8 ms·

"Barack Obama's NSA". What a disappointment is Rand Paul. How about making this about America instead of an unfair attack on a single president? Standing above

"Barack Obama's NSA". What a disappointment is Rand Paul. How about making this about America instead of an unfair attack on a single president? Standing above partisanship will pay dividends to a political career in the end. This is the sort of crap that tells me never to support Rand Paul. Yes, Obama could do something about the NSA, but so could Congress and so could have Bush. This is everyone's NSA. Flagged for being simple political posturing instead of a legitimate push for change.

rayiner 13y ago
Its a good strategic move. The way to build support against the NSA among Republicans is to associate it with Obama. "This isn't Reagan's NSA but Obama's NSA." It fits into the party's narrative of Obama being dictatorial. It also is a good way to sway his party, which is otherwise trusting of law enforcement. Someone might trust the NSA in the abstract, but an NSA run by someone who wants to round up gun owners and impose Sharia law (or so the narrative goes)? Associating the spying with Obama personally is the perfect way of creating doubt among conservatives that otherwise reflexively trust government when national security is implicated.
- lisper 13y ago
  Unfortunately, it won't last. As soon as we have a Republican in the White House again the narrative will switch again, and the NSA will once again be protecting our security rather than threatening our civil liberties. They did it with health care: Romneycare was good and Obamacare is bad, despite the fact that they are essentially identical policies.
  - Apocryphon 13y ago
    Well, hopefully in that administration the Democrats would be galvanized enough to be the ones leading the charge against Big Surveillance. The very fact that this issue would have to be ping-ponged around between both parties (like so many other issues) shows that we need more political parties in the U.S. to represent different views.
    - lisper 13y ago
      > Well, hopefully in that administration the Democrats would be galvanized enough to be the ones leading the charge against Big Surveillance. Maybe. The dems are not quite as shameless about their hypocrisy as the republicans are. I have a hard time seeing e.g. Diane Feinstein flip-flopping on this even with a republican in the white house. I'd love to be proven wrong about that, but I won't bet my life savings on it.
  - adventured 13y ago
    As it is now, it seems like every left-of-center friend I know comes to one of two conclusions: they don't want to talk about Obama or the NSA, or they say that they trust Obama with these powers (he'd never abuse them etc). The upside to having a Republican in the White House, is that vast majority of liberals will finally stop being hypocrites about 'speaking truth to power' and pretending to care about human rights, and they'll instantly get upset about the NSA story (while claiming of course that it was solely the fault of Republicans all along). The Republican President would act as as lightning rod, the perfect excuse to rediscover their fair-weather beliefs. The liberal wing would then apply pressure to the rest of the party to restrict the spying. There would finally be broad based opposition to the NSA's program from one of the parties. Unfortunately, Hillary is going to win the next election by a wide margin. And absolutely nothing will change; rather, most of the programs will be permanently codified into accepted US Government practices.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      "As it is now, it seems like every left-of-center friend I know comes to one of two conclusions: they don't want to talk about Obama or the NSA, or they say that they trust Obama with these powers (he'd never abuse them etc)." Don't make this a left-right thing. For what it's worth, the people I know most in support happen to be weakly right-of-center and those most opposed are radical leftists but really there are other things dominating (the leftists are nearly tied by some Libertarians). Individuals with fair-weather beliefs are an issue on both sides (and it's somewhat human, unfortunately, which isn't to say desirable). And of course amongst mainstream politicians of both parties, we certainly are seeing a huge amount of fair-weather behavior - with strong supporters of this crap under W. now rallying against it while previously critical Democrats forget what the problem was... To my mind, there's a few strong points worth making here to those rallying around "their guy"... 