# Obama's Candidacy

by Pythagorean
Tags: candidacy, obama
 PF Gold P: 4,182 If you actually put "punishment" in context, it might be a bit more fair... He's dressing up a simple concept with colorful language: vote for people who promote policies that are helpful to you, don't vote for people that don't promote policies that are helpful for you. Can't comment on the rest, but I've seen numbers get taken out of context over and over in this thread.
 P: 1,123 The UAW clearly favors candidates that help them. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/us...ters.html?_r=1 "The United Automobile Workers union, a primary beneficiary of President Obama’s decision to rescue domestic carmakers, is now trying to return the favor. "
PF Gold
P: 3,021
 Quote by Pythagorean If you actually put "punishment" in context, it might be a bit more fair... He's dressing up a simple concept with colorful language: vote for people who promote policies that are helpful to you, don't vote for people that don't promote policies that are helpful for you....
The relevant context is that the President was addressing the collection of an ethnic group, encouraging the use of the term "enemies" in political rhetoric against other citizens in good standing. The relevant historical context is that a former President, Nixon, used the term to describe a list of political targets, or an "enemies list", also citizens. Obama went on to say, in addressing Senator McCain and others, "Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values” in the same speech. This is exactly the same kind of us versus them tone that Palin used with her "real American" comment. She at least apologized for the statement later. This kind of rhetoric has become salt and pepper for this President.
 PF Gold P: 4,182 See, now that's much more trivial than what I imagined when I first read it. A politician using rhetoric? That's unheard of!
 P: 1,123 Does anyone recall when President Obama took office 3 years ago and promised to close Gitmo within a year - signed an order? http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-22/p..._s=PM:POLITICS "January 22, 2009 President Obama signs the order requiring that the Guantanamo Bay facility be closed within a year.Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year." Not only is Gitmo still open now in 2012, but this was in the news yesterday. my bold http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...PngR_blog.html "When the authorities at Guantanamo Bay closed Camp 4, the open-air, communal-living facility here, and moved the detainees to an indoor facility called Camp 6, the inmates lost the small patch of dirt where they played soccer. Or, as they call it, football. The competition, though, was not lost forever. The Pentagon has said it is restoring the glorious game to Gitmo with a new 28,000-square-foot “super-rec” space that includes a field surrounded by a gravel track with shaded areas in the corners. Detainees will reach the field by walking through covered walkways that the military is calling “habitat trails” — rather like the tunnel to the pitch at, say, Manchester United’s Old Trafford stadium, but without the crowds. The cost of the project: $744,000. Officials here said the detainees had desperately missed their matches and boosting the morale of the inmates makes the job of the guard force easier. " What happened to the small patch of dirt? P: 1,414  Quote by WhoWee Does anyone recall when President Obama took office 3 years ago and promised to close Gitmo within a year - signed an order? http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-22/p..._s=PM:POLITICS "January 22, 2009 President Obama signs the order requiring that the Guantanamo Bay facility be closed within a year.Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year." Not only is Gitmo still open now in 2012, but this was in the news yesterday. my bold http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...PngR_blog.html "When the authorities at Guantanamo Bay closed Camp 4, the open-air, communal-living facility here, and moved the detainees to an indoor facility called Camp 6, the inmates lost the small patch of dirt where they played soccer. Or, as they call it, football. The competition, though, was not lost forever. The Pentagon has said it is restoring the glorious game to Gitmo with a new 28,000-square-foot “super-rec” space that includes a field surrounded by a gravel track with shaded areas in the corners. Detainees will reach the field by walking through covered walkways that the military is calling “habitat trails” — rather like the tunnel to the pitch at, say, Manchester United’s Old Trafford stadium, but without the crowds. The cost of the project:$744,000. Officials here said the detainees had desperately missed their matches and boosting the morale of the inmates makes the job of the guard force easier. " What happened to the small patch of dirt?
Not clear what the point of this post is. Are we to be angry at Obama for keeping the Gitmo prison open though he said he would close it? Or are we to be very disappointed that he has spent $744K of our money on a soccer field for people suspected of terrorist activities? Either way, not good for Obama, imho. Which, I suppose, was the point of the post. P: 1,123  Quote by ThomasT Not clear what the point of this post is. Are we to be angry at Obama for keeping the Gitmo prison open though he said he would close it? Or are we to be very disappointed that he has spent$744K of our money on a soccer field for people suspected of terrorist activities? Either way, not good for Obama, imho. Which, I suppose, was the point of the post.
I'm not sure if his base approves of Gitmo being kept open - possibly not? I think non-supporters of the President appreciate that he changed his position after gaining access to all of the information (what ever that might be?).

