One way that Republicans (and some liberals) have worked to diminish Obama's victory, is by asserting that Obama is, himself, a conservative. We heard this in the talk about Obama's cabinet coming from the "right wing of the Democratic Party." For conservatives, the upshot of "no difference between Bush and Obama"
is obvious. It allows them to argue that conservative principles didn't
actually lose, and Obama doesn't really represent change. Here it is on full and brazen display courtesy of John Ashcroft,
discussing the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri:
John Ashcroft, who was Attorney General when Marri was designated an
enemy combatant, makes no such apologies. Interviewed just before the
Inauguration, he defended what he described as a "sound decision" to
"maximize the national interest," and predicted that, in the end,
President Obama's approach to handling terror suspects would closely
mirror his own: "How will he be different? The main difference is going
to be that he spells his name 'O-b-a-m-a,' not 'B-u-s-h.'"
That was cute. But here are
the facts:
The Justice Department, in an abrupt change in policy from the Bush
administration, is preparing to bring terrorism-related charges against
a man identified as an operative of Al Qaeda who has been held in a military brig for more than five years, government officials said Thursday.
The charges would move the case of the only enemy combatant to be held on American soil, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, into a civilian criminal court. The Bush administration had argued that he could be held indefinitely without being charged.
Yeah. Obama is Bush. Nothing's changed. Nothing at all.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Well, I think this illustrates the urgent need for investigations and trials of people who violated the laws of this land and disregarded their oaths to uphold the constitution and our treaties.
Anyone know the statute of limitations on gross human rights violations?
Hey, don't forget about his very recent scuttling of the "conscience rule" that protected fundamentalist pharmacists from, you know, actually having to do their jobs.
Over at SCOTUSblog they noted that this may not be a purehearted move.
This guy's case was going to be heard by the Supreme Court, and the Court hadn't been to friendly to the Bush administration by the end of its term (see: Boumediene v. Bush). If they had kept him as an enemy combatant they faced a very good chance of a Supreme court ruling which said once and for all that "enemy combatant" is not something you can call someone to chuck them in a Navy brig. By doing this, they're trying to avoid the ruling, and keep the door open in general, even while closing it in this particular case.
well after the unveiling of Obama's proposed budget yesterday, I don't think we need to worry about too many conservatives arguing he's really a conservative anymore
dfreelon,
thanks for that news about the ' conscience rule'. Never more bogus crap from Bushies than that. If you have a problem with dispensing legal drugs, then get another job.
Obama is no Bush, but the comparisons vis-a-vis known or suspected terrorists isn't unwarranted completely.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,4661244.story
Even in preserving renditions, though, there are differences beteen Bush and Obama, which the article discusses.
What's more basic than habeus corpus? Undoing the policies that have undermined it in practice is a MAJOR change.
Attempting to diminish him? Oh please. When the man is wrong he needs to be called on it.
From the Feb 18 NYT Obama's War on Terror May Resemble Bush's in Some Areas
What's amusing is the obvious disadvantage to conservative critics this causes: if he's filled his cabinet with center-right pseodoneolibcons (or whatever) bent on preserving Bushco policy, how can he also be a terrible Communist sleeper cell bent on undermining American entrepeneurship? This of course gives him a fair amount of cover to enact the most expansive progressive agenda since LBJ.
There's a lot not to like about Ashcroft, but he's a lot better than that shitbag Gonzales.
TRBoston - the same way he's simultaneously a closet Muslim, Radical Black Christian, and Atheist, who wants to continue Bush's war policy by withdrawing all the troops. Doesn't have to make sense, as long as it makes noise.
But Mr. Panetta also said the C.I.A. might continue its “extraordinary rendition” program, under which agents seize terrorism suspects and take them to other countries without extradition proceedings, in a more sweeping form than anticipated.
I honestly have no problems if we grab some guy out of Afghanistan or Pakistan and bring him to the US for trials. While "extraordinary rendition" has come to be synonymous with torture, what it really means is not going through the extradition process. Considering that not all countries have an extradition treaty with us, may not cooperate or torture the individual I have no problems with the US doing this. If we catch Osama bin Laden, I want him brought to the US and tried.
There's a lot not to like about Ashcroft, but he's a lot better than that shitbag Gonzales.
No kidding, Gonzales makes Ashcroft look like an amazing Attorney General. Remember those stories about Ashcroft being visited in the hospital while trying to be coerced to sign-off on something? The same thing that caused his people to threaten resignation if Bush tried to push it through. I may not have agreed with him always, but at least he was independent enough to not just rubber stamp everything.
Unfortunately, you picked a very, very bad example here -- Obama is attempting to short-circuit a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of indefinite detention of American citizens, by obviating the issue. See Glenn Greenwald today for more.
Of course indicting & charging Al-Marri is a good thing in itself, but when paired with a motion from government attorneys to dismiss the currently-pending Supreme Court case, it is nothing but an affirmation of Bush's executive power grab.
I think a good deal of the "he's really conservative" is from conservatives who wanted to feel good about voting for him. Although some of it is based in a "divide and conquer" strategy. If you alienate liberal/Left from Obama maybe you can get some of those voters to go Green Party next time and win.
I don't think Obama is conservative in any meaningful sense of the word. Not even in the "Burkean" way. At the same time I don't think things have changed as much as you'd like to believe. For a Democratic President to get a majority of the popular vote is a big thing, but it wasn't an LBJ/Goldwater level landslide. For that matter Bush Sr. in 1988 received more of the popular and electoral vote than Obama. In addition LBJ basically dropped out four years after winning while Bush lasted only one term. So that this means some amazing shift, and we're now a liberal/progressive nation, seems a bit inflated.
One study indicated we're basically "an ambivalent nation" which is probably closer to the truth. The plurality of Americans are not particularly wedded to any ideology, but are instead largely concerned with practical things or their own pet interests. In a bad economy that generally means going against the party of the President. In a good economy it means going for his party. As for the rest we're still a bit more conservative than liberal, but we also have good heapings of libertarianism and populism.
Well I was more than a little disappointed to see Eric Holder continuing the Bush Admin arguments on The Unitary Executive and Eavesdropping and well... pretty much everything else. It was a great start signing that exec order to close Gitmo but everything since then has been a bit of a letdown... I am hoping that president is gradually rescinding the earlier sham laws, as opposed to rolling back everything overnight, in the interest of national security...