Does one go around asking Catholics to what degree will their religion will influence the performance of their duties? Observant Jews? Muslims? Seems to me one shouldn't be asking those questions, when all you have to do is ask where the candidate stands on this issue or that issue.

In fact, it DOES very often come up... John Kerry certainly got asked questions regarding abortion and specifically, about how he reconciled his pro-choice stance with his Catholocism. In fact, in 2004 -- there was a rash of Catholic bishops making news about denying pro-choice politicians (usually Democrats) communion. Even the Pope commented on it (and the Vatican had to clarify that they're not about to start firing up an excommunication mill).

However, I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of "ask the candidate"... In fact, that's the entirety of what I'm saying -- the doctrines of any religion only prompt the question, they do not answer it. The problem is that Mitt Romney constantly demures on them when the questions are asked. In such instances, what is one to do?

I don't believe any serious candidate or any party of any religion would actually be looking to 'convert the nation' - but again, where those doctrines are at odds with existing law, I think it's legitimate to ask to what extent would church doctrine influence a decision. I don't even expect the answer to be NONE in every case - in some instances, I would hope that the concepts of mercy that are present in virtually every religion would come into play, for example.

If you run as a 'man of faith' -- and both Obama and Romney have at times made that claim -- yes, they both owe us some specific answers and its not at all unreasonable to ask for them.

Okay, I can see that as legit---once. As I said about the Wright farce, it wasn't the initial questioning that was completely bogus, it was the drumbeat followups and the refusal to let the issue rest once a perfectly reasonable answer had been given. There's a fine line separating legitimate questions about religion and a neo-birther mentality**, and clearly the Wright obsessors went way over it. And what I'm saying is that I wouldn't want Romney's religion to be subjected to the same sort of (let's name it) concern trolling. I'd much rather see him have to fight off questions about Medicare vouchers and his tax returns, which are far more germane to understanding his qualifications and his worldview.

**represented by endless repetitions of "questions" and "concerns" that have been answered a hundred times over

The problem is that Mitt Romney constantly demures on them when the questions are asked. In such instances, what is one to do?

Romney, like pretty much all politicians, makes strategic and tactical decisions on how specific he wants to be on various issues, but it is pretty difficult to make the case that his stance on the issues is less detailed or more of a mystery than others that have run for President, including the incumbent now seeking re- election.

none of us are completely rational beings anyway.

And thank goodness for that. It would be a very boring world if we were. :)

Zonk - I understand and agree with most of what you're saying, but I kinda think you have it backwards, and I think Andy makes a good point in #2197 - why should Romney go out of his way to answer questions that haven't been asked? For example, I'm not going to assume a candidate is racist until he specifically says that he's not; I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's not until he says or does something that would make me reconsider. Likewise, I'd give religious candidates the same benefit of the doubt. IOW, I'm not going to just assume that their personal religious beliefs are going to affect their preofessionalism or cause them to ignore separation of church and state laws until they've personally said or done something that would imply that this might be the case.

Romney, like pretty much all politicians, makes strategic and tactical decisions on how specific he wants to be on various issues, but it is pretty difficult to make the case that his stance on the issues is less detailed or more of a mystery than others that have run for President, including the incumbent now seeking re- election.

Of course they do... but for example, the incumbent is pro-choice, his policies have been heavily weighted towards pro-choice, and that's at odds with every Christian sect that I'm aware of. His recent statements on gay marriage - again, a question he was asked and answered - run counter to most Christian sect doctrines.

I suppose it might be something of a tipping point -- show me a few instances - especially on hot button issues- where you govern in a way that is wholly incongruous with your faith's tenets and my concerns around areas you haven't been asked the specifics.... but there's still a tipping point.

Setting aside the whole religion thing for a moment, I would say that Romney HAS been less detailed than any candidate I can remember on policy -- is there anything he's made exceptionally clear? I can't think of a single policy point where I could nail down his precise position.

Zonk - I understand and agree with most of what you're saying, but I kinda think you have it backwards, and I think Andy makes a good point in #2197 - why should Romney go out of his way to answer questions that haven't been asked? For example, I'm not going to assume a candidate is racist until he specifically says that he's not; I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's not until he says or does something that would make me reconsider. Likewise, I'd give religious candidates the same benefit of the doubt. IOW, I'm not going to just assume that their personal religious beliefs are going to affect their preofessionalism or cause them to ignore separation of church and state laws until they've personally said or done something that would imply that this might be the case.

It may well be that I'm just more suspicious of religions than most (and by 'religions' -- I also include my own nominal faith). I'm very much a deist at heart, to the extent I'm anything beyond agnostic. Ironically enough, I think I'd have an easier time 'giving a pass' to someone with a faith bound in an eastern religion - for the most part, it's really the proselytizing I strongly reject. That's a very central theme to most western religions (except, I believe Judaism... so I guess Jewish candidates would get more of a pass from me, too), but a relative non-factor in most eastern faiths.

Setting aside the whole religion thing for a moment, I would say that Romney HAS been less detailed than any candidate I can remember on policy -- is there anything he's made exceptionally clear? I can't think of a single policy point where I could nail down his precise position.

I don't know how this is refutable. For instance on Foreign Policy. He just named Zoellick as an advisor, but until then unless your a regular Fox News watcher, could you state who his other Foreign Policy advisors are? Can you tell me what he wants to do in Afghanistan? Or with China? His foreign policy at this point is 1) Don't apologize 2) Don't Trust Russia and 3) Obama's failed.

Obama gave detailed talks about his nuclear policy, policies on Iraq, Afghanistan and his thoughts on soft/hard power in detail far before this point of the campaign. Even W was out on the stump with Condi talking about Iraq and other countries. Its a couple months before the election and we've heard none of that from Romney.

I don't think Romney's Mormonism won't be much a problem for Democrats (there's a multitude of other reasons not to vote for him) or probably even independents, and I find Clapper's contention that Democrats have been really searching for a way to make this an issue a bit absurd. For the record, I find the religion to be a bit screwy, though as I've gotten older, I've found almost every religion to be a bit screwy. That said, just about every Mormon I've ever met has been incredibly nice, and has not been the proselytizing type.

I think if Mitt has a Mormon problem with anyone, it's evangelicals. I have a friend who grew up in Southern California going (against his will - he was a kid) to a Baptist church. At least once a year, they had to sit through a film that basically singled out Mormons as just this side of satanists. Maybe Mormons were seen as a bigger threat on the West Coast, so this sort of thinking didn't permeate other parts of the country. That said, even if this somehow depresses turnout among evangelicals, I'm not sure in which states, if any, that might make a difference. Certainly not in the South.

I find Clapper's contention that Democrats have been really searching for a way to make this an issue a bit absurd

Me too. If this has been happening, I've sure missed it.

I've definitely heard liberals saying stuff like: "Romney's a Mormon. Isn't that weird?" Or wondering: "Does Romney have to worry about how his faith will be perceived by the voters?" I don't know if that counts as Dems really searching to make this an issue.

No, they are saying he's a moron.

I've definitely heard liberals saying stuff like: "Romney's a Mormon. Isn't that weird?" Or wondering: "Does Romney have to worry about how his faith will be perceived by the voters?" I don't know if that counts as Dems really searching to make this an issue.

I think there are a lot of liberals and conservatives who find Mormonism's tenets a bit strange, not to mention the underwear. But in terms of letting that sort of thing guide their votes, I think that the biggest effect came and went with the Republican primaries. I can't see it affecting the general election in the slightest.

I do think that a disgustingly low and offensive Swiftboat style anti-Mormon ad campaign could weird some people out and affect the election. I hope we don't see that, and I don't expect it. It would actually be even lower than the Swiftboat ####.

