Is Obama Becoming Hillary Clinton?
Besides voting for the authorization to invade Iraq and never apologizing for doing so, the main reason many lefties voted against Hillary
Clinton is that she seems willing to say and doing anything to win. Is Obama starting down this duplicitous path? He certainly seems to be moving to the center regarding gun control, NAFTA, campaign finance, FISA warrants, and the death penalty for certain kinds of child rape. What else? No doubt, the system is designed to encourage even force candidates to move to the center. But if Obama figures that his lefty base has no place to go, he’s making a mistake. Why? Because staying home on Election Day or voting for a third party candidate is not out of the question for some lefties. Enough to hurt him? Who knows? Obama should not risk finding out. Some reciprocity is warranted here. Lefties should be willing to give Obama some latitude just as long as his engagement with center values is principled and not too often.
home for self-defense. . . . The landmark ruling overturned the District of Columbia ban on handguns, the strictest gun-control law in the country, and appeared certain to usher in a new round of litigation over gun rights throughout the country. . . . The court rejected the view that the Second Amendment’s ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ applied to gun ownership only in connection with service in the ‘well regulated militia’ to which the amendment refers. . . . Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion, his most important in his 22 years on the court, said that the justices were ‘aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country’ and ‘take seriously’ the arguments in favor of prohibiting handgun ownership. . . . ‘But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,’ he said, adding, ‘It is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.’ . . . Justice Scalia’s opinion was signed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr.” For the dissenting opinions continue reading 
Second Amendment prohibit. The last time the Court decided a Second Amendment case was in Miller v. United States (1939), when the Court held that a twelve inch sawed off shotgun was not protected under the Second Amendment. In the present case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court will decide whether the District of Columbia’s restrictive gun regulations, regulations making it virtually impossible to use a gun for self-defense even in one’s home, violate the Second Amendment. The implications of the Court’s decision in this case are enormous directly and indirectly affecting the constitutionality of gun control legislation throughout the nation.[1]
time, the primarymilitary force used to defend the states. If the federal government could disarm a state’s militia, it could in effect banish the militia entirely. The reason states were intent on constitutionally protecting their militias was simply their distrust of standing armies and the conviction that an armed militia could prevent unconstitutional domination by the federal government.[4] In short, according to this position, the right to keep and bear arms is a right of a state government to form and arm what in contemporary America we know as the National Guard.[5] Since, according to this interpretation, gun rights are inextricably linked to state militias, regulations which do not affect a state’s militia are beyond the Amendment’s scope. In fact, the most recent Supreme Court case, Miller v. United States, decided in 1939, made clear that only guns that were part of a well-regulated militia are subject to Second Amendment protection. This doomed sawed off shotguns which were the guns in question in the Miller case.
difference between these competing interpretations. If so, the smart money is on Justice Anthony Kennedy, typically the swing vote since Justice O’Connor retired, to tip toe between these competing interpretations leading the Court to fashion a compromise. The Second Amendment contains a significant individual right, but not one not requiring an unusually powerful reason for its regulation as is required in the free speech cases. If the government’s reason for regulating gun rights is reasonable, that is, if it does not present an undue burden on gun owners, then the regulation will be upheld. For example, hunters and individuals keen on guns for self-defense can count on Second Amendment protection. By contrast, licensing and background checks, machine bans, gun-free zones, and other regulations not posing an undue burden on gun owners would be permissible. The District’s regulation making it virtually impossible to use a gun for self-defense in one’s home will be struck down. This compromise might work for the moment, but neither side will be entirely satisfied. The result is likely to be a firestorm of litigation over what counts as a “reasonable” regulation, and when precisely does one place an “undue burden” on gun rights. Judicial compromises rarely resolve hot-button controversies. They just postpone debate until another day. __________________________
have been one-shot affairs — the people going to the polls to say Yes or No without taking preliminary steps to deliberate together on the choices facing the nation. . . . This populist method is unworthy of a modern democracy. If an issue is important enough to warrant decision by the people as a whole, it is important enough to require a more deliberate approach to decision-making. If the Irish return to the polls next year to rethink their vote, they should be encouraged to engage in a more deliberative exercise. Two weeks before the next referendum, Ireland should hold a special national day of deliberation at which ordinary citizens discuss the key issues at community centres throughout the country. . . . Suppose, for example, that deliberation day begins with a familiar sort of televised debate between the leading spokesman for the Yes and No sides. After the television show, local citizens take charge as they engage in the main issues in small discussion groups of 15 and larger plenary assemblies. The small groups begin where the televised debate leaves off. Each group spends an hour defining questions that the national spokesmen left unanswered. Everybody then proceeds to a plenary assembly to hear their questions answered by local representatives of the Yes and No sides.” Continue reading 
of mass destruction. . . . In an interview with the Atlantic in late May, McCain said that ‘Iran is hell-bent on the destruction of Israel, they’re hell-bent on driving us out of Iraq, they’re hell-bent on supporting terrorist organizations, and as serious as anything to American families, they’re sending explosive devices into Iraq that are killing American soldiers.’ In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee this month, McCain again mocked Obama’s willingness to enter into dialogue with the Iranians, saying, ‘The idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refused to engage in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history.’ . . . The problem with McCain’s alarmist rhetoric throughout the presidential primaries and now in the general campaign is that he’s got the Iran problem almost entirely wrong. Notwithstanding his deep resume on national security matters, his statements seem to reflect little understanding of the realities America faces in terms of dealing with Iran. Moreover, despite how highly he rates the problem, and his own foreign policy credentials, McCain seems to have no clear plan for actually dealing with Iran.” For more click 
Contemplate the following: “James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer. . . . Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech (pdf) to the US Congress – in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming – to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the ‘perfect storm’ of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable. . . . Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading. . . . In an interview with the Guardian he said: ‘When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that’s a crime.’ . . . He is also considering personally targeting members of Congress who have a poor track record on climate change in the coming November elections. He will campaign to have several of them unseated. Hansen’s speech to Congress on June 23 1988 is seen as a seminal moment in bringing the threat of global warming to the public’s attention. At a time when most scientists were still hesitant to speak out, he said the evidence of the greenhouse gas effect was 99% certain, adding ‘it is time to stop waffling’. . . . He will tell the House select committee on energy independence and global warming this afternoon that he is now 99% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has already risen beyond the safe level.” 