1) "you might not trust the next guy/gal" (which gets made pretty often), 2) pointing out that a lot of people involved here aren't even NSA agents but contractors with big defense firms, and 3) there's a documented history of abuses (most of which were found because they were self-reported, so there's tremendously more abuse going on we don't see). "The upside to having a Republican in the White House, is that vast majority of liberals will finally stop being hypocrites about 'speaking truth to power' and pretending to care about human rights, and they'll instantly get upset about the NSA story (while claiming of course that it was solely the fault of Republicans all along)." You'll have to explain why it would be different than every other time we've switched parties here. Some of this stuff was talked about under Clinton (e.g. Carnivore, though that was FBI), and some Republicans fretted. Much more was introduced under W. after 9/11, and some Democrats complained. Now Obama has extended it, and Republicans are rediscovering their opposition to this stuff, but they're sure to forget just as quickly if we give them power again. Probably the best chance is to have both houses of congress with an overwhelming majority of the party that does not control the presidency (and it probably doesn't matter much which is which).
- hga 13y ago
  Anyone who doubts the essence of the "round up gun owners" narrative (disarm us, of course) which became an imperative after Sandy Hook, post election, but not Aurora, Colorado, pre-election, hasn't been paying attention. And your point is a very good one: smashing enough trust in the government that a lot of conservatives have, e.g. ones like me who grew up watching The F.B.I. starring Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., is a critical step in fixing things. I'd say it won't take much, based on the one House vote so far, which didn't break along any conventional lines (party, region, etc.)
  - rz2k 13y ago
    For many people, the difference between yet another mass shooting and a mass shooting involving kindergarteners was one with significance.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Would a grown adult with a knife have much more trouble against a room full of kindergarteners?
      - rz2k 13y ago
        Yes
moistgorilla 13y ago
You aren't supposed to flag things because they go against your political agenda. You flag things for breaking the rules of HN. This is interesting news and judging by the number of votes it has it is interesting for most hackers which makes it proper news for this forum. People like you who flag things that go against their own agenda are the reason we can't have discussions about microsoft (these are flagged off the front page all of the time) or anything else the hive mind doesn't find correct. Basically, I am saying you are ruining this website.
- jnbiche 13y ago
  Agreed. You aren't even supposed to downvote submissions because of political disagreement. But flagging? That's ridiculous -- you're potentially wasting moderator time because you disagree with the politics of the submission. Flagging is meant to be used very selectively for spam and other submissions that blatantly flout the site's guidelines. GP, please don't misuse flagging like this again.
  - larrys 13y ago
    Not taking a side on this but if "Flagging is meant to be used very selectively for ..." ...then there should be a pop up when someone goes to flag that says "Note: Are you aware that flagging is meant for .... do you still want to flag??". Many people don't know the "rules?" on HN even if they have been around for some time. For that matter upvotes and downvotes aren't clearly defined. And that whole "in short anything that satisfies ones curiousity" can reach far and wide. And doing the right thing isn't solely a RTFM either. The "FM" is not really something that people familiarize themselves with or keep on top of. (Commenting and reading HN isn't a job obviously.) If certain behavior needs to be enforced (not saying it does or doesn't) then something has to be in place ad hoc to make it more likely to happen.
  - crystaln 13y ago
    This was not for political disagreement. It was because the article as about transparent political showmanship, which IMO does not meet the standards of the site.
- deleted 13y ago
Zigurd 13y ago
Well into a second term, it's the incumbent's everything, isn't it? Are any of the same generals still fighting "Bush's wars?"
- larubbio 13y ago
  So when Obama's term is up and a new president is elected will the problem go away? Labeling it as "Barack Obama's NSA" incorrectly boxes the issue into the typical left/right categories we use in American politics. It will turn off those on the left, and not get the point across to those on the right why this is an issue. Since he used that kind of partisan language in the press release it really makes me question his motivations on this. Is he against it because it is wrong, or because it is an opportunity to ding the president and get his name in the press again.