You gotta hand it to Romney for at least one thing, though; when I'm 65, I sure as hell hope I can still have hair that nice...

I can't see it affecting the general election in the slightest.

Agreed. People are concerned about the economy, not about what Romney does when he goes to church.

Speaking of do-nothing Congresses:
Felix Hernandez perfect through 7; his half-innings are being shown on MLB Network.

I do think that a disgustingly low and offensive Swiftboat style anti-Mormon ad campaign could weird some people out and affect the election. I hope we don't see that, and I don't expect it. It would actually be even lower than the Swiftboat ####.

I doubt we'll see any broadscale 'campaign'... but it wouldn't shock me to see some smaller superpac do, say, targeted mailings highlighting Weisel's quote to certain Florida communities, for example. I'm not saying I'd do that, and I'll readily admit that it's awfully dirty pool... but this is going to be rather nasty election.

Whether you agree with the CU decision or not, there's just no getting around the fact that it's created some largely no rules, anything goes possibilities that allow wealthy ideologues from both sides of the aisle to do pretty much whatever they want.

One thing I find interesting -- in the MA Senate race, Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren have both agreed to "denounce" super PACs and while no campaign officially or unofficially coordinate with them, they've both agreed to donate from campaign coffers equivalent monies from their own campaigns whenever any superPACs make ad buys in their state. To date - both Brown and Warren have kept to the pledge; each has made donations while denouncing independent superPAC ad buys, and as a result, the super PACs are largely staying out of MA.

Now... I doubt that would ever happen at the Presidential level. For one thing, if I was a Romney campaign guy -- it would be sheer madness for me to toss out an advantage when my side's super PACs easily and heavily outweigh the other guy's.

There's courageous stands based on principle, and there's stupidity -- and as much as the partisan Democrat in me would love to see him do so, the logical human being in me completely understands why he wouldn't. I doubt Obama would even call for such an MA style agreement, since he's flip-flopped on super PACs late in the game (again, an understandable flip-flop... they're here, they ain't going away, why go into battle without one?)... plus - it looks weak.

With all due respect, I don't think that the Democrats are likely to be nominating too many candidates who would be rejected by that big a percentage of the population merely on the basis of their non-religious opinions.

I would bet that a significant percentage of our politicians are either agnostic or atheist, but closeted because of the political and social consequences of open disbelief.

You gotta hand it to Romney for at least one thing, though; when I'm 65, I sure as hell hope I can still have hair that nice...

Tell me about it. It's not for nothing that one of the many informal nicknames that Romney's acquired over the past few years is "Just For Men".

That's got a touch of envy to it, but it's a lot less brutal than this.

I would bet that a significant percentage of our politicians are either agnostic or atheist, but closeted because of the political and social consequences of open disbelief.

I'm virtually certain that this is the case.

I mean, come on. Just think about presidents alone. Was Richard Nixon sincerely religious (let alone, a Quaker)? Not a chance. Was Ronald "Never Goes to Church Except for the Rare Photo Opp" Reagan a sincere believer? Consider me highly skeptical.

JFK? Yeah, right. LBJ? Yeah, right. Bill Clinton? Yeah, right. Barack Obama? Consider me highly skeptical.

I would bet that a significant percentage of our politicians are either agnostic or atheist, but closeted because of the political and social consequences of open disbelief.

Wishful thinking? ;-)

It's not for nothing that one of the many informal nicknames that Romney's acquired over the past few years is "Just For Men".

If he does use it, at least he's old enough to justify it. I had to use it for the first time at 28. :-(

I would bet that a significant percentage of our politicians are either agnostic or atheist, but closeted because of the political and social consequences of open disbelief.

I'm virtually certain that this is the case.

I mean, come on. Just think about presidents alone. Was Richard Nixon sincerely religious (let alone, a Quaker)? Not a chance. Was Ronald "Never Goes to Church Except for the Rare Photo Opp" Reagan a sincere believer? Consider me highly skeptical.

JFK? Yeah, right. LBJ? Yeah, right. Bill Clinton? Yeah, right. Barack Obama? Consider me highly skeptical.

The only presidents from FDR on I can even imagine having any serious religious beliefs are Truman, Carter, G.W. Bush, and Obama. And that's counting a belief in the social gospel, which is why I include Obama.

Not counting FDR for obvious reasons, Truman and Carter are the only presidents who likely spent more time in church than they did on the golf course.

It's not for nothing that one of the many informal nicknames that Romney's acquired over the past few years is "Just For Men".

If he does use it, at least he's old enough to justify it. I had to use it for the first time at 28. :-(

I lasted until I was 42. The first time I used it everyone said I looked like I was in my 20's. The second time I used it my hair began to fall out. It's a trap!

if Romney had to choose between his religious faith and the interests of the 1%, do you think it would take him 5 seconds or 5 minutes before he canoodled up to the latter?

0.68 seconds. For an android, that is nearly an eternity.

0.68 seconds. For an android, that is nearly an eternity.

Nice.

How are we sure that Mitt Romney isn't a cylon?

How are we sure that Mitt Romney isn't a cylon?

He doesn't look anything like Ray

Obama gave detailed talks about his nuclear policy, policies on Iraq, Afghanistan and his thoughts on soft/hard power in detail far before this point of the campaign.

I do remember hearing about Obama's plan to close Guantanamo by January 2010.

I do not remember hearing about much about Obama's plan to authorize assassinations of suspected terrorists and others in foreign countries by remote-piloted drone.

I do remember hearing about Obama's plan to close Guantanamo by January 2010.

I remember that.
I also remember how the health insurance reform negotiations were going to be on C-SPAN.
Yep, this administration was going to be alllllll about transparency.

I do not remember hearing much about maintaining and expanding the War on (some) Drugs.

Of course they do... but for example, the incumbent is pro-choice, his policies have been heavily weighted towards pro-choice, and that's at odds with every Christian sect that I'm aware of. His recent statements on gay marriage - again, a question he was asked and answered - run counter to most Christian sect doctrines.

So far as I know, Quakers are not officially opposed to either of those positions; unofficially, most Quakers I know support both of those positions. And Quakers are at least nominally a Quaker sect, for what it's worth.

You guys are weird. I've had significant grey (though I guess white is more accurate...my dad has been Santa Claus white since he was in his 50s) since I was about 26. I think it's about the only physical feature I have that I feel good about.

I do remember hearing about Obama's plan to close Guantanamo by January 2010.

I remember that.
I also remember how the health insurance reform negotiations were going to be on C-SPAN.
Yep, this administration was going to be alllllll about transparency.

I do not remember hearing much about maintaining and expanding the War on (some) Drugs.

I find it hard to take Obama to task on Guantanamo... They presented a plan, but it required congressional approval (because they needed to purchase an unused state prison and only congress can authorize funds). This all happened when the Democrats controlled congress - and they did get a vote in both the House and Senate, but it failed by enormous margins. Cowards on both sides of the aisle, I just don't know what they could have done -- if the vote was close, I guess you take Obama for task for not spending some capital or twisting some arms given the Democratic control of both chambers, but like I said - it wasn't even close. Even Reid and Schumer publicly opposed the plan. In fact, I think a lot of the animosity that's driving the House's issues with Holder -- when the plan was on the table, Holder testified before committees in both chambers and essentially called a lot of people what I just called them above: cowards.

The health care debate is much harder to defend on the transparency front - it was just a stupid promise. There were several "public hearings" on CSPAN -- with both chamber's leaders from both parties and administration negotiators, but the discussions stayed awfully high level and vague. Legislation has always been a sausage making enterprise, and most people either don't like to see the sausage get made. I'm sure the administration would have loved to have the one-on-ones with the Maine twins, for example, live on TV -- but then, I guarantee you they'd have never met with the WH.

