If this President does it, then it is right.

[Political Heretic]

I was thinking recently about the Frost/Nixon tapes and that line from Nixon, "If the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."

And then I was reading DU this morning, and thinking about my discouragement with many of the policies and decisions coming from the administration. Not all, but more than I anticipated, despite having already understood that Obama was a moderate-centrist and would not move as dramatically on many issues as I believe we need our leaders to move.

One of the things that has been so fascinating to watch at DU - and I've watched DU for years and years and years before getting involved posting - is how general policy consensus has shifted now that a Democrat is in power. It's not the ideals or policy positions that stay fixed, it seems. The opinions and viewpoints that were the vociferous hallmark of DU during the Bush administration have seemed to largely flip now that a Democrat is President. Or of not "flipped," than at least they seem malleable and relative to whatever the President is doing at any given time.

Which leads me to this question: Do you agree that if this President does it, then it is automatically right?

[babylonsister]

1. As a big fan, absolutely not. nt

[NightWatcher]

2. too bad there's no one around to prosecute it unless the Prez gets a BJ

torture, fine
illegal entry into a war, fine
BJ, well now we're going to investigate

[Vickers]

3. Has anyone on DU actually SAID that?

:shrug:

[Political Heretic]

8. I hope not. Although, these statements have been made:

"I trust Obama completely."

When one very troubling news report about administration policy was posted recently, one person I read posted that he was "confused" because the news sounded so bad, but concluded that "Obama must know what he's doing."

[Vickers]

14. Yeah, I've seen comments in a similar vein, but I think those are more

votes of optimism or confidence, and not some after-the-fact absolution of something stupid or illegal Obama's done (or might do).

[Political Heretic]

20. That's fair.

That's possible, even likely in many cases.

[Fading Captain]

4. Being on DU reminds me that political support can be like sports fandom

Fans complain when the call goes against them.
But the exact same call against the other team is legit.

It's not true of everyone. But it's certainly apparent to anyone with a hint of objectivity.

[liberal N proud]

5. After 8 years of criminals getting away with murder living in the White House

We are better than that and while supporting the President we elected, we do not blindly agree with everything his administration does and we do not automatically deem it legal.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Wouoold you not be better off speaking in terms of "I" instead of "WE"?

When you make broad brush statements, it is probably best to stick to "I" statements.

[liberal N proud]

28. We as a country and more specifically Democrats are better than

to blindly follow our elected officials just simply because we voted for them.

I was thinking in the sense that Democrats are above the Republicans on that and because we are the republicans can win elections.

If Democrats followed their candidates like the republicans do, the republicans would never win elections without stealing them. That is just my opinion though.

[Turbineguy]

6. I think we need

more referendums. There are not enough uninformed people to decide how things should be run under our current system of elected representatives.

[tridim]

7. Of course not, but I'm still going to give him the benefit of the doubt.. nt

[Political Heretic]

9. What does that mean in practice - giving him "the benefit of the doubt"

What would that mean exactly?

[tridim]

11. Realizing that politics isn't a zero sum game

and that there are powerful forces working against him. The president is not a dictator.

And especially that solutions to complex problems can't be achieved in a few months by one man.

[Political Heretic]

13. That wasn't really an answer to what that would look like in practice.

(edit to fix incoherent subject line - I am currently extremely sleep deprived)

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Solutions certainly take time. Sometimes lots of time. years. More. But direction is established ...

.... early on.

It is my observation that NO ONE is expecting everything fixed ina day or a quarter year and that argument is a strawman.

People, it appears to me, are far more concerned about the DIRECTION .... the course on which our nation seems to be headed.

[Political Heretic]

16. Right. I wrote this over and over for about two weeks: It's not the speed, its the direction.

But it never seemed to connect with the people who keep saying "its only been x days, and he can do it all at once," etc.

[tridim]

24. But lots of people also assume that the lack of speed equals lack of direction.

Or worse, that the lack of speed equals BUSH.

That is some fucked up logic IMO.

[Occam Bandage]

26. This would be more believable if the justifications for claims of incorrect direction

were not usually "X bill does not go nearly far enough," or "Obama has made no movement whatsoever on X." Both are claims of speed and not direction.

[Occam Bandage]

25. It means having a higher standard of evidence.

It is not a matter of absolving Obama of crimes, but rather of believing that the Obama administration is a more trustworthy source than anonymous reports on blogs when one is attempting to determine whether Obama has committed crimes. Saying you trust Obama, that you are sure Obama knows what he is doing, or that you are giving Obama the benefit of the doubt is not saying that Obama may commit all the crimes he like because of who he is. It is saying that you do not believe Obama is committing crimes, and that until you are proven wrong by incontrovertible evidence, you will assume that reports to the contrary are either fraudulent, overhyped, or spun beyond recognition (as many "troubling" stories indeed have been proven).