On the second point - a cost of $744,000 - it seems a bit much to replace "the small patch of dirt where they played soccer" - doesn't it? I don't think we invested more than$20,000 to prep and equip our community soccer fields.
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 11,154
 Quote by WhoWee I'm not sure if his base approves of Gitmo being kept open - possibly not? I think non-supporters of the President appreciate that he changed his position after gaining access to all of the information (what ever that might be?).
He changed his position because Congress forced him to, by making a big hullabaloo about imprisoning detainees within the mainland, and how it would be such an unconscionable - not to mention dangerous - act to invite blood-thirsty terrorists into our backyards.

 On the second point - a cost of $744,000 - it seems a bit much to replace "the small patch of dirt where they played soccer" - doesn't it? I don't think we invested more than$20,000 to prep and equip our community soccer fields.
Do we have more details on what the money was spent on, and what the rationale was that permitted the budget to be approved? Could it be that this expenditure is estimated to provide much more in savings? Could it be a result of some analysis which shows that detainees are more likely to spill valuable intel when they have $744K soccer fields to play in? Could it be that a$0.7M soccer field might stop the next $7T war?  PF Gold P: 3,021 Congress overriding a veto would force the President to do this or that. Obama signed the Defense Authorization bill that blocked transfer of the prisoners. Whatever he said in protest is meaningless to me, so much blather. P: 1,123  Quote by Gokul43201 He changed his position because Congress forced him to, by making a big hullabaloo about imprisoning detainees within the mainland, and how it would be such an unconscionable - not to mention dangerous - act to invite blood-thirsty terrorists into our backyards. Do we have more details on what the money was spent on, and what the rationale was that permitted the budget to be approved? Could it be that this expenditure is estimated to provide much more in savings? Could it be a result of some analysis which shows that detainees are more likely to spill valuable intel when they have$744K soccer fields to play in? Could it be that a $0.7M soccer field might stop the next$7T war?
Didn't President Obama have control of both the House and Senate in 2009? Perhaps he shouldn't have made (a big hullabaloo on his part as well) promises he couldn't keep?

As for justification for the spending - it's not clear - looks like they added a guard tower and expanded the fence so they don't need to be escorted to the field?

I did find this info.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/2...ntanamo.htmlry.

"The showcase soccer field — half the size of an American football field — is being built by Burns and Roe Services Corp., said a Pentagon spokesman, Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale. It should open in April, as the third recreation yard at Guantánamo’s main prison camp complex, a year after construction began on what is currently the largest expansion under way at the decade-old detention center.

The Obama administration estimates that it spends $800,000 a year per captive on basic operating costs for the detention center, whose staff numbers 1,850 government employees from contractors to guards. When it was suggested that the price tag was excessive, Reese replied that this base’s remote location at times doubles construction costs. " Emeritus Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 11,154  Quote by mheslep Congress overriding a veto would force the President to do this or that. Obama signed the Defense Authorization bill that blocked transfer of the prisoners. Whatever he said in protest is meaningless to me, so much blather. It would have been nothing more than a waste of time for him to veto on the basis of the Gitmo argument. He tried that argument way back in 2009 and learned that neither party was interested. Nimby-ism is much too easy a seed to sow.  The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to cut from a war spending bill the$80 million requested by President Obama to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and to bar the transfer of detainees to the United States and its territories. The vote, which complicates Mr. Obama’s efforts to shutter the prison by his deadline of Jan. 22, 2010, was 90 to 6. Republicans voted unanimously in favor of cutting the money. “The American people don’t want these men walking the streets of America’s neighborhoods,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota. “The American people don’t want these detainees held at a military base or federal prison in their back yard, either.”
(emph mine)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us...pagewanted=all