By the point that things went "backroom" -- Jim DeMint was in full Waterloo mode, the GOP caucus had inexorably closed ranks, people were showing up at town halls packing semi-automatic weapons, and the buzz word of the day was "death panels". The whole 'debate' on PPACA went on nearly a year.

But still, sure - it was a promise that wasn't wholly kept...

I remember that.
I also remember how the health insurance reform negotiations were going to be on C-SPAN.
Yep, this administration was going to be alllllll about transparency.

I do not remember hearing much about maintaining and expanding the War on (some) Drugs.

God, this makes me want to do some hippie punching.

Okay, I can see that as legit---once. As I said about the Wright farce, it wasn't the initial questioning that was completely bogus, it was the drumbeat followups and the refusal to let the issue rest once a perfectly reasonable answer had been given.

Obama didn't really give a "perfectly reasonable answer" until he gave his "race speech." And even there, his answer was not "perfectly reasonable," but, well, as Brian McNamee would say, it was what it was, and after that Obama had given as much as he would give on the issue and it was time to let it drop.

But Obama's Sargeant Schultz routine of "I sat there for 20 years and heard nothing" didn't pass the giggle test.

Anyway, welcome back, Andy. I trust you used your time off wisely to re-read your Ayn Rand between recorded Turner Classic movies.

I think there are a lot of liberals and conservatives who find Mormonism's tenets a bit strange, not to mention the underwear. But in terms of letting that sort of thing guide their votes, I think that the biggest effect came and went with the Republican primaries. I can't see it affecting the general election in the slightest.

Anecdotally it's been my experience that a significant slice of the population finds mormonism "weird" or whatever. (Or, at least, more "weird" than the religions that are mainstream in the US.)

It wouldn't surprise me if Democrats hoped to tap into this somehow (and please note that I'm not suggesting any "conspiracy"), and it also wouldn't surprise me if it didn't move the needle on the election.

I find it hard to take Obama to task on Guantanamo... They presented a plan, but it required congressional approval (because they needed to purchase an unused state prison and only congress can authorize funds). This all happened when the Democrats controlled congress - and they did get a vote in both the House and Senate, but it failed by enormous margins.

So either Obama didn't do the most basic of homework or he made a promise he knew he had no chance of keeping. And yet, you "find it hard to take Obama to task."

Cowards on both sides of the aisle,

Cowards on both sides of the aisle? The GOP was dead set against closing Gitmo, and stuck to their position. Interesting how Obama gets a free pass but the GOP gets bashed for sticking to the position they staked out before the election.

I just don't know what they could have done -- if the vote was close, I guess you take Obama for task for not spending some capital or twisting some arms given the Democratic control of both chambers, but like I said - it wasn't even close.

The Dem president couldn't get the Dem House or the filibuster-proof Dem Senate to buy an old prison in his home state of Dem Illinois. That looks like an example of Obama incompetence, if not an example of an Obama lie.

The left has been trying to make an issue of Romney's religion for the entire campaign.

Evidence for this?

As far as I can tell, neither the Obama campaign or anyone notable on "the left" has invested any energy concerning Romney's religion. They've got far too much low-hanging fruit around to bother.

Steve, if the Democrats concluded that X (here, Romney's religion) could score points for them in the election, don't you think they would try to use that? I can see if you disagree with the premise -- that would be perfectly reasonable, and I'm not arguing that the premise is true myself -- but politics is politics. Certainly you don't believe that Democrat politicians are more righteous than Republican politicians.

Steve, if the Democrats concluded that X (here, Romney's religion) could score points for them in the election, don't you think they would try to use that? I can see if you disagree with the premise -- that would be perfectly reasonable, and I'm not arguing that the premise is true myself -- but politics is politics. Certainly you don't believe that Democrat politicians are more righteous than Republican politicians.

I don't even understand the point of this question. If the challenge that they have done so is questioned, what are you then trying to prove? "Oh, they haven't, but if they thought it was a good idea, they would"? They, um, don't think it's a good idea. So they haven't.

I'm not being snarky at all, I simply can't figure out what you are doing.


Anyway, welcome back, Andy. I trust you used your time off wisely to re-read your Ayn Rand between recorded Turner Classic movies.

Atlas Shrugged Part II is coming out on film this fall. With an entirely different cast, crew, and director than Part I. Should be a classic.


As far as Gitmo, Obama screwed up. Seems grounds for impeachment. Get to work.

I just don't see this as an issue. It reminds me a bit too much of the phony "concern" about Jeremiah Wright's "influence" over Obama, and it's every bit as bogus.

Actually, that was just your strawman of the "concern." The actual concern was that Obama saw fit to sit there for two decades listening to a nutcase.

Wright was a nutcase

If Romney sat and listened to David Duke for two decades, do you think it would matter that Duke had some other views that were beneficial to society and that Duke truly helped people in other ways? Because that's the excuse Obama gave for Wright.

And it's been a while now, but my recollection is that Obama admitted generally to hearing "controversial" things, but not specifically to hearing what was shown in the Youtube snippets and such.

I find it hard to take Obama to task on Guantanamo... They presented a plan, but it required congressional approval (because they needed to purchase an unused state prison and only congress can authorize funds). This all happened when the Democrats controlled congress - and they did get a vote in both the House and Senate, but it failed by enormous margins.

This is ridiculous. Obama's plan to close Gitmo was a fantasy from Day One - he simply wasn't dealing with the reality of the situation - and if I could see it on Day One, then surely Obama could. Or if he truly thought his plan had any prayer of succeeding, that raised another problem.

Close Gitmo within one year. How in the hell was that supposed to happen, either logistically or politically?

I don't even understand the point of this question. If the challenge that they have done so is questioned, what are you then trying to prove? "Oh, they haven't, but if they thought it was a good idea, they would"?

Yes, that's basically what I was getting at.

The point was to see if people on the left are dealing with the reality that their side is as willing to engage in dirty pool as the other side.

Anyway, welcome back, Andy. I trust you used your time off wisely to re-read your Ayn Rand between recorded Turner Classic movies.

I'm looking forward to Warren William day (Aug. 30th), which will give me further insight into Mitt Romney's barren soul.

Anecdotally it's been my experience that a significant slice of the population finds mormonism "weird" or whatever. (Or, at least, more "weird" than the religions that are mainstream in the US.)

Not surprising, because Mormonism is weird. Not weird in any particularly nasty way that should make anyone want to vote against a Mormon just because he was a Mormon, but weird nevertheless.

It wouldn't surprise me if Democrats hoped to tap into this somehow (and please note that I'm not suggesting any "conspiracy"), and it also wouldn't surprise me if it didn't move the needle on the election.

Wake me up if and when this actually happens, and I'll buy you a coke.

As for your continuing "actual concern" about Obama's connection to Jeremiah Wright, I'll let you talk to yourself about that fascinating subject from now on.

As for your continuing "actual concern" about Obama's connection to Jeremiah Wright, I'll let you talk to yourself about that fascinating subject from now on.

Lol. As if I'm the one who keeps bringing it up constantly. That would be you. And once you do, I see no reason to let you revise the history of it.

Yes, that's basically what I was getting at. The point was to see if people on the left are dealing with the reality that their side is as willing to engage in dirty pool as the other side.

I'll grant that the left can play dirty as well as the right.

You'll pardon me for asking, but so ####### what in regards to Mitt's Mormonism, where this started?

Not weird in any particularly nasty way that should make anyone want to vote against a Mormon just because he was a Mormon, but weird nevertheless.

