4 ms·
The only plausible outcome for this election would be if Obama won, and he decided in his second term -- with nothing to lose, politically -- that he would repe
by jonnathanson 14y ago
The only plausible outcome for this election would be if Obama won, and he decided in his second term -- with nothing to lose, politically -- that he would repeal the PATRIOT act. (Not because Obama is any better on this issue than Romney, but because by nature, a second-term president has less to fear in making politically risky calls).
I would call this scenario highly unlikely, if only because he'd face strong pressure from his party not to repeal it, jeopardizing everyone else's political futures in doing so.
This is one of those obnoxious political footballs that is entrenched precisely because everyone's too chickenshit to do anything about it. Republicans won't do it, because they have a rah-rah jingoistic voting base to appeal to. Democrats won't do it, because they don't want to look "soft on terrorism." And nobody wants to be the guy who repeals it right before another attack happens. So both parties are strongly disincentivized to repeal it.
In the long run, I think we'd need a grassroots movement to pressure politicians to make it a core issue.
- rhizome 14y agoIt's equally plausible that with nothing to lose he would make PATRIOT worse.
- freehunter 14y agoThat's assuming he's actively malicious. Given his record, I would doubt that (note, not malicious does not equal the opposite of malicious). It is certainly a possibility, but I wouldn't say it's an equal possibility. In all likelihood, the chances we're discussing here on both sides are far less than one.
- rhizome 14y agoHis intent barely matters. If it gets worse, it is worse.
- pessimizer 14y ago>That's assuming he's actively malicious. No, it's not. It's not assuming that he is against the PATRIOT Act. I've seen no reason to believe that he is, other than the projections of his constituency. President Obama has advanced and legalized most of the encroachments on civil liberties from the Bush years, and in no way that I am aware of has he made any argument to curtail them since he was Candidate Obama. Assigning malice to that is assuming that he believes that the PATRIOT Act is a bad thing, and that supporting it would be knowingly perpetuating a bad thing. In other words, assuming that he secretly thinks of PATRIOT as you think of PATRIOT.
- zecho 14y agoObama never claimed to be against the PATRIOT Act. He claimed he would work to reform it. However, Presidents don't write legislation and reform has never made it into any bills reauthorizing the Act. That said, the president has directed the Justice Department to enact certain oversight above and beyond what is required by law. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/179/revise-the-patriot-act-to-increase-oversight-on-go/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/pr...
- ataggart 14y ago"Reform" is one of those lovely words that means precisely whatever the audience thinks it ought to mean.
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y agoIt happens the same with "change" and many others.
- aqme28 14y agoIt's not about malicious or benevolent. Obama has actively reduced civil liberties in this country and abroad. I fully expect Obama to reduce civil liberties even further in his second term (sources: Obama's stance on the NDAA, warrantless wiretapping, extrajudicial assassination, Omar Khadr, prosecutions of whistleblowers, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project)