Barack Obama

Obama Acts Like Bush, Liberals Suffer "Cognitive Dissonance"


Writing in Sunday's New York Times, Peter Baker reports on the fallout among American liberals after the news broke last week about the Obama administration's secret memo justifying the use of drones to kill American citizens. Baker writes:

Conservatives complained that if Mr. Bush had done what Mr. Obama has done, he would have been eviscerated by liberals and the news media. But perhaps more than ever before in Mr. Obama's tenure, liberals voiced sustained grievance over the president's choices.

"That memo coming out, I think, was a wake-up call," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union. "These last few days, it was like being back in the Bush days."

"It's causing a lot of cognitive dissonance for a lot of people," he added. "It's not the President Obama they thought they knew."

Isn't it a little late for a wake-up call? Obama has already waged a war in Libya without congressional approval, which is a pretty good signal that he takes an expansive view of executive power. And then there's the fact that Obama rammed several very high-profile government appointments past the U.S. Senate by invoking his recess appointment power when the Senate was not actually in recess—an executive power play that Bush never attempted. But I suppose it's better late than never when it comes to criticizing presidential overreach.

Unfortunately, as Baker also notes, some of the president's supporters remain immune to the cognitive dissonance even now, as evidenced by this extraordinary statement from former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who has been rumored to be on Obama's list of possible Supreme Court nominees:

For four years, Mr. Obama has benefited at least in part from the reluctance of Mr. Bush's most virulent critics to criticize a Democratic president. Some liberals acknowledged in recent days that they were willing to accept policies they once would have deplored as long as they were in Mr. Obama's hands, not Mr. Bush's.

"We trust the president," former Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan said on Current TV. "And if this was Bush, I think that we would all be more up in arms because we wouldn't trust that he would strike in a very targeted way and try to minimize damage rather than contain collateral damage."


NEXT: White House, Obama Campaign Apparatus Pushing State of the Union

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Suffer cognitive dissonance? They’re enjoying every minute of it

    1. There’s no cognitive dissonance. That would imply they had a genuine problem with the Bush Administration’s militaristic policies, which isn’t the case. The only thing that matters is free shit! and racist!. That’s the sum total concern of the American electorate.

      1. Gotta agree. If you go check out photos from all those anti-war demonstrations during the Bush years, you won’t find any placards or signs against war itself, only against Bush, Israel, and Big Oil. Seriously, go check.

        Progressives and liberals don’t have a problem with the military, so long as there are progressives and liberals in charge of it. They don’t have a problem with war, so long as progressives and liberals are waging it.

        1. I don’t know. I went to alot of those anti-Iraq War protests and most of the signs were definitely anti-war (although there were a few anti-free trade signs, which is highly ironic as we’ve never gone to war with a country we had a FTA with.)

          When Libya happened, the Dallas Peace Center, which organized the Iraq protests here, had one protest on the docket: supporting teacher’s unions against state pay cuts. I wrote a scathing letter criticizing their hypocrisy and never heard back from them, of course.

          1. Anti-war liberals are hypocrites until America stops perpetuating violence of any kind for any reason under Democratic presidents. Check.

            Couldn’t possibly be the case that Iraq was a uniquely horrifying deployment of blatantly wrongheaded military policy justified on outright lies, and that Libya does not compare to it in any meaningful way.

            And after all, it’s better to piss on people from the peanut gallery than to stand up for something inconstantly.

            1. And after all, it’s better to piss on people from the peanut gallery than to stand up for something inconstantly.

              In other words: “I’m desperately trying to make shit up to explain why liberals’ only being anti-war when their guy is not in the White House is better than libertarians’ being consistently anti-war.”

            2. Purportedly anti-war liberals absolutely are hypocrites until they stop endorsing via silence or vocal support the perpetual of military violence and imperialism by Democratic presidents who blatantly disregard the Constitution. Tu quoque doesn’t even matter in this case.

              I respect Kucinich and Nader, principled Leftists who agree with me that Obama’s failure to gain congressional approval for our involvement in the Libyan Civil War is a clearly impeachable offense. I also believe Bush should have stepped aside following the revelation of intelligence failures in Iraq and committed many borderline-impeachable offenses, including waterboarding, wiretapping and rendition. Obama has continued many of these borderline impeachable offenses, ramping up usage of the Patriot Act, jailing whistleblowers and maintaining Guantanamo and rendition practices.