So this is an interesting line to me. Scientology, in my view, would be disqualifying for the presidency. Mormonism is sort of just on the edge for me. I probably wouldn't automatically disqualify someone for being a Mormon, but it would make me less likely to vote for them. In my opinion, Mormonism is just an absolutely transparent con. I think less of anyone who doesn't realize this. I have had Mormon friends whom I respected and admired, but with most of them, when I've talked with them about it, they admitted that parts of it were a bit fishy.

I suppose this is probably bigoted of me. I wonder, though, how many people on this board, if they were being honest with themselves, would consider Scientology disqualifying. If so, what's the difference?

Not surprising, because Mormonism is weird. Not weird in any particularly nasty way that should make anyone want to vote against a Mormon just because he was a Mormon, but weird nevertheless.

Mormonism isn't any more weird than an Islamic faith that requires women to cover themselves from head to toe. Call me when New York Times columnists are cracking jokes about Muslims like they've been joking about Mitt's "magic underwear."

Mormonism certainly isn't any more weird than an Islamic faith that requires women to cover themselves from head to toe.

Or orthodox Catholicism that requires women to have their head covered in church.

So while I was in Bermuda with no access to anything except TCM and my DVD recorder, I missed the choice of Ryan as Romney's "next president". Given that there's been no discernable polling bump of the usual sort that accompanies a VP choice** (as there was with Palin), I wonder what the rationale for that pick was, from a strictly strategic standpoint.

Obviously Ryan will energize the GOP base, since he's young, articulate, fit, and a good family man who thrills both the Ayn Rand cultists and the hardest of the hardcore social conservatives.*** But it's hard not also to see that he'll produce an equally strong counter-reaction from both the Democratic base and moderates. From a strictly concern trolling POV, I would've chosen Rubio.

**Even Rasmussen shows Romney down 3 points from just 2 days ago, from +4 to +1.

***I do love the way Ryan is now trying to distance himself from Rand's militant atheism. I guess he never noticed that before.(smile)

Not surprising, because Mormonism is weird. Not weird in any particularly nasty way that should make anyone want to vote against a Mormon just because he was a Mormon, but weird nevertheless.

Mormonism isn't any more weird than an Islamic faith that requires women to cover themselves from head to toe.

Didn't say that it was, and to that I can also add ultra-orthodox Jews, Christian Scientists, Catholics who go around excommunicating presidential candidates, fundamentalists who actually take the Bible literally, and a whole host of others too numerous to mention. There are lots of weird religions in the world, and I wasn't meaning to single out Mormons.

Mormonism isn't any more weird than an Islamic faith that requires women to cover themselves from head to toe. Call me when New York Times columnists are cracking jokes about Muslims like they've been joking about Mitt's "magic underwear."

I think the weirdness of Mormonism is largely its relative novelty. Old and established customs don't seem weird; they're customs. (Of course some old customs aren't old at all but are manufactured traditions put forward by old institutions, but so be it.)

I agree that Mormonism probably isn't really that much weirder than any other religion. Maybe it's a little stranger, actually, with the planets talk, but its practices aren't inherently odder than other odd practices. Every religion sets purity rituals that require people to abstain from things non-believers use.

We seem to have a roughly 1800 cutoff for "normal." All the sects from before then get a pass. The ones that come after--unless you're talking about offshoots of ones that existed then like the modern ecumenical churches or the Campbellite/Disciplines of Christ--are weird. Mormons sit right at that cusp. Were it not for Utah, were they more dispersed (meaning were they not run out of every town in the midwest and upper south) they'd probably be close to disappearing into society.

***I do love the way Ryan is now trying to distance himself from Rand's militant atheism. I guess he never noticed that before.(smile)

I think you're onto something, Andy. And for further evidence of your theory, if you rearrange the letters in Ryan's name, you get Ayn R. So.

Anecdotally it's been my experience that a significant slice of the population finds mormonism "weird" or whatever. (Or, at least, more "weird" than the religions that are mainstream in the US.)

Of course, but that's because any sort of ritual that people aren't familiar/comfortable with is weird.

Look at those crazy people who don't eat cheeseburgers. Cheese is fine, beef is fine, but cheese and beef together? And some of the particularly observant men? They won't shake hands with women. And the observant women? They cover their hair with wigs in public.

How about those wacky folks who don't drink any alcohol? They go for an entire month not eating during the day. They pray five times a day, and make sure that they're facing in a particular direction.

Or those wild folks who wear an image of a withered, suffering man nailed to two boards around their necks? They think that a few words turns a piece of bread into flesh and a cup of wine into blood.

It's not just religion, either. There's this society where women coat their legs and other, more sensitive areas of their bodies, with hot wax, which they then tear off rapidly to remove body hair. These same women poke holes through their ears in order to hold shiny bits of metal and stone, and force their feet into narrow shoes that crush their toes and greatly reduce their ability to balance. How ridiculous!

I suppose this is probably bigoted of me. I wonder, though, how many people on this board, if they were being honest with themselves, would consider Scientology disqualifying. If so, what's the difference?

Again, why should someone's personal beliefs matter rather than their actions? If a Scientologist candidate didn't try to force their beliefs on the public and wasn't letting his faith dictate his professional decisions, I couldn't care less. I think this kind of stuff should be a complete non issue.

If someone is a member of a religion - even one many people would consider weird - it doesn't mean they understand or even agree with everything in that faith's doctrine. It just means that they think their life is better with it than without it for whatever reason. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I suppose this is probably bigoted of me. I wonder, though, how many people on this board, if they were being honest with themselves, would consider Scientology disqualifying. If so, what's the difference?

I don't really see much of a difference between Scientology and Christianity, to be truthful, in terms of the silliness of their beliefs. If Scientology were thousands of years old and established while Christianity was the new religion, do you really think people wouldn't think the former was normal and the latter was wacky?

Again, why should someone's personal beliefs matter rather than their actions? If a Scientologist candidate didn't try to force their beliefs on the public and wasn't letting his faith dictate his professional decisions, I couldn't care less. I think this kind of stuff should be a complete non issue.

I think one legitimate question is the independence of the candidate to form his or her own judgments. That's what JFK had to demonstrate. It's less of an issue for Protestants because Protestants are disorganized, (in general) decentralized, and are at least in principle thought to emphasize individual conscience. (Of course Catholicism emphasizes individual conscience over obedience too, but because it has a vast formal hierarchy and could be misunderstood--and may contribute to that misunderstanding.) So I think anyone from a hierarchical formal church would have to demonstrate independence, including a Scientologist.

Again, why should someone's personal beliefs matter rather than their actions?

You're creating a false dichotomy; personal beliefs can influence actions.

Obviously, actions are much more important, but elections are about putting people in positions of great power. Those people will be put in situations other than the ones in which we've seen them act. How are we to predict their behavior? We observe their actions and we listen to their words.

Also, personal beliefs provide insight into someone's education and rationality. I wouldn't vote for someone who rejected the theory of evolution, for example. There's more direct evidence of evolution than there is of gravity.

Not surprising, because Mormonism is weird

When I was in high school - a long time ago, of course - one of my high school classmates was killed in a traffic accident right next to the school. The school authorities thought it was best to have the whole school attend a memorial assembly, and let the assembly largely be conducted by members of her church. At which point we realized that she had been Mormon, and that Mormonism was, well, different. And all of the Baptist and Methodist and Presbyterian and Church of Christ students were looking back and forth at each other and you could practically see the thought bubbles saying "Whaaaaat?"

Obama didn't really give a "perfectly reasonable answer" until he gave his "race speech." And even there, his answer was not "perfectly reasonable," but, well, as Brian McNamee would say, it was what it was, and after that Obama had given as much as he would give on the issue and it was time to let it drop.