rayiner 13y ago

Its a good strategic move. The way to build support against the NSA among Republicans is to associate it with Obama. "This isn't Reagan's NSA but Obama's NSA." It fits into the party's narrative of Obama being dictatorial. It also is a good way to sway his party, which is otherwise trusting of law enforcement. Someone might trust the NSA in the abstract, but an NSA run by someone who wants to round up gun owners and impose Sharia law (or so the narrative goes)? Associating the spying with Obama personally is the perfect way of creating doubt among conservatives that otherwise reflexively trust government when national security is implicated.

lisper 13y ago
Unfortunately, it won't last. As soon as we have a Republican in the White House again the narrative will switch again, and the NSA will once again be protecting our security rather than threatening our civil liberties. They did it with health care: Romneycare was good and Obamacare is bad, despite the fact that they are essentially identical policies.
- Apocryphon 13y ago
  Well, hopefully in that administration the Democrats would be galvanized enough to be the ones leading the charge against Big Surveillance. The very fact that this issue would have to be ping-ponged around between both parties (like so many other issues) shows that we need more political parties in the U.S. to represent different views.
  - lisper 13y ago
    > Well, hopefully in that administration the Democrats would be galvanized enough to be the ones leading the charge against Big Surveillance. Maybe. The dems are not quite as shameless about their hypocrisy as the republicans are. I have a hard time seeing e.g. Diane Feinstein flip-flopping on this even with a republican in the white house. I'd love to be proven wrong about that, but I won't bet my life savings on it.
- adventured 13y ago
  As it is now, it seems like every left-of-center friend I know comes to one of two conclusions: they don't want to talk about Obama or the NSA, or they say that they trust Obama with these powers (he'd never abuse them etc). The upside to having a Republican in the White House, is that vast majority of liberals will finally stop being hypocrites about 'speaking truth to power' and pretending to care about human rights, and they'll instantly get upset about the NSA story (while claiming of course that it was solely the fault of Republicans all along). The Republican President would act as as lightning rod, the perfect excuse to rediscover their fair-weather beliefs. The liberal wing would then apply pressure to the rest of the party to restrict the spying. There would finally be broad based opposition to the NSA's program from one of the parties. Unfortunately, Hillary is going to win the next election by a wide margin. And absolutely nothing will change; rather, most of the programs will be permanently codified into accepted US Government practices.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "As it is now, it seems like every left-of-center friend I know comes to one of two conclusions: they don't want to talk about Obama or the NSA, or they say that they trust Obama with these powers (he'd never abuse them etc)." Don't make this a left-right thing. For what it's worth, the people I know most in support happen to be weakly right-of-center and those most opposed are radical leftists but really there are other things dominating (the leftists are nearly tied by some Libertarians). Individuals with fair-weather beliefs are an issue on both sides (and it's somewhat human, unfortunately, which isn't to say desirable). And of course amongst mainstream politicians of both parties, we certainly are seeing a huge amount of fair-weather behavior - with strong supporters of this crap under W. now rallying against it while previously critical Democrats forget what the problem was... To my mind, there's a few strong points worth making here to those rallying around "their guy"... 1) "you might not trust the next guy/gal" (which gets made pretty often), 2) pointing out that a lot of people involved here aren't even NSA agents but contractors with big defense firms, and 3) there's a documented history of abuses (most of which were found because they were self-reported, so there's tremendously more abuse going on we don't see). "The upside to having a Republican in the White House, is that vast majority of liberals will finally stop being hypocrites about 'speaking truth to power' and pretending to care about human rights, and they'll instantly get upset about the NSA story (while claiming of course that it was solely the fault of Republicans all along)." You'll have to explain why it would be different than every other time we've switched parties here. Some of this stuff was talked about under Clinton (e.g. Carnivore, though that was FBI), and some Republicans fretted. Much more was introduced under W. after 9/11, and some Democrats complained. Now Obama has extended it, and Republicans are rediscovering their opposition to this stuff, but they're sure to forget just as quickly if we give them power again. Probably the best chance is to have both houses of congress with an overwhelming majority of the party that does not control the presidency (and it probably doesn't matter much which is which).
hga 13y ago
Anyone who doubts the essence of the "round up gun owners" narrative (disarm us, of course) which became an imperative after Sandy Hook, post election, but not Aurora, Colorado, pre-election, hasn't been paying attention. And your point is a very good one: smashing enough trust in the government that a lot of conservatives have, e.g. ones like me who grew up watching The F.B.I. starring Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., is a critical step in fixing things. I'd say it won't take much, based on the one House vote so far, which didn't break along any conventional lines (party, region, etc.)
- rz2k 13y ago
  For many people, the difference between yet another mass shooting and a mass shooting involving kindergarteners was one with significance.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Would a grown adult with a knife have much more trouble against a room full of kindergarteners?
    - rz2k 13y ago
      Yes

moistgorilla 13y ago

You aren't supposed to flag things because they go against your political agenda. You flag things for breaking the rules of HN. This is interesting news and judging by the number of votes it has it is interesting for most hackers which makes it proper news for this forum. People like you who flag things that go against their own agenda are the reason we can't have discussions about microsoft (these are flagged off the front page all of the time) or anything else the hive mind doesn't find correct. Basically, I am saying you are ruining this website.

jnbiche 13y ago
Agreed. You aren't even supposed to downvote submissions because of political disagreement. But flagging? That's ridiculous -- you're potentially wasting moderator time because you disagree with the politics of the submission. Flagging is meant to be used very selectively for spam and other submissions that blatantly flout the site's guidelines. GP, please don't misuse flagging like this again.
- larrys 13y ago
  Not taking a side on this but if "Flagging is meant to be used very selectively for ..." ...then there should be a pop up when someone goes to flag that says "Note: Are you aware that flagging is meant for .... do you still want to flag??". Many people don't know the "rules?" on HN even if they have been around for some time. For that matter upvotes and downvotes aren't clearly defined. And that whole "in short anything that satisfies ones curiousity" can reach far and wide. And doing the right thing isn't solely a RTFM either. The "FM" is not really something that people familiarize themselves with or keep on top of. (Commenting and reading HN isn't a job obviously.) If certain behavior needs to be enforced (not saying it does or doesn't) then something has to be in place ad hoc to make it more likely to happen.
- crystaln 13y ago
  This was not for political disagreement. It was because the article as about transparent political showmanship, which IMO does not meet the standards of the site.
deleted 13y ago

Zigurd 13y ago

Well into a second term, it's the incumbent's everything, isn't it? Are any of the same generals still fighting "Bush's wars?"

larubbio 13y ago
So when Obama's term is up and a new president is elected will the problem go away? Labeling it as "Barack Obama's NSA" incorrectly boxes the issue into the typical left/right categories we use in American politics. It will turn off those on the left, and not get the point across to those on the right why this is an issue. Since he used that kind of partisan language in the press release it really makes me question his motivations on this. Is he against it because it is wrong, or because it is an opportunity to ding the president and get his name in the press again.