John Cusack and Jonathan Turley (liberals) On Obama

[Ahso!]

It's a conversation worth reading.

John Cusack Interviews Law Professor Jonathan Turley About Obama Administration

CUSACK: I would just love to know your take as an expert on these things. And then maybe we can speak to whatever you think his motivations would be, and not speak to them in the way that we want to armchair-quarterback like the pundits do about "the game inside the game," but only do it because it would speak to the arguments that are being used by the left to excuse it. For example, maybe their argument that there are things you can't know, and it's a dangerous world out there, or why do you think a constitutional law professor would throw out due process?

TURLEY: Well, there's a misconception about Barack Obama as a former constitutional law professor. First of all, there are plenty of professors who are "legal relativists." They tend to view legal principles as relative to whatever they're trying to achieve. I would certainly put President Obama in the relativist category. Ironically, he shares that distinction with George W. Bush. They both tended to view the law as a means to a particular end — as opposed to the end itself. That's the fundamental distinction among law professors. Law professors like Obama tend to view the law as one means to an end, and others, like myself, tend to view it as the end itself.

Truth be known President Obama has never been particularly driven by principle. Right after his election, I wrote a column in a few days warning people that even though I voted for Obama, he was not what people were describing him to be. I saw him in the Senate. I saw him in Chicago.

CUSACK: Yeah, so did I.

TURLEY: He was never motivated that much by principle. What he's motivated by are programs. And to that extent, I like his programs more than Bush's programs, but Bush and Obama are very much alike when it comes to principles. They simply do not fight for the abstract principles and view them as something quite relative to what they're trying to accomplish. Thus privacy yields to immunity for telecommunications companies and due process yields to tribunals for terrorism suspects.

[Scrat]

He was never motivated that much by principle. What he's motivated by are programs. And to that extent, I like his programs more than Bush's programs, but Bush and Obama are very much alike when it comes to principles. They simply do not fight for the abstract principles and view them as something quite relative to what they're trying to accomplish. Thus privacy yields to immunity for telecommunications companies and due process yields to tribunals for terrorism suspects.


This paragraph illustrates Americas entire system of politics. They hold up principles and say they hold them dear to the heart yet discard them at will, the system holds no principles when they become an inconvenience.

They say they uphold human rights yet people disappear off the streets, face ruin of their lives or die in assassinations if they don't toe the line.

America says that we value human lives. Look at Syria, we support what is by any standard I know terrorism. We support the likes of Suharto and Saakashvili - brutal dictators by any standard I know yet support the over throw of systems of government arguably better at great cost in human life.

At least the Russians don't lie about crap to make themselves feel better.

[koan]

I had no idea Cusack started writing political columns. That's wild.

Good for him!