But Obama's Sargeant Schultz routine of "I sat there for 20 years and heard nothing" didn't pass the giggle test.

This is so farcical...

First - seeing, what, a minute of clips of Wright somehow allows you insight to what he's been saying for 20 years? That's comical. Wright was - and to some extent, still is even though he's retired - a major player in the Chicago religious and social community. He's long been a regular on the local news station weekend roundtables, on the local public TV roundtables, and virtually ALL of his sermons are readily available online. There are literally thousands of recorded hours of Wright speaking. I'm quite sure that plenty of what he has to say, you would disagree with -- but I'm equally certain it doesn't rise to the level of his rant.

Your pronouncement doesn't pass the giggle test to anyone with two working neurons to rub together.

Second -- Obama did specifically address the ONE statement that got everyone all aflutter... he unequivocally condemned it in his speech, he explained exactly why he condemned it and rejected the premise, but also discussed why it wasn't by any stretch the complete measure of Wright, something that would easily be documented if you were to research the plenty of media coverage and statements from Wright before 2008.

As I said, I think Obama DID have a responsibility to address the specifics of what Wright said... but to pile nonsense on top of nonsense is just obtuse.

I suppose this is probably bigoted of me. I wonder, though, how many people on this board, if they were being honest with themselves, would consider Scientology disqualifying. If so, what's the difference?

The difference between Scientology and Mormonism (for example) is that there are countless numbers of Mormons who've entered public life and done so honorably, without any evidence that they were crazy in any way beyond the way that orthodox Republicans are crazy.

The Republicans can now counter with the example of Harry Reid, Mormon, if they wish. Fair enough.

But Scientology is different on a grand scale. It's a documented cult that's hard to get out of once you're in it. It demands obedience on a level that Mormonism doesn't. It goes after its opponents with a vengeance that Karl Rove or James Carville would envy. And then there's that machine thingy.

But beyond that, is there any high profile public servant you can name who's a Scientologist? I can think of a few actors and actresses, but that's about it, and whenever I've read what they're saying, they're on the same level or worse than one of those Ayn Rand cultists. They've got a self-referential circle of "logic" that's impossible to have a conversation with. They've got more in common with Lyndon LaRouche than they do with any religion.

Your pronouncement doesn't pass the giggle test to anyone with two working neurons to rub together.

Sort of like your Guantanamo claim in #2231.

BTW, other than the atheism bit, has Paul Ryan ever repudiated any of Ayn Rand's teachings? Unlike Obama's alleged "influence" by Wright, Ryan has openly spoken---repeatedly---of the many ways in which Ayn Rand helped to form his worldview. A worldview which is every bit as creepy as that of Jeremiah Wright at his worst, not to mention more than a bit cultish in its devotion to its leader.

I'd love to see Ryan sit down with someone like Jim Lehrer, who would ask him to elaborate on his past and present (intellectual) relationship with Ayn Rand, with pointed followup questions when necessary, and then let the transcript of that interview stand to define Ryan's views on the subject from that point on. No "gotcha" questions, but no easy evasions or slippery dodges, either.

The difference between Scientology and Mormonism (for example) is that there are countless numbers of Mormons who've entered public life and done so honorably, without any evidence that they were crazy in any way beyond the way that orthodox Republicans are crazy.

This interesting piece on the long backstory of the Udall and Romney families in Arizona incidentally shows that Mormons, while generally conservative, can produce families with very different and prominent political leanings is good evidence for what you said and that it goes deeper than Harry Reid. Arizona's Secret History

I don't really see much of a difference between Scientology and Christianity, to be truthful, in terms of the silliness of their beliefs.

That's because there is none.

You're creating a false dichotomy; personal beliefs can influence actions.

Of course they can. And when it does, that's when it should be okay to judge them for it. But we shouldn't just automatically assume someone is going to do something crazy just cuz we think his/her personal beliefs are "weird."

That's why I asked the atheist candidate question earlier, cuz I really don't see any difference between the people who say they can't vote for a Mormon/Scientologist/whatever and the 46% of Americans that still say they couldn't vote for an atheist. It's okay to be ignorant towards other peoples views, but it's not okay for people to be ignorant of ours, because ours are "right?" Everyone thinks their views are the correct ones. NOT believing in a God is weird to many people, just like believing in one is weird to many others. I think it's just as narrow minded to assume that a Mormon/Scientologist/etc can't be smart or sane cuz of their beliefs as it is for an extremely devout theist to assume that an atheist can't be moral or have values because of their lack of religious beliefs. The idea that anyone who's smart/moral/sane must automatically come to the same conclusions that we have seems really arrogant IMO, and even a bit anti-diversity.

Personally, I wish the media/etc would get to the point where they don't even bring up a candidates faith or lack thereof. To me it just seems like a pointless distraction from the issues that really matter.

That's because there is none.

Well, there are a lot more Christians, it's older, and a lot more people accept it.

I mean, all of those have been covered already, I just wanted to get it in one sentence.


BTW, other than the atheism bit, has Paul Ryan ever repudiated any of Ayn Rand's teachings?

Even I'll admit this seems a weird thing to have to address specifically in regards to Rand herself.


Sort of like your Guantanamo claim in #2231.

Whether you agree with it or not, it was laid out and reasoned in more than one sentence or one snarky comment. As was #2257. Can you manage the same?

Well, there are a lot more Christians, it's older, and a lot more people accept it.

Certainly. But strictly as belief systems, neither is more or less silly than the other. Both make sweepingly unprovable claims that require faith rather than reason to accept.

Whether you agree with it or not, it was laid out and reasoned in more than one sentence or one snarky comment. As was #2257. Can you manage the same?

This is an idiot request, my apologies. Neither you nor anyone is required to do this.

BTW, other than the atheism bit, has Paul Ryan ever repudiated any of Ayn Rand's teachings?

Even I'll admit this seems a weird thing to have to address specifically in regards to Rand herself.

Why is this? As has been pointed out, Rand has openly proclaimed that his worldview was greatly influenced by Ayn Rand's writings. This devotion of his to Rand, other than her atheism, isn't exactly a secret, and it's not just a case of a misleading inference from a snippet of a speech. It's an ongoing acknowledgement, and it's right out there in the open. Imagine if Joe Biden had openly stated that his worldview had been comparably influenced by the writings of Marx or Lenin.

Cowards on both sides of the aisle? The GOP was dead set against closing Gitmo, and stuck to their position. Interesting how Obama gets a free pass but the GOP gets bashed for sticking to the position they staked out before the election.

Well, I didn't necessarily say both sides became cowardly at the same time - the GOP only has the advantage of consistent cowardice on the issue. Democrats found their inner coward when it became politically expedient to do so...

To be honest, this would be an area where I would actually want to take Obama's critics from the left to task -- before he became infamous for tweeting pics of his surname, Anthony Weiner was a highly thought of progressive leader in the House. He was roundly beloved and feted by the left. He was also one of the Democrats who immediately and pretty unequivocally (and quite publicly) rejected the Gitmo plan. For this apostasy, he got virtually no blowback from the very group that considered it a large and pressing issue.

Actually, I remember when weinergate first surfaced and lots of his fans immediately tried to make the case that he had been hacked or set-up or whatever... and getting into several heated arguments with friends who fit in that class of weiner fans when I brought up his weaselocity on Gitmo.

The GOP was dead set against closing Gitmo, and stuck to their position.

Which is a cowardly position held by a bunch of cowards. What's your point? The fact that they stuck to a completely cowardly position doesn't somehow make them brave or honorable.

The fact that they stuck to a completely cowardly position doesn't somehow make them brave or honorable.

