Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - ! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 43
31
Obama’s War, Democrats’ Unease

BuzzPermalinkBy CARL HULSE

Published: December 5, 2009
Congressional Democrats successfully capitalized on antiwar anger aimed at the White House in the last two elections. Now, the commander in chief presiding over a troop buildup is not a Republican, but one of their own — a fact likely to add to Democratic difficulties in what was already looming as a treacherous midterm election.

At a minimum, President Obama’s decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan could hold down the enthusiasm, and perhaps the desire to contribute, of voters who backed Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats in the expectation that they would wind down conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Any depression of Democratic support could be problematic. Given the public’s frustration over economic turmoil, which is threatening the governing party, Democrats will need every vote they can get.

“If the left is as antiwar as I believe they are, why would they turn out to elect more Democrats who might support the president’s policy in Afghanistan?” asked Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “It creates a real split and perhaps demoralizes Democrats.”

The president’s war plan has already injected a volatile element into Democratic primaries, with candidates in developing races around the country taking sides on what could be a defining issue in primary battles.

In Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter, a former Republican who converted to the Democratic Party this year, quickly staked out a position in opposition to the troop escalation, while his opponent, Representative Joe Sestak, a former military officer who has been trying to run to the left of Mr. Specter, came out in favor it.

Other House and Senate candidates have seized on the buildup, siding both for and against it, making it likely that the president’s Afghanistan policy will be a central topic in primary races and perhaps general elections as well.

With national liberal advocacy groups already mobilizing against the troop increase, the president’s policy could conceivably prompt additional primary contests against Democratic incumbents, forcing them into races that consume money before general election showdowns with Republicans. Even if they do not instigate primaries, some advocacy groups can be expected to run advertisements and stage rallies against Democrats backing the escalation.

Despite the possible negative impact, Democrats and some experts do see a potential benefit arising out of the party division over how to proceed in Afghanistan.

For the most vulnerable Democrats — those in more conservative states and districts — a vote on the troop escalation presents an opportunity to side with Republicans on a national security issue. At the same time, it would allow a lawmaker to showcase a split with the liberal forces of the party and perhaps — depending on her ultimate view — with Speaker Nancy Pelosi herself.

“That will help some Democrats in moderate districts, because it cuts into Republican opponents running against them as out-of-touch liberals,” said Martin Frost, a former congressman from Texas who headed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during his tenure. “It is harder for a Republican opponent to go after the Democrat in a moderate district who votes with the president on the war.”

Mr. Frost, who was engaged in voter turnout efforts in the last election, said a stance in favor of the buildup could spur criticism from some Democratic constituents. But he said it was unlikely that those voters would then turn around and support a Republican.

“They might make life difficult for the Democrat, but they are not going to stay home,” he said.

Some top Democrats played down the electoral ramifications of Mr. Obama’s Afghanistan policy, saying the president was simply fulfilling his campaign promise to return the American military focus from Iraq to Afghanistan and its potential as a base of terrorism operations.

According to this view, the real test will come in 2011, when Mr. Obama will have to choose whether to follow through on his commitment to begin removing troops from Afghanistan as he presumably starts up his own re-election campaign.

Democratic strategists say that if nothing else, division over the Afghanistan policy could provide a distraction next year when party leaders had hoped to be free to focus on job creation and deficit reduction — two issues with appeal to independents. And a vote on spending $30 billion or more for the additional troops is not likely to come before next spring, pushing the contentious subject even closer to election season.

While Ms. Pelosi acknowledged that Afghanistan is a difficult internal matter for Democrats, she said she did not anticipate that the troop buildup would be an overriding issue in the midterm elections. She said Democrats would be judged more on how they handle persistent national unemployment and the overall economy.

“Meeting the needs of America’s families and seeing the progress that they make is what is important to us and to the president,” she said. “We’ll measure our success in that way and, hopefully, the American people will too in the next election.”



nancy must be doing hard core drugs now...all she used to do is complain about bush keeping his foot on national security issues and the troop buildup in iraq and the wars overseas...and now she doesn't care...hypocritical scarecrow that she is.

32
General Off-Topic Board / Honorary Degree?
« on: December 05, 2009, 10:59:06 PM »
seasons greetings,

i'm in the process of filling out my application.

my question is:

do you know the part that asks, where did your parents go to school and what degrees do they have??

well, my parents did not go to school = no degrees.

but. my dad has an honorary doctorate.  do i put that???

i figure its better than leaving the space empty right?


33
General Off-Topic Board / Question about LOR submission...
« on: December 05, 2009, 10:38:55 PM »
Happy seasons greetings...
so i have registered on the LSAC LSDAS thing and have named 2 academic providers and 1 professional provider.

i have marked all three as General letters.

they have been marked as 1L, 2L, and 3L.
does that mean that if i submit an online law school application using this LSAC service and the school asks for only 2 letters, i have a choice to choose from the three? or are they liked randomly submitted???

i think that this might be a stupid question. but i need the answer to it.

thanks!!

34
...didn't we once have a search function...why can't we just bring it back...the site is slow already...what does it matter if it is a little slower...

seriously? future lawyers? ::)

35
Site Suggestions and Announcements / HOW ABOUT LSD T_SHIRTS
« on: December 02, 2009, 10:59:13 PM »
...what do the moderators think about having lsd tee-shirts made and we can buy them...u know...something official...

36
...so indiogs are happy that obama has chosen the path we knew he would...protecting national security and offense against the crescenting guerrillas...didn't matter if it was mccain or obama...understand now?


