Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (551344)	2/21/2010 2:09:30 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574373

MCCONNELL DEFINES 'ARROGANCE'.... Legislative analysis just doesn't get any more superficial than this. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said today that Democrats have been "arrogant" in their push to pass healthcare legislation. "I think they're having hard time getting the message here. The American people do not want this bill to pass and it strikes me as rather arrogant to say, 'Well, we're going to give it to you anyway," McConnell said on Fox News Sunday. In terms of public attitudes, the country approves of the reform proposal quite a bit more when Americans actually learn what's in the plan, and get beyond the nonsense spread by people like McConnell. But McConnell's notion that polls should dictate policy outcomes is just odd. Indeed, it's not even helpful to the Republican leader's own cause. The conservative Kentucky senator may not realize this, but public opinion generally runs counter to Republicans on most areas of public policy. Republicans don't care -- they have their agenda and they're sticking to it -- and aren't about to let surveys dictate legislative outcomes. Is it "arrogant" for GOP lawmakers to take positions that run counter to public attitudes? Americans didn't want to see escalation in Iraq in 2007 and Republicans said, "Well, we're going to give it to you anyway." Americans didn't want to see federal lawmakers intervene in the Terri Schiavo case in 2005 or spend time working on an anti-gay constitutional amendment in 2006, but Republicans said, "Well, we're going to give it to you anyway." Americans weren't especially fond of the bank bailout in 2008, but that didn't stop Mitch McConnell from voting for it, effectively telling Americans, "Well, we're going to give it to you anyway." The inverse is true, too. Americans support reforming the way Wall Street does business, passing a climate bill, and ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." In each instance, McConnell, apparently feeling "arrogant," has decided to tell the country, "Well, we're not going to give it to you anyway." Even someone of McConnell's limited skills should be able to understand this -- Democrats were elected to tackle health care reform. So, they're trying to do that. This isn't "arrogant"; it's policymakers following through on their promises to the electorate.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (551344)	2/21/2010 2:13:26 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574373

PETRAEUS NOT READING FROM GOP SCRIPT.... Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, hasn't exactly been helpful to the far-right cause of late. As conservative Republicans have pushed for keeping Gitmo open, torturing terrorist suspects, and ending civilian trials for accused terrorists, the four-star general has voiced his agreement with President Obama's position on all of these issues. On "Meet the Press" this morning, Petraeus continued to reject the positions of the Republican Party's dominant Cheney-wing, distancing himself from, among other things, torture. "I have always been on the record, in fact, since 2003, with the concept of living our values. And I think that whenever we've perhaps taken expedient measures, they've turned around and bitten us in the backside. We decided early on, in the 101st airborne division, we just said, we decided to obey the Geneva Conventions... "In the cases where that is not true [where torture takes place or international human rights groups aren't granted access to detention sites] we end up paying a price for it, ultimately," he added. "Abu Ghraib and other situations like that are non biodegradable. They don't go away. The enemy continues to beat you with them like a stick.... Beyond that, frankly, we have found that the use of interrogation methods in the army field manual that was given the force of law by Congress, that that works." Petraeus wasn't done there. In another contrast with former Vice President Cheney -- as well as the vast majority of congressional Republicans -- he reiterated his support for closing Gitmo, albeit without a date-specific time frame. None of this is new. Petraeus, like Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, has been on the same page as the Commander in Chief for over a year now. (Petraeus hedged on DADT repeal, saying he'd share his personal opinions with Congress.) But it is a reminder that the right-wing GOP stands at odds with the American military establishment -- including arguably the decorated general they claim to revere -- on the key national security issues of the day. It prompted Spencer Ackerman to ask Liz Cheney a question in an open letter. After noting that Petraeus positioned himself far from the positions she holds dear, Spencer wrote: But hey. You're a former deputy assistant secretary of state! You obviously know better than the man who implemented the surge in Iraq. Why don't you enlighten Gen. Petraeus about all the glories of torture? And since you consider "enhanced interrogation" so necessary to secure the country, perhaps there's a full-page ad you'll take out in a major newspaper?