              The irrefutable proof that you’re a hypocrite who accomodates mass murderers must hurt because you waste all your time failing to convince us that we supposedly are inconsistent and hypocritical.

            3. “Couldn’t possibly be the case that Iraq was a uniquely horrifying deployment of blatantly wrongheaded military policy justified on outright lies, and that Libya does not compare to it in any meaningful way.”

              The point is that the initial anti-Iraq war protests weren’t really anti-Iraq war, they were simply generic anti-right protests.

              Your arguments premise is wrong.

            4. You are one extra special brand of cocksucker.

              The only reason you think Libya doesn’t compare in any meaningful way is because your guy is in office.

              You come in here doing mental contortions worthy of friggin Cirque du Soleil and pretend that GWB is unique in history?? Please. You have no problem with killing as long as your guy is doing it.

              1. How many American soldiers did Obama get killed in Libya?

                One meaningful point of comparison. There are others. Claiming it’s equivalent to Iraq is a brazenly lame way of trying to absolve George W. Bush, not stand on principle.

                1. Keep convincing yourself that anyone here is absolving GWB of anything. It isn’t about the body count. If you recall the congress also authorized that adventure. Your freakin’ god-man didn’t seek congressional approval of whatever that was in Libya. It is called a principle. You may have been acquainted with them at one point. But now you are too busy worshipping/apologizing for the president you helped elect. You were lied to. But you won’t quit apologizing. You are actually reinforcing the point being made, without any sense of irony.

  2. Granholm pretty much sums it up: it’s okay when we do it, not okay when they do it.

    1. TEAM BLUE!

      No, TEAM RED!

      No, TEAM BLUE!!!!!

  3. …former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who has been rumored to be on Obama’s list of possible Supreme Court nominees

    I can hardly wait for the “it’s OK when we do it – fuck you, that’s why” ruling from the SC in 2014.

    1. In her opinion Judge Granholt writes “Constitution schnonstitution since a democrat did it I will allow it, if a republican does it I will disallow it”.

      1. She’ll point to the new professionalism among Dems.

        1. “new professionalism”

          Well, whoring for a job does make her a “professional”.

      2. and at least as bad as that media, at least the NYT, swallowed her answer as an acceptable one.

    2. Seriously? Zero judicial experience, and she’s on the short list?

      1. The short bus has replaced the short list.

    3. If Team RED had any sense whatsoever, they would bring this up and talk about nothing but this were she to be nominated for appointment to the Nazgul.

      “So you’re an admitted TEAM hack who will gladly alter your moral compass based solely on who made the decision, focusing not at all on the decision made. How the fuck should that instill any confidence in any of us that you would be a fair justice if appointed to the court, you partisan ass bitch?

  4. Guantanamo Bay: Still Open, Despite Promises
    …At the end of that year, in December, with Guantanamo still open and running, Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. He said in his acceptance speech: “I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength.” ..

    1. Office Working to Close Guant?namo Is Shuttered
      The State Department on Monday reassigned Daniel Fried, the special envoy for closing the prison at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba, and will not replace him, according to an internal personnel announcement. Mr. Fried’s office is being closed, and his former responsibilities will be “assumed” by the office of the department’s legal adviser, the notice said.

      The announcement that no senior official in President Obama’s second term will succeed Mr. Fried in working primarily on diplomatic issues pertaining to repatriating or resettling detainees appeared to signal that the administration does not currently see the closing of the prison as a realistic priority, despite repeated statements that it still intends to do so. …

      1. Both aisles of Congress blocked the closure of Gitmo.

        1. Wall Street Is Still Giving to President
          President Barack Obama called Wall Street executives “fat cats,” criticized their bonuses and tried to raise their taxes. The financial-services industry, in turn, has directed a stream of complaints toward the administration, fueling perceptions of a rift between the president and a key 2008 donor group.

          But, defying expectations, the securities and investment industry has remained an important part of the Obama fundraising effort. Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee raised more than $14 million from the securities and investment industry through the end of April, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics….

        2. But only one side wet their pants during the previous admin and claimed they were going to close Gitmo. NO ONE here is defending Republicans on this. Just pointing out the sustained hypocrisy of those who cheer for the Dems. Does this make you uncomfortable? Hmm…

          1. LPW,

            Stalin doesn’t know about the camps. They lie to him about it.