In practice, it means having a higher threshold for innuendo and accusation before you begin to think there is some legitimate factual basis for this particular churning of the rumor mill. That is absolutely not the same as saying that if Obama is demonstrably guilty of a crime, then that doesn't matter because he's President.

[Political Heretic]

29. That makes sense. I agree about verification of innuendo.

There have been times where someone has posted something that seemed to look bad for the administration where my initial response is skepticism. Let me further add that I wasn't intending to insinuate that Obama is guilty of crimes. I do realize that someone could infer that because of the Frost/Nixon reference. I was sleep deprived when I made this post. I thought that my further explanation would make it clear what I was talking about. I just thought that phrase I was using sounded a lot similar to the Frost/Nixon phrase.

What I was thinking is whether or not more people at DU feel that the president is right by default of being a democratic president rather than feeling that the president is right on a decision only after evaluating the merits of the decision or policy itself.

From my perspective, there are several areas where policy has been clearly established, and its not required to turn to "questionable" sources for information - you can simply evaluate the policy.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Your fundamental premise is accurate, in my view. Your poll, however, is too black and white.

There is a vast middle ground. And that's where many people place themselves.

I agree with you ...... I'll use torture as an example. When we KNEW that the bushies were doing, a few years ago, we were outraged. And rightly so. I dare so NOT ONE PERSON on DU favored it.

When there was hope that Conyers was going to get into it, we cheered. He truned out to be as effective as a fart in a windstorm, but we all sure wanted it.

Now, it seems many are perfectly okay with looking forward and not back.

What changed ......... ?






We all know what changed.

But your poll asks about a somewhat different angle on it. NOBODY agrees with Nixon's (and bush's) view on this.

Except they do.

But they won't say it with that framing.

[Political Heretic]

19. Well said.

Though, to some degree my poll was framed the way it was to kind of put the reality into a bit of stark contrast...

[patrice]

17. I love this man, but, No! At some point he must recognize that he could just be a one-termer. nt

[stray cat]

18. If DU disagrees with it then it is wrong

:sarcasm:

[patrice]

22. ? I think, for most people here, though they have drawn Personal lines, they know things in general

are in Process.

It's more of a moving battle.

[MADem]

21. I didn't start out on TEAM OBAMA. He wasn't my first choice.

That said, I understand that CONGRESS, not the President, makes law, so if the laws don't change in the blink of an eye, it's not on Obama--it's on the legislature. It's only on Obama if he actively lobbies to stop lawmaking in its tracks, or vetoes a bill. That's just the truth.

I also understand that the President can cheerlead for particular issues, but at the same time he has to President of all the people. Pushing too hard, too soon, can alienate people that you may need for other issues. Bush didn't get this--he was too unilateral, too impulsive, too imperial, and that's why he's so disliked nowadays.

I also understand that Obama takes and makes decisions from a standpoint of "law." He can be pretty dispassionate. That doesn't appeal to those who take an emotional view of life. I do, for example, agree with his attitude that someone who got written and detailed advice from the top law enforcement officer in the US (the Attorney General), and who followed that advice to the letter, shouldn't be blamed for not second-guessing the top law enforcement officer in the US, even if they put their own morality on hold to do it. I also agree with his attitude that we should not be a torturing nation.

I don't think the President is above the law. At all. He's a citizen, like we all are. He has greater access to the machinery of government that can change law, and, like Bush did (too much), he can, if he wants, play the "signing statement" game--but eventually those chickens will come home to roost.

A LOT of people here view politics as a "team sport." Some really don't get that the President doesn't have King-like powers. There's no talking to some of those folks.

I'll give Obama plenty of time, still. I think he's on a reasonable trajectory, it's certainly a whole heap better than BushCo. I at least feel like I can breathe now.

[Occam Bandage]

23. Of course not.

It also doesn't mean it's automatically wrong. Neither your statement or mine are related to any conversations anyone actually has on DU.

[nevergiveup]

27. As one of his most loyal supporters

I say "absolutely not". From the get-go Obama has said he will make mistakes and he expects us to correct him and apply pressure when needed. I don't recall ever reading a post here where someone suggested this but suspect there are a select few blind loyalists who believe this.

[bigwillq]

30. No (nt)