Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Obama Fails to Fill Civil Liberties Board

Heh.

When President Bush two years ago failed to name members to a federal board to monitor the protection of civil liberties, Democrats and activist groups were duly outraged, seeing it as one more example of his administration’s indifference to the subject.

But more than a year into a new presidency, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board—created by Congress in 2007—remains as much a cipher under Barack Obama as it was under George W. Bush. The White House has yet to nominate a single person to sit on the five-person board. It has no members, no staff, and no office.

(8) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1221 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

  1. Question.

    It has no office, staff, etc.

    How many millions of dollars is its budget?
    How much has been spent, Why? and by whom?

    After all many millions of stimulus money has been sent to non-existent congressional districts. And where did that money actually end up?

    I am sure that nobody really cares enough to track it down!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 1231 hrs


  2. He extended the Patriot act, so clearly he doesn’t want a board giving him bad publicity on his own hypocritical actions with regards to civil liberties.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 1514 hrs


  3. What does it say about us that even a fact that the last two presidents have in common gets easily queued up as a topic for partisan bickering?

    Topic: Snowballs are fun to throw… fight over that!
    Topic: Sunshine on your face in Wisconsin in March feels good.

    Posted by Mike on March 03, 2010 at 1519 hrs


  4. Mike, I hope you are intentionally missing the point. Can you cite one Dem ripping “The One” like they did GWB? Didn’t think so. Can you say “hypocrites?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 1746 hrs


  5. Tom & Mike,

    Let’s look at it this way, both parties are happy that he has failed to fill these seats, but the activists and those who voted for “The One” are starting to realize they didn’t really know anything about him other than that he was NOT GWB and that he stood for “hope and change”.  How is that working for them now? And is it really a good idea to vote for someone just because of who they are NOT?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 1818 hrs


  6. “Is it really a good idea to vote for someone just because of who they are NOT?”

    Is this a trick question?  I mean seriously, 99% of the posters on this board will do the same in 2012 for virtually the same reason, no?

    The sad reality is that your question is actually true, but expands well beyond the U.S. electorate; President Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize for precisely that very reason.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 0830 hrs


  7. laker,

    I would hope that very few voters in general would vote for someone because fo who they aren’t. I would expect, that those of us who are regular, thoughtful contributors here at B&S cast our votes based on who the persoin is and what they bring to the table.

    I have said it before and will say it again, using your vote as a ‘No’ vote for one (or more) candidate(s) gets you Jesse Ventura as governor.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1537 hrs


  8. lol Laker. You bring up their vote for George Bush and most of these people claim they never heard of the guy.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 2125 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.