This.

For this apostasy, he got virtually no blowback from the very group that considered it a large and pressing issue.

The only large and pressing issue was beating Bush/McCain. As soon as that objective was achieved, Dems suddenly couldn't care less about those poor, oppressed terror suspects in Gitmo.

Which is a cowardly position held by a bunch of cowards. What's your point? The fact that they stuck to a completely cowardly position doesn't somehow make them brave or honorable.

LOL.

Which is a cowardly position held by a bunch of cowards. What's your point? The fact that they stuck to a completely cowardly position doesn't somehow make them brave or honorable.

LOL.

LOL.

"LOL" is Joe's equivalent of Mitt Romney's self-conscious fake laugh:

I'm sure that at times Romney laughs with genuine mirth, but you know the laugh I'm talking about. It's the one he delivers when he gets asked a question he doesn't want to answer, or is confronted with a demand to explain a flip-flop or a lie. It's the phoniest laugh in the world, the one New York Times reporter Ashley Parker wrote "sounds like someone stating the sounds of laughter, a staccato 'Ha. Ha. Ha.'" Everything Mitt Romney is as a candidate is distilled within that laugh—his insincerity, his ambition, his awkwardness, and above all his fear. When Mitt laughs that way, he is not amused. He is terrified. Because he knows that what he's saying is utter baloney, and he knows that we know it.

The Institute for Policy Studies, a self-described "progressive multi-issue think tank," analyzed the link between tax loopholes and excessive executive compensation and concluded that the loopholes created an "uneven playing field" between large companies and small businesses and led to lost tax revenue.
The latest edition of the institute's annual Executive Excess compensation study found that in 2011, 26 CEOs received more in compensation than their companies paid in taxes, and that the four major tax loopholes contributing to excessive executive pay cost taxpayers about $14.4 billion a year.
"The report is timely at a time when the tax debate is so intense in this country," Sarah Anderson, the institute's global economy project director and the report's co-author, told ABC News. "Some leaders are saying we need to reduce the corporate tax burden even more while major companies are taking advantage of loopholes to lower their tax bill."
The report critiqued the major tax loopholes, including the preferential treatment of "carried interest" income for hedge fund managers. "Carried interest" income can be taxed as capital gains - at 15 percent tops - instead of at 35 percent, the top income tax rate. The Congressional Budget Office's projected estimate for "carried interest" income - revenue from investment income or dividends - for 2012 to 2021 was $21.4 billion.
Companies can deduct executive pay as a business expense, just as they do inventory and appreciation. Because of a tax rule enacted in the early 1990s that limited the amount of cash that could be deducted to $1 million, corporations have increasingly paid executives in stock options. Corporations can exempt stock option compensation, and other performance-based pay, from taxation.

Posted without comment. Make of it what you will.

I'm sure that at times Romney laughs with genuine mirth, but you know the laugh I'm talking about. It's the one he delivers when he gets asked a question he doesn't want to answer, or is confronted with a demand to explain a flip-flop or a lie. It's the phoniest laugh in the world, the one New York Times reporter Ashley Parker wrote "sounds like someone stating the sounds of laughter, a staccato 'Ha. Ha. Ha.'" Everything Mitt Romney is as a candidate is distilled within that laugh—his insincerity, his ambition, his awkwardness, and above all his fear. When Mitt laughs that way, he is not amused. He is terrified. Because he knows that what he's saying is utter baloney, and he knows that we know it.

I feel like I've seen Hillary Clinton do this exact thing many, many times.
I'm a little young for Richard Nixon, so HRC is easily the least-natural-acting national politician I can remember. Totally fine and occasionally excellent in small settings, but has never been able to conceal how much she hates all the glad-handing. It's like you can see her thinking "I could be working on something much more important right now."

Hmmm ...

Following furious demands from Democrats to release his tax returns, Mitt Romney offered the fullest explanation yet of his tax status Thursday, disclosing that he paid a tax rate of at least 13 percent of his income in each of the last 10 years.

Oh, if only there were some way for Romney to prove this ...

I'm a little young for Richard Nixon, so HRC is easily the least-natural-acting national politician I can remember. Totally fine and occasionally excellent in small settings, but has never been able to conceal how much she hates all the glad-handing. It's like you can see her thinking "I could be working on something much more important right now."

Good call.

Re: #2276

Weird. Does this blow up the idea of him sledghammering the Demos with their own rope?

Yes, I genetically spliced that metaphor.

Hillary's fake laugh is sort of the Anti-Romney: It's ridiculously outsized and caricature-ish.

As per Tripon's link, no duh. Like I said way, way upthread, large corporations write the tax code. Full stop. When I was doing tax law work for GE, we drafted tax law as part of the job description. The notion that any of these breaks help non-mega corporations is laughable; they're tailored to huge corporations generally, and occassionally they're tailored to one specific company.

US tax law is a complete boondoggle.

Going back to something I've seen referenced repeatedly when I pop in to check on this thing's progress: Is anyone else here in favor of our using drones?

Well, I didn't necessarily say both sides became cowardly at the same time - the GOP only has the advantage of consistent cowardice on the issue. Democrats found their inner coward when it became politically expedient to do so...

The only large and pressing issue was beating Bush/McCain. As soon as that objective was achieved, Dems suddenly couldn't care less about those poor, oppressed terror suspects in Gitmo.

isn't it possible that obama fully intended to close guantanamo as a candidate, but as president, he walked into a situation where prisoners were held indefinitely, with no identification and no evidence, and that, because of various "enhanced" interrogations, criminal prosecution in american courts was impossible, due to repeated violations of the 8th amendment?

isn't it possible that obama fully intended to close guantanamo as a candidate, but as president, he walked into a situation where prisoners were held indefinitely, with no identification and no evidence, and that, because of various "enhanced" interrogations, criminal prosecution in american courts was impossible, due to repeated violations of the 8th amendment?

Obama is an alleged constitutional scholar and allegedly "the smartest man to be president." Shouldn't he have had all of those things figured out long before he was president?

***

Going back to something I've seen referenced repeatedly when I pop in to check on this thing's progress: Is anyone else here in favor of our using drones?

In overseas war zones or in the U.S.?

Obama is an alleged constitutional scholar and allegedly "the smartest man to be president." Shouldn't he have had all of those things figured out long before he was president?

Impeachment!

isn't it possible that obama fully intended to close guantanamo as a candidate, but as president, he walked into a situation where prisoners were held indefinitely, with no identification and no evidence, and that, because of various "enhanced" interrogations, criminal prosecution in american courts was impossible, due to repeated violations of the 8th amendment?

I think he wanted to close Gitmo. I think he knew it was unlikely. He promised it anyways, tried, and failed.

Disingenuous to be sure, but far from the worst broken campaign promise in history. I mean, the legislation DID go to a vote.

Obama is an alleged constitutional scholar and allegedly "the smartest man to be president." Shouldn't he have had all of those things figured out long before he was president?

if he comes out on october 20, 2008, and says that after closer examination, closing guantanamo is not a viable possibility, that's not very responsible from an electoral standpoint. the fact that he didn't do that is really only smart (though also cynical) politics.

however it is also possible that, as a candidate, he underestimated the shoddiness of the bush administrations record keeping and criminal investigations, and that once in office, the inviability of prosecution became much clearer.


also, "alleged" constitutional scholar? "allegedly" the smartest man to be president? what are you, a first year undergrad studying pre-law? you have to understand how childish that phrasing is, don't you?

Going back to something I've seen referenced repeatedly when I pop in to check on this thing's progress: Is anyone else here in favor of our using drones?