        3. It’s easy in concept to say it should be closed and harder in reality to say that terrorists would be placed in state prisons near your community or released back into the wild. That said, I’m all for real terrorists learning what hell is like in America’s prison showers.

          1. And we know all of the dangerous terrorists in Gitmo are dangerous terrorists because why else would they be in Gitmo? Since we have proven logically that they are dangerous terrorists, things like trials and evidence and due process really don’t matter.

            1. Actually Bush tried that argument, one of his stupider plans.

              Which is why we got the Hamdi V Rumsfeld SCOTUS ruling of 2004 stating the President could NOT unilaterally hold a US citizen who was captured fighting against US troops in Afghanistan without at a minimum a military-style tribunal… which led to Combatant Status Review Tribunals for all Gitmo detainees.

              Silly Bush, he could have just let Hamdi go in Afghanistan, waited for him to get home, then dropped a bomb on the building killing everyone inside.

              By Obama’s memo THAT would have been ok as a unilateral decision… but detaining him was not.

              Does that make sense to anyone? Detaining someone by unilateral power without evidence is bad, assassinating them unilaterally without oversight or evidence is ok?

              When did we decide detaining someone was more horrible than blowing up them and their entire family?

        4. Just like both aisles okayed Obamacare.

          He didn’t need Team RED to close it. He could have done it without a single one of their votes. He chose not to.

          Shut the fuck up.

          1. HAHAHAHA wow that’s some funny stuff there. How many RED votes did Obamacare get?

            Senate vote, No Republican votes for, one abstaining. All Democrats for, with both Independents.

            House vote, No Republican votes for, 34 Democrats against, the remaining Democrats for, barely mustering a majority.

            So if we want to play “both aisles” then “both aisles” OPPOSED Obamacare… only Democrats voted for it.

            Obama DID pass Obamacare without a single RED vote on the bill itself… and he had to BUY votes in the Senate to get past CLOTURE for the real vote; and even Ben Nelson wouldn’t vote for it after he got the Cornhusker Kickback BRIBE for his vote.

            Sorry, we don’t have the 1984 memory hole for you to pitch down facts you don’t like, when you want to write new ones… perhaps that’ll be in Obama’s new budget.

      2. Obama’s non-closing of GITMO, kind NYT headlines, and US government irony
        …The New York Times’ Charlie Savage reported yesterday that the State Department “reassigned Daniel Fried, the special envoy for closing the prison at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba, and will not replace him”. That move obviously confirms what has long been assumed: that the camp will remain open indefinitely and Obama’s flamboyant first-day-in-office vow will go unfulfilled. Dozens of the current camp detainees have long been cleared by Pentagon reviews for release – including Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a 36-year-old Yemeni who died at the camp in September after almost 11 years in a cage despite never having been charged with a crime. Like so many of his fellow detainees, his efforts to secure his release were vigorously (and successfully) thwarted by the Obama administration….

    2. You know that “standard” is a synonym for “flag”. I suppose that by “standard bearer”, Obama was using the word “standard” in that sense.

      The US flag indeed makes the US different from those whom it decides to fight. And it’s no surprise that people who weirdly recite prayers to the Flag at school and before sports events would regard it as a source of strength.

  5. Thanks, former-Governor Granholm, for showing the rest of the country the level of intellect that “led” Michigan [right into the shitter] for 8 years.

    What a dumb bitch.

    Thanks again for voting her into to two terms, UAW and other unions! Fuck you very much!

    1. “And in five years, you’re gonna be blown away”

      1. -1 decade

    2. She is not fondly remembered here in Michigan. Even by a large portion of people who voted for her.

  6. And if this was Bush, I think that we would all be more up in arms because we wouldn’t trust that he would strike in a very targeted way and try to minimize damage rather than contain collateral damage.”

    Look, we recognize that it would be inappropriate for Barack Obama to be President for life, but surely we can have him hand pick every successive President, right?

    1. It worked for the PRI in Mexico, didn’t it?

  7. How can people who don’t have a brain have cognitive anything?

  8. “We trust the president,” former Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan said on Current TV.

    Al Jazeera still hasn’t gotten rid of Current TV?

