Obama fails again

Obama is to restart Guantanamo military commissions after a two year freeze on new military trials for detainees. Perhaps he has to now pander to the right due to the change in the democrats furtunes in the mid term elections.

Still its very disapointing, its just another election promise which he has gone back on. See the Obama Truth o meter.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

Obama and Clegg a compromise too far?

In the US the left, Liberals and indeed the Republican right are all unhappy with Obama over his compromise tax bill which averts tax rises for millions of Americans. This Bill also extends benefits payments for the unemployed.

 

But I think this shows a Clinton type of compromise (something he had to do as he also had a lack of power in the house).

 

There are some comparisons I can see between Obama and our very own Nick Clegg when considering compromise and hatred. As opposed to the differences like for example Obama not acting as quickly as the coalition to install their policies and reforms. Perhaps Obama needed a coalition agreement.

 

So both men are becoming a figure of hate when also being a believer and achiever in compromise. Resulting in hatred of the left because the compromise includes some non left wing policy.

 

However Obama is not that far away from the average American he has been successfully painted as a sell out by some and a far left raving liberal by others.

 

I think Obama has started too slowly and has not defended himself well, this has now forced him to compromise. Although I would argue that like Clegg he is doing a fair job of compromise.

 

It appears to me that when you compromise you will be seen as a sell out. Its a shame as I think this is a good attribute and one that the public have always wished for. Problem with compromise is that it makes you look weak when it is a very brave position.

 

So if this is a compromise too far, its only because in practice the public don't like compromise as much as we thought they did.

Yes we can't Obama

President Obama famously said on the John Stewart Daily show, "Yes we can but...". 

Obama, oh what hopes the world had.

It turns out that Obama likes to let others push through his reforms and is happy to have them watered down. He only has himself to blame for Democrat voters not flooding out in their droves to vote for his party in the mid term elections. Obama has blown it.

The Republicans and the Tea Party supporters would of attacked Obama and the Democrats with the same vigour with or without Obama's watered down reforms. So Obama should of gone for it anyway, gone the whole hog. It's ok to have enemies in politics. It motivates your own side to and gives clarity to your positions.

However this is not all good news for the Republicans, they better watch out to. Because if the Tea Party are not happy with the new found power that control of the senate may give them then (and I suspect they won't be) I can see the Tea Party running as a 3rd Party with perhaps plenty of Libertarian right Wing Conservative Republicans standing as members of an all new Tea Party.

From movements do political parties grow. You have been warned.

Obama worse than Bush?‏

A guest Blog from Kevin Carter

I’m not often drawn to comment on articles, but I thoroughly agree with the article on Politico by Josh Gerstein, ACLU chief 'disgusted' with Obama . After 18 months it feels like all we've had are the implied approval of Bush's war-mongering and cutting of civil liberties by not reversing those policies when Obama had the opportunity.

For example, we’ve had further expansion of activity in Afghanistan. We’ve also had no reversal of Bush's relaxation of environmental regulations on - for example - the energy industry, which helped contribute to the situation in the Gulf of Mexico with BP, who the Obama administration insist on calling British Petroleum even though the name changed in 1999 and the company is 39% US owned to 40% UK owned.

Another example is the approval of a private health insurance scheme that will do little to help the neediest in American society and merely pour yet more money into the immoral coffers of private insurance companies.

Indeed, given that Bush promised little and delivered little where as Obama promised 'change' and has delivered more of the same, there's a very good argument to make that Obama is worse than Bush. Maybe not in absolute terms, although a continuation of Bush’s policies provides plenty of argument that he’s no better either. But, taking into account our expectations, for sure we can make that case. After all, what is less forgivable: a man who refuses a friend a favour, or a man who promises a friend a favour and then doesn't follow through?

Given my liberal leanings, I desperately wanted Obama to be true to his promises (and, with it, the widely foretold prophecies of the potential cultural enlightening that electing a first African-American President of the USA might deliver) but after reading around the subject both before and immediately after his election I did warn friends that it wasn't likely to happen.


The article linked to above ACLU chief 'disgusted' with Obama includes these edited
extracts;

"The top official at the American Civil Liberties Union seems to be losing patience with President Barack Obama and his administration. Speaking at a conference of liberal activists Wednesday morning, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero didn't mince his words about the administration's handling of civil liberties issues. "I'm going to start provocatively ... I'm disgusted with this president," Romero told the America's Future Now breakout session, according to blogger Marcy Wheeler of Firedoglake.com.


In an interview with POLITICO, Romero confirmed the gist of the quote, though he emphasized it wasn't intended as an ad hominem attack. "I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by. It's not a personal attack," Romero said. While liberals of various stripes have or had gripes with how Obama has conducted himself since taking office, civil libertarians may well be the most disillusioned at this point.


"There was a discussion this morning, and there has been generally in progressive circles, about expectations that have not been met. I made the point that expectations were high because the president set expectations very high," Romero said.


Asked why he's so animated now, Romero said: "It’s 18 months and, if not now, when? ... Guantanamo is still not closed. Military commissions are still a mess. The administration still uses state secrets to shield themselves from litigation. There's no prosecution for criminal acts of the Bush administration. Surveillance powers put in place under the Patriot Act have been renewed. If there has been change in the civil liberties context, I frankly don't see it."


