say Iran isn't trying to go to war and in the same breath say Israel is. It's your right, but if you can make that leap, then logically, you simply have to respect the far more realistic possibility that Iran--with all their efforts ($100B-$500B of sunk costs so far in their nuclear ambitions), their extremist views, their support of killing Jews, and their tons and tons of rhetoric--might actually and actively be trying to get into a position to go to nuclear war.

I'm not saying Iran isn't interested in a war with Israel. I'm saying that, realistically, Iran knows the score. They want to be a regional hegemon, and that doesn't happen if they escalate a nuclear conflict, because Israel won't hold back.

And if you're sufficiently concerned about Iran that you're worried about the prospect of them trying to nuke Israel, then you probably need to concede that there are other political realities in play:

1) Russia and Iran are allies, and have been for some time.
2) Russia has plenty of nukes, and their former Soviet satellites may have some as well.
3) In any of those countries, all it takes is one person in a position of oversight being weak to bribes, and Iran has their hands on such a weapon, either as a how-to on how to build their own, or a for-real live weapon. They could have one now. How would you know?
4) If Iran is or has been a state sponsor of terror, and if there was genuine concern about the possibility of al-Qaeda developing suitcase nukes, then no matter how effective the inspections are or aren't, they're going to have at least one other avenue towards a nuclear attack on Israel, and possibly one that gives them plausible deniability.

Short answer: if you're worried about Iran getting their hands on nuclear weapons to use against Israel, there is no answer I or anybody else can give, short of regime change (and it's never backfired on the US when we've enforced regime change in that country) and long-term occupation, that's going to ease your minds on that front.

I mean, that's literally where this road leads. You don't believe diplomacy can be successful. I don't believe that pre-emptive strikes are going to convince Iran that, aw, shucks, maybe we shouldn't continue to pursue nuclear ambitions. All that does is hit the snooze button.

And that brings me back to what I asked earlier - is that the end game? Hit snooze often enough that eventually the True Believers die out and things get better? Because I don't think that's a realistic endgame to push for.

[SackAttack]

Dola,

If anything, Israel's fear should be a scenario where they are forcibly divested of their putative nuclear armaments while Iran gets their hands on one somehow or other. Because THAT'S a scenario under which I can completely see Iran pushing that button.

As things stand now, even if they announced tomorrow that they have a nuke, they're 40 years or more behind Israel, and there is no way they're going to be able to build a stockpile quickly enough to make a nuclear conflict "winnable," for values of "winnable."

What having a nuke does is it maybe gets other countries in the region to fall into line if they initiate a conventional conflict with Israel, because those other countries might think "hey we can win this time."

That, at *this* point in time, is the extent to which I think a nuclear weapon threatens Israel. They're not going to be able to wipe Israel off the map with one or two or five bombs, and I don't think they're suicidal enough to try.

But unless Israel convinces the region that they'd respond to a conventional attack with WMD, the nuke might be enough of a symbol to rally support to Iran's side if they were to kick off a conventional war.

[Edward64]

I like his theatrics with the "deafening silence". I honestly don't think Bibi is doing it right, he needs to cultivate relationships to get what he wants, not piss people off (including your biggest benefactor).

Netanyahu warns that Iran is building terrorist cells worldwide - The Washington Post

The Israeli leader spent the bulk of his 40-minute speech to the U.N. General Assembly on the nuclear deal finalized in July. At one point, he theatrically paused for 44 seconds and glared at the half-filled hall after he excoriated the United Nations for its “deafening silence” over Iran’s threats to annihilate Israel.

“Israel will not allow Iran to break in, sneak in or walk into the nuclear weapons club,” he declared, suggesting that a military option is still available to Israel.

The U.S. representatives in the Assembly Hall sat stony-faced in the front row as Netanyahu denounced the nuclear deal the United States and five other world powers negotiated with Iran, easing sanctions in return for limits on Iran’s nuclear program.

At about 3:45

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “Deafening Silence� (C-SPAN) - YouTube

[lighthousekeeper]

Obama Administration Ends Pentagon Program to Train Syrian Rebels

what a complete failure

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Obama Administration Ends Pentagon Program to Train Syrian Rebels

what a complete failure

Who's JV now? Big win for ISIS.

[Dutch]

In other JV news...I give you, the Russians!

Russian missiles aimed at Syria crashed in Iran: US officials - Business Insider

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

In other JV news...I give you, the Russians!

Russian missiles aimed at Syria crashed in Iran: US officials - Business Insider

not sure what to believe anymore.

Claims that Russian missiles hit Iran are lies and part of psychological war, says Iranian general Musa Kamali - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

we need mandatory body cameras on all cruise missiles.

[flere-imsaho]

See?

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Fine with me. More than happy to see Russia & China suffer the slings and arrows of foreign entanglements as much as we have.

Or, more realistically, they can get just as bogged down with "foreign advisers", military aid and infrastructure spending, and since the barrel of oil doesn't look set to rise dramatically anytime soon, they still won't see a big profit from their involvement.

[Dutch]

In the game of politics, I agree. In the game of defeating ISIS, I dont.

[JPhillips]

The five moderate rebels still left fighting weren't going to be much good against ISIS.