    1. in many ways, Current pretty much IS al-jazeera. Neither is friendly to individual liberty or economic freedom.

      1. You don’t watch AJ, do you?

  9. I wonder who invented the modern Unitary Executive? Why it was Dickless Cheney, of course. When torture was became “interrogation” and later the 4th Amendment was brazenly ignored to tap into American phone conversations then followed by political hit jobs on CIA operatives of the other party it sent a message that the Constitution did not apply to the CiC.

    The spineless Democrats at the time did nothing though. So they are equally culpable.


    2. The spineless Democrats at the time did nothing though.

      It’s a good thing, now that they’re in power, that they are working diligently to get rid of these things.

      1. Yep. Shrikey’s right that Democrats are spineless. That’s the personal characteristic that draws one to the party. But he’s wrong that their spinelessness is what kept them blocking any of those policies.

    3. Tu quoque. Fail.

      1. Yeah, you have to go back to when a POTUS parsed language about a blowjob to get the House angry enough to impeach.

        1. Yeah, they should have impeached him for starting a housing bubble. But hey, much like they got Capone of tax evasion, you can’t complain too much.

  10. And now *drumroll*


    Modern Man Sydney, Australia NYT Pick

    This is exactly why Obama is a terrific president – he’s pragmatic. I believe he entered office with good intentions, and has merely realized that given the realistic situations in front of him, he needs to do things he and the public may be uncomfortable with. I’ve lived in the Middle East for a while and experienced a wide range of cultures – while we can be a bit more idealistic about our domestic programs, realism is the name of the game in international relations. Obama is a realist, and while he takes heat for it, it’s much better than the alternative.

    1. Bush was also well-known for his cultural understanding and pragmatism amongst Democrats. Don’t you remember?

    2. domestic programs

      A real Aussie would have spelt it, “programmes.” I’m sceptical.

      1. Don’t let that colour your view.

  11. You guys just have to trust that Obama is doing the right thing. It’s similar to legislation, where it has to be passed before we can know what’s in it. It’s all about trust, and if you aren’t going to trust the President, then you can’t blame him if he thinks you are an imminent threat.

    1. it’s all about intentions, right?

    2. if you aren’t going to trust the President, then you can’t blame him if he thinks you are an imminent threat.

      Doveryai, no proveryai.

  12. “And if this was Bush…”

    What an idiot. Everyone knows that should be “And if this were Bush…” It’s called the subjunctive mood, Jennifer, learn to use it.

    Hopefully, no one on the SC dies or retires over the next four years.

      1. Oh HM! That’s just a silly parlour trick! Nobody reads that old musty stuff any more!

      2. Whereas now the President can’t pat his head and rub his stomach at the same time.

        1. Makes one nostalgic for the days of Billy Clinton, who could pat his stomach and rub her head at the same time, with the same hand!

  13. Dante’s Inferno placed ass-kissers, or “flatterer’s” if I recall correctly, mouth deep in in a turd pool.

    1. And in Niven and Pournelle’s Inferno they had a second anus, in their mouths.

      1. You gentleman do realize you are giving Shriek a thrill up his leg by posting this…

        And the carpet is soiled enough.

      2. And in Niven and Pournelle’s Inferno they had a second anus, in their mouths.

        Are those the guys that directed The Human Centipede?

  14. Stephanie Miller made a remark similar to Granholm’s in which she admitted that liberals give Obama a break because they trust him more than they trusted Bush. This is essentially a religious sensibility. My god may not be perfect, but he’s mine. Your god is actually Satan. .



  15. It’s all about feelings.

    They like how Obama makes them feel, no matter what he actually does.

    Boosh made them feel unpleasant, so he was wrong no matter what he did.

    It is as if liberals do not even use that part of the brain that separates them from animals except to come up with excuses to justify their animal emotions.

    1. If a liberal were to read what you just wrote he would shrilly decry your characterization – rather like a snatchee.

  16. Damon,

    You missed one of the better parts of the piece. About four times the writer makes the assertion that “Obama has scaled back and taken off the rough edges of Bush Policies” but then never gives a single actual example of a Bush policy Obama has scaled back. That would of course be because there are none. But it is the Times so they feel compelled to reassure their readers that of course Obama is better than the evil BOOOSH regardless of the complete lack of evidence saying so.