Many analysts now regard it as unlikely that Guantanamo, which was supposed to close this past January under Obama's presidential order on the subject, will close this year. Romero agreed that if Sept. 11 trials proceed before military commissions at Guantanamo it's hard to see how the prison will close in the year or two after that.


"The unwillingness of the administration to stick by its guns and prosecute the Sept. 11 defendants in criminal court does not bode well for the broader civil liberties agenda," he said. "The fact they've not announced anything raises the specter of doubt that, in itself, is debilitating to the Justice Department and raises serious questions about the administration's commitment to the rule of law. Their silence speaks volumes."


Dazmando notes: It would appear that many Liberals are losing patients with the promise that Obama appeared to bring of new hope. How much is this down to who Obama is or what he believes he can get past the divided politicians and the outspoken American Right Wing is unknown. Althought if it is the latter then Obama is not taking enough risks because he would be attacked by the right anyway but does he really want to be attacked by the Centre, the Left and the Liberals as well. Obama needs to stand up and show the world what hes really made off. If Obama doesn't them everyone will lose faith with him.

Todays link is to the Norfolk Blogger who ask Just why the Green Party don't get economics

BP contractors thoughts and questions‏

I have been following the debates on BP and noticed a few of points that have not really been pick up on.


Contractors

Why are BP using contractors so heavy to a point where almost all the work is done by contractors. It would appear that this does not absolve you of any blame so why not do the work yourself. BP appear to of lost some of their knowledge and have to reply on contractors not only because they don't have all the resources required and can't do all the work themselves but because they no longer have some of the skills or man power to handle some of these operations.

BP need to wise up and skill up because employing contractors offers them no protection. It will be interesting to see if BP can uses its T&C with their contractors to recoup some of the funds they will have to pay for this operation.


Public Relations Department

Why has BP's PR department not pushed the issue that it was American contractors who made the errors and defect some of the attacks from the American government. Why has Obama not point out that one of the companies is Halliburton which was one of the Major republicans Dick Cheney directorships who was former Chairman and CEO.

BP PR department should also point out that 39 percent of its London traded shares are held by individuals or organisations in the US.


Obama being blamed

Obama is being blamed in the states but it should be noted that it was Bush before him did not bring in better controls and checks for sea oil drilling. Obama has not had the time (and can be blamed for not making it a priority) to introduce such controls.

Obama should be using this moment to point out the problems of oil and to promote alternatives. He has a real chance to change the debate about the reliance on Oil. At the moment the USA needs this oil in the Golf of Mexico and the latest restrictions means that the USA must now find alternatives.


Is BP not Anglo American?

How British is BP anyway after all not only are many of its share held by investors from all over the world but its shares are held in more than one country (jointly listed on the New York Stock Exchange). Much like Shell has a major party of its shares on the Dutch Stock exchange and is called and Anglo Dutch company. Why is BP not called an Anglo American company? Is it just because its name is British Petroleum?

I don't have any answers but like the rest of us I do have a lot of questions. BP what have you done?

Todays link is related to the story above its too The Angry Black Women who blogs Dear British Politicians: Shut The Hell Up

Closing Guantanamo Bay

I have just watched the BBC 2 Program This world on Closing Guantanamo, this can be found on BBC IPlayer here.

The former Conservative defence secretary Michael Portillo investigates the response to President Obama announcement in his second day in office that he would close Guantanamo Bay within 12 months. A task which has ultimately proved unachievable within this time frame. Personally I’m not so sure this is achievable on any short term scale because of the politics.

The most interesting aspect of this program was examining the balance between human rights and the security of the USA. Michael Portillo concluded that he would like to think that he would release the detainees. However after examining the political implications decided that he would have done the same thing as Obama. Which is release a few detainees and keep the others locked up indefinitely because you don’t have the evidence.

Obama as a liberal minded man would naturally wish to release the detainees as there is not enough evidence to convict them. I also would being a liberal release the detainees and monitor those that appear to be a threat (wrong perhaps I know). But I can see Obama’s problem.

The fact that Guantanamo Bay is helping to fuel the fire for terrorism but on the other hand if Obama released them and just one form detainee was involved in a terrorist attack in any capacity then this would be enough probably for him to be forced to resign. Not to mention the opposition in America to closing Guantanamo Bay.

It’s all very well us Libertarians calling for a closure for the right reasons of Guantanamo. But unfortunately it’s worth remembering that we live in a realistic world, one where it’s hard to make the political decisions for the right reasons. Politics can have a way of forcing your hand into a decision that we do not like. This is because leaders can find themselves in a situation where political decisions will almost certainly come back to haunt you. The right reasons are not always politically acceptable.

Please do watch this program (see here) and let me know what conclusion you would come too.

Labour Double Standards on BNP Leaflets and Website

Labour List has this comparison of the shameless rip off of the Barack Obama website. See below.

But let’s not forget that Labour has been ripping of BNP leaflets in some local elections see here

Double standards I think?