US liberals express anger over Obama's decision to raise troop levelsDeployment of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan causes most ardent supporters to become disillusioned


Buzz up!
Digg it

Ewen MacAskill in Washington guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 2 December 2009 18.18 GMT Article history

Barack Obama's escalation of the Afghanistan war brought a vehement reaction today from Americans who only a year ago had been among his most ardent supporters and are now disillusioned.

One of the leaders of the anti-war movement, Paul Kawika Martin, disclosed today that there had been a lot of angry comments aimed at Obama during a conference call with progressives from around the US today to discuss the Afghan move.

"I heard a woman say 'Obama can go to hell'. That was from someone who had campaigned for him."

Martin, political director of Peace Action, added: "I am hearing a visceral reaction among the grassroots who are very disappointed. People are feeling disillusioned. People did want to give Obama a chance but that honeymoon period is clearly ending."

The reaction Martin found today mirrors a wider liberal backlash against Obama that has been growing for the last few months over the watering down of the health bill, the failure to make a significant move on climate change and, above all else, the deployment of more US troops to Afghanistan, firstly 21,000 in March and now a further 30,000.

Such sentiments can be heard at social gatherings round Washington where liberals meet and can be seen in the daily debates on liberal blog sites such as the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Firedoglake and Talking Points Memo.

David Kurtz of Talking Points Memo defended Obama's new Afghanistan policy but acknowledged liberal disillusionment: "I know many progressives are disenchanted with this decision."

The liberal grassroots group, MoveOn.org, whose members campaigned hard for Obama last year, helped raise funds for him and continued to defend him throughout the early stages of his administration, today turned on him and unequivocally denounced the Afghanistan escalation.

MoveOn, which has been credited by political analysts as having helped get many Democrats elected to Congress in 2006, a turning point for the party, today called on its members to call the White House to protest the Afghanistan decision.

"President Obama has ordered about 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan - escalating the war. But escalation only deepens our involvement in a quagmire. The president needs to hear that we want to bring the troops home, not send more to Afghanistan," MoveOn said on its website.

Opposition to the escalation reaches deep inside the Democratic party, with liberal members of Congress opposed to the war making their resistance felt even before Obama had completed his speech. They pose a danger for Obama, threatening to block his request for the $30bn extra he needs Congress to approve to fund the 30,000 new troops.

Reflecting liberal unease in Congress, New York Democratic representative Louise Slaughter said: "I see no good reason for us to send another 30,000 or more troops to Afghanistan when we have so many pressing issues like our economy to deal with in this country."

Another Democrat, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, echoed the sentiment: "It's an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy. Sending more troops could further destabilise Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al-Qaida is headquartered."

Anti-war Democrats are pushing for an early vote on funding before troops are sent into action.

The White House is extremely conscious that part of the base that helped get Obama elected last year is in danger of being eroded. The decision to put in a date for the beginning of withdrawal of US troops was primarily a political one, designed to try to placate not only a US public sceptical about the war but the liberal, anti-war wing of the coalition that Obama built. It did not appear to have worked, with some liberal commentators noting that it was only the start of the process and large numbers of US troops come remain in Afghanistan for years to come.

Public opinion polls show that support for the war has gradually waned since the start of the year, with hostility higher among Democratic supporters than Republicans.

The anti-war protests that were a feature of the Bush presidency have been in little evidence this year but that could change. A new coalition has been formed in response to Obama's decision, the Emergency Anti-Escalation Rally, and announced today it is to protest in front of the White House on 12 December.

VoteVets.org, which represents progressive American veterans reports its members are ambivalent about the Obama plan. Jon Soltz, the chairman of VoteVets, said:

"We have been supportive of every move the president has made since he was elected, and have supported an increased focus on Afghanistan since our inception, but given the serious questions that are unresolved, we aren't ready to support what he's laid out."

The tone among liberal bloggers was more outspoken. Typical of the comments today was KathyinBlacksburgh, who is an editor on the Virginia-based Blue Commonwealth site. She wrote: "So, not one single life is worth it …. It has become clear you do not care what the majority of Americans think. By the way, we, the majority, think it's wrong. We think it's unsupportable. We think it's unaffordable. And we think it's a huge mistake from a security perspective

37
General Off-Topic Board / Who is going to win Chargers or Colts?
« on: December 02, 2009, 10:11:41 PM »
...when these teams play who thinks the colts will win?   
chargers appear to be on a roll...but the colts with manning and that offense wait to pounce in the second half...this should be a good matchup and a good game...defense will probably dictate against these high powered offense...

any thoughts?

38
...barbara boxer and the liberal clown car can't do a thing about it...looks like 'bam is continuing where bush left off...thank god.


Boxer opposes troop build-up in Afghanistan


Posted By: Joe Garofoli (Email, Twitter) | December 01 2009 at 06:15 PM

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=52699#ixzz0YahFRbSs


California Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Dem, issued the tersest statement of all the 2010 CA Senate candidates:

"I support the President's mission and exit strategy for Afghanistan, but I do not support adding more troops because there are now 200,000 American, NATO and Afghan forces fighting roughly 20,000 Taliban and less than 100 al Qaeda."

Boxer is in a tough spot, politically, on Afghanistan. She was one of few Democrats who voted against a resolution giving President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq in 2002. She doesn't want to alienate the liberal, anti-war wing of the Democratic Party who adore her.

But she also doesn't want to push back too hard on Obama -- she'll need him to make some California visits for her next year. Thus we have her supporting "the President's mission and exit strategy" but not a key element of it - the troop buildup.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=52699#ixzz0YagDOKJ7

40
aye for one believe that the truthers regarding 911 conspiracy theories simply are exploiting the deaths of americans...these folks are unpatriotic unscrupulous fops.

...the government was not behind this act...it was indeed "crescenting guerillas" who orchestrated this attack...

we got it all out of k.s.m...

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 43