    And the Granholm quote is pretty much the triple lindy Episiarch special of partisan stupidity and dishonesty.

    1. I was assuming they were referring to waterboarding, which is about the only positive thing I can say about his foreign policy.

      1. But Bush only waterboarded like four people. And Obama has cranked up rendition. So the best you can say is “we are now contracting out our torture to allied countries”.

        1. I’m pretty sure that the only change in policy that happened was that Obama loudly announced, “If I hear about anyone getting waterboarded, someone’s going to be punished.”

  17. Here is Tina Brown admitting that Democrats would have impeached Bush if he had ever done what Obama is doing.


    And Elenore Clift telling the McGlaughlin Group that “Drones are a blessing.” Obama is a regular St. Francis I tell you.

  18. Today’s liberals are not true liberals. They’re playing partisan politics just like the Republicans. They’re under the influence of culture of personality. It is a total cognitive dissonance, they don’t want to hear about their hero’s wrongdoings and shortcomings because then they would have to criticize Obama and that’s a no no because he is the first black president so that would be “racist”. If you criticize him then you’re a “tea bagger”. Their inability to see beyond skin color and intolerance to differing opinions is the total opposite of liberalism. The media worsens the situation too. Most of the media caters to the Democrats and you won’t see any one of them talking about how Obama’s certain actions violate the constitution. Today both liberals and conservatives are tools of the corporate elite.
    Read: Death of the Liberal Class by Chris Hedges.

    1. I think some of it is 60s envy. So many of them thought that Obama was their JFK and electing him their moment in history. To admit that Obama is a horrible president who has screwed them and sold out everything they claim to hold dear is to admit that their big moment in 2008 wasn’t so big.

      1. “Obama is a horrible president who has screwed them and sold out everything they claim to hold dear”

        You would think they would embrace this as another link to the JFK era.

        1. They would have to know history to do that. And the young people just are not real big on book learning.

          1. Apparently, they are not being taught it in school, either. History, that is.

            1. Ezra Klein says history is icky and we know what we know so who cares about it.

      2. Yeah I agree.

    2. Right, they’re not liberals. They’re proglodyes, aka boot licking sheep.

      They cherry pick one or two issues, gay rights and abortion, to hold up and claim they are liberal because they support those things, but on almost all other issues, they are authoritarian statists.

      1. Their positions on gay-rights and abortion aren’t about liberalism, they’re about religion.

    3. “Today both liberals and conservatives are tools of the corporate elite.
      Read: Death of the Liberal Class by Chris Hedges.

      Bull and Shit. this is the common apologia of fucking ideological failures = “oh, this isnt *real* liberalism… it got spoiled and corrupted!” just as “real socialism hasnt ever been attempted” Asshole liberals like Hedges want to disown the abortions that result when their ideas meet reality, and pawn everything off on some amorphous conceptualization called ‘corporatism’…guess what, liberals? your ideas suck on their own, and you lack the intellectual spine to recognize it. dont worry, the rest of the world does.

      1. Given that the original definition of liberalism is radically different from that which is practiced by those calling themselves liberal, I think you’re wrong — though I agree with your larger point.

      2. Praising Chris Hedges’ book doesn’t mean I’m a leftist. I can agree with an author’s opinion without sharing the same political views as him/her. Death of the Liberal Class touches on wars started by Democrats i.e. Bill Clinton, it explains how the US helped Al Qaeda against the Russians. He talks about the permanent war economy, the corporatism, the things libertarians also stand against. He forces liberals to confront the ugly truth. We can agree on the problems but we differ on the solutions and I’m not interested in his solutions.

  19. Jennifer Granholm would be the Harriet Miers of the left. So unbelievably partisan that she would get laughed out of the nomination process. I hope.

    1. She is dumb as a post. Her confirmation hearings would be a riot.

      1. The risk is that she’s literally too stupid to insult.

      2. You’re a neocon, you’re not that much better.

    2. She will sail through with the media’s help.

  20. That memo coming out, I think, was a wake-up call

    How many buckets of ice water does it take to get these people out of bed?

    1. I think the statement should be translated, “that memo, coming right after the election, gave us the pretext we needed to finally denounce him without worrying that he’d lose to a Republican.”