The NY Times reports today that “George Carlin, the Grammy-Award winning standup comedian and actor who was hailed for his irreverent social commentary, poignant observations of the absurdities of everyday life and language, and groundbreaking routines like ‘Seven Words You Can Never Use on Television,’ died in Santa Monica, Calif., on Sunday, according to his publicist, Jeff Abraham. He was 71.” For the full Times article click here. Mr. Carlin, a great social critic in the tradition of Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor, once did a bit examining the notion of “pulling the plug” when terminally ill. He would have none of it. Instead, he demanded that, should he fall into those circumstances, he wanted his physican to get an extension chord. George Carlin perseverated about death and now death has finally come to claim him. He was a cultural icon for anyone who takes social commentary and criticism seriously and also likes to laugh about our cultural foibles and vices. 
Breaking a promise? Yes. Unjustified? More complicated. But here I just want to mention a few of the many things wrong with Brook’s piece. First, the term “split-personality” refers to a schizophrenic condition in which there is a split in the patient’s (single personality) between thought and feelings. The term Brooks should have used was “multiple personality,” the condition from which Dr. Jekyll suffered. A totally different personality Mr. Hyde emerged at conspicuous times from Dr. Jekyll and the good doctor was for the most part unaware of this occurrence. Two personalities existed in this case and neither was split. This is not simply a pedantic quarrel. Brooks is a dilettante. He knows a little about a lot of subjects, but he lacks a depth of knowledge about any. He knows, for example, that there’s a psychiatric condition called “split personality, but he doesn’t take the time to explore its relationship to multiple personality disorder which is clearly what he had in mind.
Anyone who believes that a self-avowed reformer will never act contrary to reform principles is living in a hermitage. Moreover, there are times when even reformers should make such choices. The question for American citizens is not whether Obama betrayed one of his “core principles,” but rather whether he is inclined to make a habit of it as do other politicians. If the reformer’s principles generally are attractive and if he or she generally stands by those principles, the reformer is still better than an ordinary politician with non-reformer goals. Let’s be grateful for Fast Eddie Obama unless he emerges too often. Wait! Perhaps that’s Brooks’ point. Let’s stop Obama from betraying his principles because then the next Democratic reformer might act with superogatory dedication to his reform principles and reform is not what Republicans want. Who is the greater hypocrite here? Obama or Brooks?
Check out the following op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal: “Last week’s Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush has been painted as a stinging rebuke of the administration’s antiterrorism policies. From the celebrations on most U.S. editorial pages, one might think that the court had stopped a dictator from trampling civil liberties. Boumediene did anything but. The 5-4 ruling is judicial imperialism of the highest order. . . . Boumediene should finally put to rest the popular myth that right-wing conservatives dominate the Supreme Court. Academics used to complain about the Rehnquist Court’s ‘activism’ for striking down minor federal laws on issues such as whether states are immune from damage lawsuits, or if Congress could ban handguns in school. Justice Anthony Kennedy — joined by the liberal bloc of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — saves his claims of judicial supremacy for the truly momentous: striking down a wartime statute, agreed upon by the president and large majorities of Congress, while hostilities are ongoing, no less. . . . First out the window went precedent. Under the writ of habeas corpus, Americans (and aliens on our territory) can challenge the legality of their detentions before a federal judge. Until Boumediene, the Supreme Court had never allowed an alien who was captured fighting against the U.S. to use our courts to challenge his detention.” For more click here.
If you’re an idealistic. don’t run for political office. Why? Because you will inevitably be required to engage in smarmy, non-idealist behavior. Just listen to His Holiness, Lubavitcher Rebbe, David Brooks: “God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naive university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson. . . . But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes. . . . This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.” Click here for the entire piece.
The problem is that if we take the idealist trap seriously, only sleaze will run for office. (Well, that’s pretty much the way it is.) But when an idealist comes along he or she will need to get down dirty in the mud, or loose. So what’s an idealist public to do? Here’s the answer: When an idealist has the courage to come forth, urge him or her not to capitulate, while at the same time understand that capitulation is the name of the political game and accept it. Don’t make the idealist choose between idealism and winning the election. That’s a fool’s game that guarantees failure. Barack Obama is an idealist, but he is no fool. Moreover, he exhibits a healthy pragmatist streak that gives him a chance of actually winning. Of course, his idealist supporters need to keep him focused. Say a ([n] idealist) prayer for him. “God, grant Barack the serenity to accept the sleeze he cannot change, courage to idealistically change the sleaze he can, and wisdom to know the difference.” Judging from his entire piece even Lubavitcher Rebbe, David Brooks might agree with this sentiment. But if so, he needs to reconceive the predominantly negative tone, and praise Obama, not bury him.