Believe it or not, I don't have any problem with the "use of drones" as a generic concept. I mean, if we're talking about attacking legitimate targets -- I see no reasons, indeed, great benefit to using a drone rather than lobbing cruise missiles from a frigate or risking Air Force/Navy pilots and their more expensive equipment. In addition, my understanding of the capabilities of drones is that they're much more precision capable than the other two possibilities. I suppose you could toss out a third option - surgical, special ops teams - to take out a target, but that would seem to have a lower probability of getting/hitting what you're aiming for as well as the risk of more casualties without necessarily (again, based on a possibly flawed understanding of drone armament technology) lowering the risk of killing innocents... an ops team inserted is still going in with the idea that "this is the guy" and they'd still be going into hostile territory, or at least, territory where a couple of choppers and heavily armed guys aren't likely to be "treated as liberators". We went in with forces to get Bin Laden pretty much for no other reason than that we HAD to be certain we actually got HIM, rather than creating an undying mythical ghost.

If the allies had had 'drones' in WWII -- wouldn't it have been better to use them rather than carpet bombing and area bombing tactics? And further, if they had, would they?

This is all messy, bloody business whether we're talking about a 'standard' war with two sides lining up in different uniforms, or an asymmetrical war that's really more of a mix of law enforcement/warfare with anational actors. It's a balance a civilized, and supposedly 'just' nation needs to strike.

That said, it is in the details where I do have some problems with the way the drones are used...

For one thing, I don't like the fact that it is the CIA which seems to be the primary controller of when, where, and who to strike (not who in the 'target' sense, but who as in 'this is the target approved by CIC - FIRE!'). We don't seem to really have a well-thought out and accountable command structure for this type of thing -- and I do believe it's high time we got one...

For another, I have seen precious, precious little reporting on how often they "get the right man", the rate of innocent casualties, etc. I likewise don't know what -- or even if -- there are rules of engagement... Is there a certain density of non-targets that would cause a drone strike to be called off? I am absolutely certain that there would be - even if it's determined on the fly - regarding more standard military actions.

I suppose that's a "Yes, but..." answer -- but purely from the perspective of using an unmanned delivery system to deal death onto a perpetrator who would get the same if he put on a uniform, formed a phalanx, and met in the open field -- no, I don't really have a problem with that. I just want there to be a clearer and more systematic method for using that instrument of war, as we have for tanks, warships, divisions, jets, and missiles.

I'm a little young for Richard Nixon, so [Hillary Clinton] is easily the least-natural-acting national politician I can remember. Totally fine and occasionally excellent in small settings,

I have to admit that a creepy sensation went down my spine when she once said that she was "energized by meetings".

---------------------------------------

Following furious demands from Democrats to release his tax returns, Mitt Romney offered the fullest explanation yet of his tax status Thursday, disclosing that he paid a tax rate of at least 13 percent of his income in each of the last 10 years.

Oh, if only there were some way for Romney to prove this ...

It's not hard to notice that "the last 10 years" doesn't cover those first few years that he'd "retired" from Bain.

If Obama is a Constitutional scholar, he spent all of his time studying how to circumvent it. If you argue that he hasn't been actively circumventing it since taking office, you are an ideologue.

If Obama is a Constitutional scholar, he spent all of his time studying how to circumvent it. If you argue that he hasn't been actively circumventing it since taking office, you are an ideologue.

what do you mean by "actively circumventing [the constitution]"?

that's kind of an ambiguous phrase, so if you'd like to make specific accusations, that would help clarify your meaning.

however it is also possible that, as a candidate, he underestimated the shoddiness of the bush administrations record keeping and criminal investigations, and that once in office, the inviability of prosecution became much clearer.

The problem is not Gitmo itself; the problem is that his administration is arguing (and has always argued) that the executive branch can keep people locked up, without presenting any evidence to anyone, until the "War on Terror" is over. If Gitmo were closed tomorrow, today all those prisoners would just be moved somewhere else and locked up there forever instead.

EDIT: keeping prisoners overseas to avoid habeas jurisdiction would be an example of actively circumventing the Constitution. Fighting against any kind of due process for them would be another. Fighting to keep them from talking to their lawyers (or any lawyer) would be another.

Obama is an alleged constitutional scholar and allegedly "the smartest man to be president." Shouldn't he have had all of those things figured out long before he was president?

if he comes out on october 20, 2008, and says that after closer examination, closing guantanamo is not a viable possibility, that's not very responsible from an electoral standpoint. the fact that he didn't do that is really only smart (though also cynical) politics.

however it is also possible that, as a candidate, he underestimated the shoddiness of the bush administrations record keeping and criminal investigations, and that once in office, the inviability of prosecution became much clearer.


also, "alleged" constitutional scholar? "allegedly" the smartest man to be president? what are you, a first year undergrad studying pre-law? you have to understand how childish that phrasing is, don't you?

Well - I don't think the 8th amendement idea is so much a "constitutional blocker" as much as it is, frankly - a matter of what do you then do with the former President and members of his administration?

By many accounts, many of the detainees have reached the point of being mentally unstable due to some of the...ummm... measures employed in their interrogations.

As much as I do believe that members of the previous administration brought significant shame to this country, broke serious US laws in doing so, and also broke international treaties and norms --- what do you do then?

As much as it pains me to say it, I'm pretty uncomfortable with a new administration putting the previous administration (especially one of the opposing party) truly "on trial" or extraditing them to an International Court... we generally - as do most countries - avoid that (extradition) with our run-of-the-mill citizens.

That sucks, but we're supposed to have checks and balances that catch these things and prosecute when they occur - not leave it to the opposition party to pursue when they gain power. The mother of all partisan battle royals is the best outcome in such a case. We are frankly just left with the fact that our supposed system of checks and balances failed us. Congress was cowardly, craven, and compliant. The courts were limited to cases brought before them, and as they usually do under such circumstances - gave a lot (even too much) deference to the Executive branch in prosecution of a 'war'.

I think what pisses me off most is probably Dick Cheney in the immediate wake of Obama's election... He kept shooting off his mouth, when I think even what we KNOW was plenty to at least indict his ass, and probably did so precisely because he knows what I said above -- that it was simply a practical impossibility for the Obama administration to pursue charges against him and the rest. In fact - that may be precisely the reason Cheney opened his yap extra wide - then, any pursuit of charges becomes even more liable to charges of "shutting up a critic."

I guess Obama could have issued pardons and at least let the investigations - and any ugly details - come out where they may, but then I think you just end up with everyone pissed off.

If Obama is a Constitutional scholar, he spent all of his time studying how to circumvent it. If you argue that he hasn't been actively circumventing it since taking office, you are an ideologue.

Well, I certainly can't argue with this when the evidence presented is so overwhelming. I mean, you've certainly convinced me, what with all of the air tight examples presented to back this up.

The problem is not Gitmo itself; the problem is that his administration is arguing (and has always argued) that the executive branch can keep people locked up, without presenting any evidence to anyone, until the "War on Terror" is over. If Gitmo were closed tomorrow, today all those prisoners would just be moved somewhere else and locked up there forever instead.

Well, sadly - it's not just this administration or the previous one that held that... You can go all the way back to Lincoln's handling of the Copperheads like Clement Vallandigham. Vallandigham was an Ohio copperhead Congressman who was arrested by the military under "General Order 38". He was denied habeas corpus, tried by a military tribunal, sentenced to two years, and then simply expelled to the south (where he then made his way to Canada and continued to attack Lincoln).

Abe wrote a rather famous letter on the matter that's worth the read, if only because it really does show, I think, Lincoln's brilliance as a man and a politician.