      1. It’s not like there was a totally transparent media coverup of the drone warfare issue going into the election out of fear it would hand the election to Romney or anything…

        Then again, what – were they supposed to vote for Romney or something? There were only two candidates on the ballot you know.

  21. This is common to both Team Players. The conservatives trusted Bush, so when he expanded on the powers of the executive branch they held their tongues. Liberals are doing the same now. I vividly remember telling conservative friends that Bush will not be President forever and warning that Hillary would have those same expanded powers. It takes a monumental mental talent like Granmole to actually speak the truth about their feelings this way, though (or perhaps it simply takes a media/social climate that will accept it without criticism).

    1. Yes, I said the same thing as an editorialist for the campus newspaper at one of the most left-wing colleges in the country. The more the Left expands state control, the more the Right will use these same powers to abuse the things they value when the pendulum swings, and vice versa.

      In retrospect, I was naive at the time because I assumed they actually held the values they claimed to hold as a minority party, and have been proven to be hacks with their support for Obama. I’m not making the same mistake by giving Republicans benefit of the doubt as the purportedly principled minority party now.

  22. The Obama drone policy is a vast improvement over the previous administration’s preferred method of dealing with terrorism. The problem is oversight, and almost any liberal will say so, and I’ve had a problem with the shitting all over due process that followed the declaration of the War on Terra since the beginning.

    1. The Obama drone policy is a vast improvement over the previous administration’s preferred method of dealing with terrorism.

      Citation please? Since when is just killing people on the mere suspicion they might be terrorists better than capturing and even torturing them?

      1. “Capturing and even torturing them” on the mere suspicion they might be terrorists, you mean.

        I was referring to the policy of starting two massively costly wars that had no clear purpose except to stroke the war hardons of neocon draft dodgers.

        1. So continuing a massive and costly war while trying to continue another massive and costly occupation while starting wars in other areas and drone striking random 16+ year-old boys is superior. Gotcha.

        2. And continuing the same costly wars while initiating others and adding the drone strikes is somehow a better policy? Face it, you should stop talking now. Even your usual intellectual dishonesty isn’t this ridiculous.

          1. The Iraq war is over and the Afghanistan one will be over too.

            Yes cleaning up Bush’s messes is not the moral equivalence of Bush’s making them.

            1. Obama supported a surge in Afghanistan, and starting wars in new countries. Do your job bruh.

    2. The LAPD police’s policy of shooting random Asian women because they might be bad guys is way better than the Rodney King beating.

      1. Well if they didn’t kill them, they would have to arrest them and that might require beating them. And we saw how that turned out. Better just to kill them and avoid that risk altogether.

      2. You just want liberals to wrap themselves in the same false equivalence security blanket you guys have so that the same inflated egos that lead you to think you are above partisan politics will be stroked by confirmation that you were right.

        1. liberal assassination is done with *tender feeling*

        2. No, you’re the one making false equivalence by claiming tu quoque “Bush/the Republicans did it too, and worse,” which is totally irrelevant from our non-partisan perspective. If being a shill for a slightly more restrained mass murderer is all it takes for you to keep a clean conscience about yourself, you’re even more unprincipled than I already knew you were.

          And it’s not very wounding if your harshest criticism of me is that I’m egotistical because I know I follow my purported principles consistently.

          1. How do you follow your principles? By believing them in your heart? He’s your president too.

            I think we possess a maximum amount of individual agency with respect to changing national policy, and that is what we can do in the voting booth. And comparing reality to a never-before-achieved ideal, instead of the possible real-world alternatives, is not “principle,” but delusion.

            1. Your contortionistic justifications of your defense of a friendlier form of mass murderer are delicious. Just put a smile on your homeboy Obama’s brutal foreign policy. After all, you’re obviously saving all your energy to fight for the victims of future Republican wars.

            2. I think we possess a maximum amount of individual agency with respect to changing national policy, and that is what we can do in the voting booth.

              And you voted for Obama, knowing full well that he’s been droning babies in far away lands.

              So your “individual agency” was exercised by re-electing who you KNEW to be a murderer.

  23. “We team blue,” former Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan said on Current TV. “And if this was team red, I think that we would all be more team blue because we wouldn’t trust team red.”

  24. The Obama drone policy is a vast improvement over the previous administration’s


    I cannot tell.

  25. “Obama that I used to know”…..ed-to-know

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.