"So… why did Barack Obama remind us that we've actually had some darn good wins over the last two cycles? – Rhetorical question: he did it because he’s not actually all that good at either governing or political street brawling."
Unfortunately, this statement only made me sympathize with the democrats because of their handicap in both the house and senate. Republicans have the majority in the House, while the Democrats have majority in the Senate. But based on arcane filibuster rules, the Republicans have control over the Senate too! I wouldn't fully blame Obama for being bad at governing but I would blame the fact that he was never given a true chance. Of course he did not do well in elaborating the drone subject but that does not necessarily make him a bad President.
With all pathos aside, the filibuster became an eye opener to us, the citizens, on the vagueness of the drone subject. There needs to be some way to regulate the use of the drones through procedural safeguards. Even with this in mind Moe Lane went on to say:
“Last night was a win that visibly invigorated right wing online activists all over the country. It was satisfying. I kept reading people going on about how nice it was to see their efforts have an effect on the debate – and, yes, it did.”
Although this statement might seem all but credible, I would like a little more elaboration with facts on the subject. What were the effects on the debate? Where's the evidence? John Brennan was still nominated as CIA Director and no laws were passed to regulate the safety of the US citizen against the drone attack. The subject seemed to be shoved back under the rug. All the debate clarified was the fact that the President had no rights to control the drone. So did the conservatives really win yet? Can this still be truly called an effect?
Then again, who cares about all this! The U.S. is going down on March 11th anyways...or so they say.
No comments:
Post a Comment