Relating it back to the drone strike question - folks might remember that Anwar Al-Awlaki was killed last year by a drone strike in Yemen. Al-Awlaki was an American citizen, but was not tried (even in absentia) for any crime. It's something that I really struggle with - and I certainly hope the Obama administration struggles with, too. I'm not sure if it was the right call or not... I do know that Al-Awlaki has made no secret of his affiliations - he was considered Al Qaeda's best English-speaking recruiter, he had been in regular contact with both Nidal Hasan (the Ft Hood shooter) and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the 'Underwear Bomber'). I don't think there's any real doubt he was essentially waging war on his 'own country'. However, he was still an American citizen. But - he was also an American citizen who certainly wasn't going to turn himself in (He had previously been detained in Yemen, but tribal pressure was applied to release him -- at the time he was killed -- Yemen had issued another warrant for his arrest).


Excerpts from Lincoln's letter to Corning...

* * *
From this material, under cover of "Liberty of speech" "Liberty of the press" and "Habeas corpus" they hoped to keep on foot amongst us a most efficient corps of spies, informers, supplyers, and aiders and abettors of their cause in a thousand ways. They knew that in times such as they were inaugerating, by the constitution itself, the "Habeas corpus" might be suspended; but they also knew they had friends who would make a question as to who was to suspend it; meanwhile their spies and others might remain at large to help on their cause. Or if, as has happened, the executive should suspend the writ, without ruinous waste of time, instances of arresting innocent persons might occur, as are always likely to occur in such cases; and then a clamor could be raised in regard to this, which might be, at least, of some service to the insurgent cause. It needed no very keen perception to discover this part of the enemies’ programme, so soon as by open hostilities their machinery was fairly put in motion. Yet, thoroughly imbued with a reverence for the guarranteed rights of individuals, I was slow to adopt the strong measures, which by degrees I have been forced to regard as being within the exceptions of the constitution, and as indispensable to the public Safety. Nothing is better known to history than that courts of justice are utterly incompetent to such cases. Civil courts are organized chiefly for trials of individuals, or, at most, a few individuals acting in concert; and this in quiet times, and on charges of crimes well defined in the law. Even in times of peace, bands of horse-thieves and robbers frequently grow too numerous and powerful for the ordinary courts of justice.
* * *
I understand the meeting, whose resolutions I am considering, to be in favor of suppressing the rebellion by military force--by armies. Long experience has shown that armies can not be maintained unless desertion shall be punished by the severe penalty of death. The case requires, and the law and the constitution, sanction this punishment. Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wiley agitator who induces him to desert? This is none the less injurious when effected by getting a father, or brother, or friend, into a public meeting, and there working upon his feeling, till he is persuaded to write the soldier boy, that he is fighting in a bad cause, for a wicked administration of a contemptable government, too weak to arrest and punish him if he shall desert. I think that in such a case, to silence the agitator, and save the boy, is not only constitutional, but, withal, a great mercy.

isn't it possible that obama fully intended to close guantanamo as a candidate, but as president, he walked into a situation where prisoners were held indefinitely, with no identification and no evidence, and that, because of various "enhanced" interrogations, criminal prosecution in american courts was impossible, due to repeated violations of the 8th amendment?

First, he doubled down on his "intentions" to close Guantanamo even after he was President.

Second, knew or should have known. If he didn't already know it would be pretty much impossible to close Gitmo within a year, he's a fool, and if he did know that then his grand pronouncement to close Gitmo within a year was actively misleading and deceptive.

Well, I certainly can't argue with this when the evidence presented is so overwhelming. I mean, you've certainly convinced me, what with all of the air tight examples presented to back this up.

He treats the 4th Amendment like toilet paper, or have you not heard of the TSA and their VIPR checkpoints, warrantless wiretapping, murder by drone of "terrorists" on suspicion alone, etc.. These are all well-known, widespread activities, but if you're just hearing about them let me know and I'll find some sources.

He and his Secretary of Defense claim that Congress need not authorize war - hence the assault of Libya under no congressional authority.

Free speeach zones - need I say more on the First Amendment?

Strongarm federal crackdowns on marijuana dispensaries legal under California law - there goes the 10th Amendment.


The denial Obama supporters are in is sickening.

First, he doubled down on his "intentions" to close Guantanamo even after he was President.

Second, knew or should have known. If he didn't already know it would be pretty much impossible to close Gitmo within a year, he's a fool, and if he did know that then his grand pronouncement to close Gitmo within a year was actively misleading and deceptive.

I find it endlessly amusing when Joe, Ray, and company begin sounding like Cornel West...

It's a little like the Westboro church people using military funerals as a platform for telling people god hates the gays...

however it is also possible that, as a candidate, he underestimated the shoddiness of the bush administrations record keeping and criminal investigations, and that once in office, the inviability of prosecution became much clearer.

also, "alleged" constitutional scholar? "allegedly" the smartest man to be president? what are you, a first year undergrad studying pre-law? you have to understand how childish that phrasing is, don't you?

Hey, you're the ones trying to have it both ways. One minute Obama is a genius and a scholar, the next minute we're supposed to believe he was shocked, just shocked, to discover that (a) prosecuting foreign combatants might be a little tougher than prosecuting a shoplifter, and (b) his home state of Illinois wasn't crazy about housing these miscreants.

He treats the 4th Amendment like toilet paper, or have you not heard of the TSA and their VIPR checkpoints, warrantless wiretapping, murder by drone of "terrorists" on suspicion alone, etc.. These are all well-known, widespread activities, but if you're just hearing about them let me know and I'll find some sources.

He and his Secretary of Defense claim that Congress need not authorize war - hence the assault of Libya under no congressional authority.

Free speeach zones - need I say more on the First Amendment?

Strongarm federal crackdowns on marijuana dispensaries legal under California law - there goes the 10th Amendment.

So in other words, pretty much every president we've had for the last century or so has been actively trying to subvert the Constitution. OK. Sounds like your issue isn't so much with Obama as with the existence of a Federal government, unless you think unauthorized military excursions, security checkpoints, free speech zones, and supremacy of federal law over state law are all new concepts under Obama that have never existed before.

also, "alleged" constitutional scholar?

The debate -- initiated by Hillary's campaign IIRC -- was not over whether he was a "scholar," but was over whether he was a "professor," as he had claimed. He taught Con Law initially as an adjunct, and never full time. His official titles were "Lecturer" and then "Senior Lecturer." When I was in law school I never regarded adjuncts as "professors," but UC Law School later, after the fact, kind of gave support to the idea that they had considered him a "professor" while he was there, while not completely signing on to that. If people want to call him a "professor," well, it's murky enough that there is a reasonable case for that, even if I don't agree.

But there's even less of a case for him to be referred to as a constitutional "scholar." I don't think it's reasonable to argue that a Senior Lecturer is necessarily a "scholar." That inquiry would likely depend on what books/articles he's written, what speeches he's given, where and how often he's lectured on the topic, whether people - before he suddenly became the "rising star in the party" after he delivered the keynote speech in 2004 - were citing to his work and referring to him essentially as a constitutional scholar. I have seen no evidence that any of this was happening, but, then, I haven't really looked, either.

But automatically assuming he's a "constitutional law scholar" just because he taught Con Law, and calling people out for questioning that fact, is a bit much. If you have a case that he was a "scholar," please present it, as I'd be happy to listen to the argument.

(And if he's a "scholar" simply because he taught Con Law, then I have to be at least an "instructor" as I've taught patent law for CLE and was even referred to as a "faculty member" - with the badge to prove it. (And which entitled me to eat with the faculty and get my lunch for free.) But somehow, I don't think I'm an instructor, and I don't think he's a scholar.)

Put me down as roughly, "yes but" (per Zonk's answer).