Maybe one good thing that will come out of the varied disasters in the mid-east is that there really aren't armies of moderate, pro-US rebels just waiting for weapons and training. It would be nice if we faced that reality at some point.

[Dutch]

I basically agree with that. Islam (edit: Or rather, the practice of Islam....extremism vs moderate) gets worse the closer you get to Saudi Arabia and Syria is too damn close.

[Edward64]

I don't think he had much choice considering where things are now and what could happen in Afghanistan with the Taliban, ISIS etc. He's not going out strong in Foreign Policy.

Obama again delays Afghanistan troop drawdown - CNNPolitics.com

President Barack Obama announced Thursday that U.S. forces will remain in Afghanistan at their current levels throughout much of 2016, yet another delay in their scheduled withdrawal and an acknowledgment that America's longest war won't be concluded on his watch.

Obama campaigned as the president who would end two wars, and Thursday's decision was a major political reversal that jeopardizes a cornerstone of his legacy. Taliban gains in Afghanistan and appeals from Kabul for ongoing U.S. assistance contributed to postponing the troop withdrawal and underscored Obama's continuing difficulty in fulfilling his intention to remove all American forces by the time he leaves office.

On Thursday, however, he told reporters at the White House that he wasn't disappointed at having to make the announcement that plans for the withdrawal had been put on hold. Instead, he said, his job was to make necessary adjustments given events on the ground.

He also stressed that the formal combat mission there has ended, and that he is a president who does "not support the idea of endless war." He ended the Iraq war and removed American troops there in 2011.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

He's not going out strong in Foreign Policy.

Well, that's one view. Would you like to expand on what you mean?

[JPhillips]

Perhaps we should think a little about this Soviet general's thoughts:

"There is no single piece of land in Afghanistan that has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier . . . no single military problem that has arisen and not been solved, and yet there is still no result."

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Perhaps we should think a little about this Soviet general's thoughts:

"There is no single piece of land in Afghanistan that has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier . . . no single military problem that has arisen and not been solved, and yet there is still no result."

Or perhaps...(paraphrased discussion between Queen Isabella I and Columbus)...and from the movie 1492.

Queen Isabella I.: They believe the ocean to be uncrossable, signor Columbus.

Columbus: What did they say about Granada before today? (As Spanish soldiers retook the city from the Moors)

Queen Isabella I.: That it was impregnable.

[JPhillips]

I'm of the opinion that Afghanistan is ungovernable, at least by Western powers, but let's say there is a way to "solve" Afghanistan. Surely you don't believe that we're willing to put the money and troops into the battle in a volume that would lead to success, do you?

[Dutch]

Depends who's there. People hell bent on killing us? Yes, we will always need to invest money in killing the enemy. There is no escaping that reality.

Edit: And lets also not throw out the fact that the reason we went there in the first place is because Afghanistan was so easily taken over by the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. The Russians lost because, well, they are Russians and didnt know how to fight, nor did they try and learn how to fight because their empire was in the middle of an economic meltdown brought on by excessive leftist policy spending.

[JPhillips]

Some more data regarding Dems and GOP working together. If the two wings of the GOP can't work together how are the Dems supposed to fix things?

A slight majority (52%) of Republican voters believe that the moderate and conservative wings of the Republican Party in Congress will be able to work together in the coming year – but only 7% say this is very likely, with most (45%) saying it is just somewhat likely. More than 4-in-10 say the two wings working together is either not too likely (30%) or not at all likely (13%).

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Some more data regarding Dems and GOP working together. If the two wings of the GOP can't work together how are the Dems supposed to fix things?

As a libertarian-leaning voter I must say the more radical the candidates from both sides the better. My guess is you read the not working together as a negative, I see less new programs and bureaucratic red tape as positive. I would much rather have Clinton as president working with the current Congress than a Republican president who green lights their crazy ideas.

[Thomkal]

Ryan to the Rescue?

Ryan willing to serve as speaker, but with conditions - CNNPolitics.com

[Edward64]

Good luck to him. I like how he wants a work life balance but don't know really how realistic that is.

[Edward64]

Haven't heard much press about Obamacare lately. I think Romney always knew some sort of universal/greatly inceased coverage was the right thing to do.

Romney walks back apparent compliment of Obamacare - CNNPolitics.com

Mitt Romney stirred up a controversy Friday after he appeared to praise Obamacare, the law he pledged to repeal when he ran for president in 2012, before later walking back his comments.

The 2012 GOP presidential nominee had told The Boston Globe earlier in the day that Obamacare wouldn't have come about if he hadn't pushed to expand health care in his state when he was governor of Massachusetts. He credited Tom Stemberg, the co-founder of Staples who died Friday, with encouraging him to help more people get health insurance, leading to legislation which eventually became known as Romneycare.

"Without Tom pushing it, I don't think we would have had Romneycare," Romney said in an obituary of Stemberg, a friend and political backer.

"Without Romneycare, I don't think we would have Obamacare. So, without Tom a lot of people wouldn't have health insurance," Romney continued.

[JPhillips]

Just a reminder that we're about a week from hitting the debt ceiling. Sure would be nice if the basic functions of government could be done without pushing us to the brink of crisis.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Good luck to him. I like how he wants a work life balance but don't know really how realistic that is.

Also pretty hypocritical from a guy who has consistently voted against legislation focused on parental leave and child care.