PDA

View Full Version : In 2006, what politician said this and voted "NO" Against Raising the Debt Ceiling?



PaleoMan
04-09-2011, 05:45 PM
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said on March 16, 2006. “Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.”

Any ideas?

GwynnInTheHall
04-09-2011, 05:48 PM
Duh-- Obama-- otherwise you wouldn't be posting this to make your point.

PaleoMan
04-09-2011, 06:10 PM
Duh-- Obama-- otherwise you wouldn't be posting this to make your point.

What happened to that guy? Is that an evil doppelganger that looks and talks like the ex-junior senator from Illinois? And he made another interesting statement that clearly has reached it's political expiration date (see quote below):


The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

I know we all have the attention span of 12 year olds, but it is amazing how such clearly delineated positions can evolve into what can be considered a 180 degree turnaround. If I was a pessimist, I'd say he was just lying and attempting to gain political favor, but then again, what do I know?:

PaleoMan
04-09-2011, 07:00 PM
the white house does crazy things to candidates. You'd think they weren't being completely genuine or had their arms twisted behind the scenes:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F9SOVzMV2bc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

revo
04-10-2011, 01:07 AM
I know we all have the attention span of 12 year olds, but it is amazing how such clearly delineated positions can evolve into what can be considered a 180 degree turnaround. If I was a pessimist, I'd say he was just lying and attempting to gain political favor, but then again, what do I know?:

I'm not sure if you're anti-Obama, anti-Democrat or just anti-presidential campaign rhetoric, but you should check up on Reagan's 1986 strike on Libya and Bush's 1992 strike on Somalia for more on "non-congressional approved" attacks on other countries.

Of course Reagan/Bush didn't claim the same....it was still the Cold War, of course.....so maybe Obama is guilty of being naive. But otherwise, c'mon now....as a moderate Republican (now leaning Democrat after all this conservative Republican nonsense the last few years),after Iraq, this gives me chuckles.

chancellor
04-10-2011, 09:29 AM
While I agree with the point on Reagan and Libya, the one on Bush and Somalia is not correct. Not only were Congressional leaders briefed, but a bi-partisan resolution had been passed (both Kassebaum and Simon were the authors) demanding urgent action on Somalia.

ST's claim here, which is pretty darn valid, is that Obama isn't governing anywhere near where either he campaigned or took positions on as a Senator.

revo
04-10-2011, 11:04 AM
While I agree with the point on Reagan and Libya, the one on Bush and Somalia is not correct. Not only were Congressional leaders briefed, but a bi-partisan resolution had been passed (both Kassebaum and Simon were the authors) demanding urgent action on Somalia.

ST's claim here, which is pretty darn valid, is that Obama isn't governing anywhere near where either he campaigned or took positions on as a Senator.

"In December 1992, President Bush sent U.S. Forces to Somalia without congressional authorization in order to assist the United Nations in preventing a humanitarian disaster there. He did so following an UNSCR that authorized “all necessary means” to establish a secure environment for the delivery of humanitarian aid in Somalia. Relying heavily on the Korea precedent, OLC chief Tim Flanigan concluded that President Bush was “entitled to rely on [the Somalia UNSCR], and on its finding that the situation in Somalia ‘constitutes a threat to international peace and security,’ in making his determination that the interests of the United States justify providing the military assistance that [the UNSCR] calls for.” Attorney General William Barr added in a cover letter that the President could “reasonably and lawfully conclude that it is necessary to use United States military personnel to support the implementation of [the Somalia UNSCR] and other Security Council resolutions concerning Somalia.”
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/03/the-libya-unscr-helps-the-president%E2%80%99s-domestic-constitutional-arguments/


"Presidents have initiated many military conflicts without congressional approval since World War II, including President Clinton's air assault on the Milosevic regime in Serbia in 1999, President Bush's intervention in Somalia in 1992, and President Reagan's own attack on Qaddafi in 1986. The War Powers Act -- passed in reaction to the Vietnam War and mostly ignored by Presidents since then -- requires the president to inform Congress that he is committing U.S. forces abroad within 48 hours and to request approval within 60 days. "
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/dennis-kucinich-calls-says-libya-attack-an-impeachable-offense-for-obama.php

chancellor
04-10-2011, 02:47 PM
"In December 1992, President Bush sent U.S. Forces to Somalia without congressional authorization in order to assist the United Nations in preventing a humanitarian disaster there. He did so following an UNSCR that authorized “all necessary means” to establish a secure environment for the delivery of humanitarian aid in Somalia. Relying heavily on the Korea precedent, OLC chief Tim Flanigan concluded that President Bush was “entitled to rely on [the Somalia UNSCR], and on its finding that the situation in Somalia ‘constitutes a threat to international peace and security,’ in making his determination that the interests of the United States justify providing the military assistance that [the UNSCR] calls for.” Attorney General William Barr added in a cover letter that the President could “reasonably and lawfully conclude that it is necessary to use United States military personnel to support the implementation of [the Somalia UNSCR] and other Security Council resolutions concerning Somalia.”
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/03/the-libya-unscr-helps-the-president%E2%80%99s-domestic-constitutional-arguments/

Yes, the Bush admin crossed the Ts and dotted the Is, but key differences remain between that and the most recent action in Libya - first, Congress had asked the Executive Branch to act urgently (again, see the Kassebaum-Simon joint resolution), and second, Congressional leaders were briefed before the troops went in to Somalia, fulfilling the first requirement of the War Powers Act.

GwynnInTheHall
04-10-2011, 02:53 PM
While I agree with the point on Reagan and Libya, the one on Bush and Somalia is not correct. Not only were Congressional leaders briefed, but a bi-partisan resolution had been passed (both Kassebaum and Simon were the authors) demanding urgent action on Somalia.

ST's claim here, which is pretty darn valid, is that Obama isn't governing anywhere near where either he campaigned or took positions on as a Senator.

Correct, because if he had-- we'd have universal health-care, the tax breaks for the wealthy would be history and DADT would have been gone in the first 3 months. Oh and Gitmo would be closed along with all the other covert prisons holding "Enemies of the state' I elected a socially conscientious, transparent liberal and got the same ol pander to the Right politician.

Sheesh Chane, you should be freaking ecstatic.

chancellor
04-10-2011, 03:54 PM
Correct, because if he had-- we'd have universal health-care, the tax breaks for the wealthy would be history and DADT would have been gone in the first 3 months. Oh and Gitmo would be closed along with all the other covert prisons holding "Enemies of the state' I elected a socially conscientious, transparent liberal and got the same ol pander to the Right politician.

Sheesh Chane, you should be freaking ecstatic.

Hardly. I certainly didn't want another neo-con who has much less spending discipline than his predecessor.