I do agree with WhoWee, however, that Obama deserves a sound heckling for demonstrating an over-abundance of naivete.
PF Gold
P: 3,021
 Quote by Gokul43201 It would have been nothing more than a waste of time for him to veto on the basis of the Gitmo argument. ...
Waste of time? I doubt that. It think trade off is the more likely reasoning. I was aware of the lopsided vote on the defense spending bill when I made that previously post. That vote is far from indicative of a veto override from a Nancy Pelosi House and a Harry Reid Senate in the first ~year of his presidency. No, if Obama was determined to fulfill a campaign pledge, regardless of the political consequences, he likely could have had his way on Gitmo. One consequence might be a loss of the pull needed to get the pending health care bill though. I think it more likely that he saw the large political cost and backed down.
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 2,275
 Quote by WhoWee On the second point - a cost of $744,000 - it seems a bit much to replace "the small patch of dirt where they played soccer" - doesn't it? I don't think we invested more than$20,000 to prep and equip our community soccer fields.
What year was that? Just perusing a few proposals for soccer fields gives an estimate somewhere around $400k to$500k per field. But I think many of those proposals include the whole package (parking, restrooms, etc). The only proposal that broke down each of the individual costs had about $125k for the soccer field, itself. Mentor P: 2,914  Quote by BobG What year was that? Just perusing a few proposals for soccer fields gives an estimate somewhere around$400k to $500k per field. But I think many of those proposals include the whole package (parking, restrooms, etc). The only proposal that broke down each of the individual costs had about$125k for the soccer field, itself.
I'm guessing those proposals were for fields that were stateside. You can't exactly go to the local Communist party official in Cuba to arrange for concrete, asphalt, fuel, housing for employees, etc. Nearly everything has to be shipped in. That could add substantial cost.
P: 1,123
 Quote by BobG What year was that? Just perusing a few proposals for soccer fields gives an estimate somewhere around $400k to$500k per field. But I think many of those proposals include the whole package (parking, restrooms, etc). The only proposal that broke down each of the individual costs had about \$125k for the soccer field, itself.
We developed one main field and a dozen unimproved practice fields with portable goals. We started with flat and cleared land that required minimal grading - all owned by the school district. The majority of the cost was for goals/nets. The parking was shared and the school donated a few old bleachers that we rebuilt (paint and a few boards). Most people bring their own folding chairs. We purchased a shed for a concession stand and a local company donated portable toilets. None of the fields have lights.

I'm familiar with another project that used property (parking area) at our county fair grounds - the costs were comparable to ours.
P: 1,123
 Quote by lisab I'm guessing those proposals were for fields that were stateside. You can't exactly go to the local Communist party official in Cuba to arrange for concrete, asphalt, fuel, housing for employees, etc. Nearly everything has to be shipped in. That could add substantial cost.
Why would you need all of those things? The inmates were content with "a small patch of dirt" previously.
P: 927
 Quote by WhoWee Didn't President Obama have control of both the House and Senate in 2009? Perhaps he shouldn't have made (a big hullabaloo on his part as well) promises he couldn't keep?
I'm tired of this line from Obama's detractors. It is (imo) patently false. Obama did not "control" the House and Senate. The democrats did. However, Democrats, unlike Republicans, do not tend to tow the party line. There is frequent enough crossover from the likes of Ben Nelson and others. How the ACA got passed is beyond me.

Republicans don't seem to have that problem (remember Santorum's comment of "taking one for the team"?) When it's important, they seem to tow the party line (granted, there are exceptions, like the ACA).

Additionally, just about every politican makes promises they end up not keeping.

However, yes, it was naive of Obama to expect no political heat from trying to close Gitmo.
P: 1,123
 Quote by daveb I'm tired of this line from Obama's detractors. It is (imo) patently false. Obama did not "control" the House and Senate. The democrats did. However, Democrats, unlike Republicans, do not tend to tow the party line. There is frequent enough crossover from the likes of Ben Nelson and others. How the ACA got passed is beyond me. Republicans don't seem to have that problem (remember Santorum's comment of "taking one for the team"?) When it's important, they seem to tow the party line (granted, there are exceptions, like the ACA). Additionally, just about every politican makes promises they end up not keeping. However, yes, it was naive of Obama to expect no political heat from trying to close Gitmo.
I think President Obama relied heavily on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in his first two years - they were able to pass hundreds of billions in additional spending - weren't they - "cash for clunkers" was my favorite.

 Related Discussions Current Events 578 Current Events 492 Current Events 47 Current Events 23