For those insisting that President Obama should have intervened in the Troy Davis case, two words:

[Empowerer]

Terri Schiavo.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Empowerer]

2. That's interesting.

Actually, I think it's more cowardly for a President to insert himself into a state matter over which he has absolutely no jurisdiction and would have no effect on the outcome in order to prove some point to his base.

You know, like the Terri Schiavo case.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Waiting to hear your response

Obama on his Schaivo vote-
"And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better.... And I think that's an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action."

A weasel statement, because his vote was an action, not a lack of action. He voted 'YES, Sir, Mr Frist sir'.

[Empowerer]

11. "He voted 'YES, Sir, Mr Frist sir'."

If you'd like to be taken seriously in this discussion, perhaps you should refrain from making up quotes out of whole cloth.

Senator Obama did not vote at all on this measure. He wasn't even in Washington when the vote was taken. In fact, only three Senators were present.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. What do those two words mean? In the Senate, Obama voted

with Frist and the Republicans to intervene in the Teri Schiavo case. Bush flew in, asked for the vote, Obama obliged, apparently the 'video diagnosis' impressed him.
How does that vote to interfere support his utter silence on the Davis case? What's the deal, as you see it? Seems to me to be more of his situational ethics at work.

[SidDithers]

6. What was the motion that Obama voted on with Frist and the Republicans?...

The Palm Sunday Compromise was voted on by only 3 Senators - Frist, Santorum and Mel Martinez.

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

7. So that's not it, Sid. Do you guys have Google in Canada?

Here is an interview in which Obama speaks about it at length. Since you doubt my word, for no reason at all. Read it. Facts are facts. He says he regrets the vote, which he casts as being 'inaction' when it was an active yes. Says he knew better. Says a lack of action can have bad results, and then for Davis, he takes no action. None.
The OP claims that the two words 'Teri Schaivo' make a clear point as to why Obama was silent about Davis, but they do not make any such point.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-under-fire-for-terri-schiavo-remark-31359/

[Empowerer]

17. Apparently, my point went right over your head, so I will break it down for you . . .

The Terri Schiavo case was a clear instance of a President and a Congress overreaching by injecting themselves into a state case. That action has been roundly and correctly condemned - particularly by progressives - because we agreed that it was inappropriate for the federal government to overstep its jurisdiction to intervene in an individual case that was governed by state law.

That is the case here. State court convictions and penalties are within the province of the state. The federal government has a very limited role - and that role is generally restricted to the federal courts which safeguard constitutional rights. The federal executive branch has no jurisdiction in such matters. It would have been flat out wrong for the President to entangle himself in this case in any way - just as it was wrong for George Bush to inject himself into the Terri Schiavo case. And, as satisfying as it may have been to some, it would have been highly inappropriate for him to say anything about it publicly - just as it was wrong for George Bush to do what he did in the Schiavo case.

Interestingly, those of you who are attacking President Obama for not getting involved in this case are strangely mute about the silence of other Democrats. President Obama is not the only Democrat who kept his counsel - I heard nothing from Kucinich or Sanders or any other Democratic Senator or Representative. Perhaps they are all "cowards." Or, more likely, they have a better understanding of the Constitution, federalism, separation of powers and the criminal justice system than many of the President's detractors do.

[SidDithers]

18. OK, if that's not it, then what vote was it?

I want to see the Roll Call with his vote to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case, as you claimed in your post.

Sid

[frazzled]

38. Why do you keep quoting a right-wing evangelical paper?

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Also eager to hear your response, and the OP's as well....

interject a fact into OFA territory, they run, send a hit man to make an unsupported allegation of dishonesty, then run again.
This form of reflexive 'support' is not support, it is harmful to our forward progress in the Democratic Party. Also harmful, running from facts and the routine of calling into question facts you could easily verify with any search engine. To feign inability to fact check is an absurdity in today's world.

[SidDithers]

20. Your words...

"In the Senate, Obama voted with Frist and the Republicans to intervene in the Teri Schiavo case."

All I'm asking you to do is to provide the number for the Bill that he voted on, along with the Roll Call to show how he voted. Since you're making the claim that he voted to intervene, you must know what the Bill was, and have proof of his vote, right?

Sid

[Empowerer]

9. Please check your facts - Senator Obama did NOT vote on the Schiavo case

That vote took place on a Sunday and he did not come back to Washington to cast his vote - something he later said he regretted because he thought it was wrong for Congress and the President to intervene in this case.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. You'd best tell him that....

http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-under-fire-for-terri-schiavo-remark-31359/

To place the vote as they did, it required a the Senate to adjourn. Obama's vote could have stopped it cold, he instead voted to adjourn. He regrets that vote.
What he did then was the opposite of what he did this week. He could have stopped that from happening, as any individual Senator could have, it takes 100% of the vote to adjourn. He said 'adjourn'.
He regrets it. Says so in detail. He has taken heat for expressing his regret. I admire that he admitted to the bad decision. I do not admire that he said nothing about Davis. He said plenty about Skip Gates being hassled, and that was 'not a federal matter'. It was also not nearly as important as a man's life, nor as important as finding actual justice, if Davis was innocent, a killer walks free.

[Ter]

37. So, what does he regret?

That he didn't do enough to save Teri, or that it's a family issue?

[SidDithers]

19. Yup. The poster making the claim is wrong...nt

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Obama voted to ajourn the Senate, which allowed the vote

Obama has many times said he regrets that action. Any one Senator could have stopped that Palm Sunday thing. None of them did. Obama knows what he did, he says he knew better and wishes he'd have done otherwise. When asked which vote he regrets, that is the one he cites, Sid. Barack Obama correctly says he cast the wrong vote. He has said so several times. This is to be praised, because of course, he took heat from the right for saying he should have voted otherwise. A politician who can admit regret on a vote and share deep thinking he'd engaged in before and after the fact is a good and rare thing. The facts show Obama to be such a man, the edited 'two words Teri Schaivo' simply reduces the entire subject to an absurd level.
I respect the way Obama has discussed his vote on that issue. He's been open with his thinking, his mistakes, and about what he wishes he'd done. There is nothing bad about knowing the facts. They are facts.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Empowerer]

13. And in so doing, he obviously offended some other people somewhere and could cost him their vote

It's called governing - and people who do it know that they can never please everyone every time.

I strongly differ with you about the reason he didn't speak. It would have been highly inappropriate and counterproductive for him to inject himself into this case.

Not to mention the dangerous precedent it would have set. An average of one execution per week is carried out in this country. Most of those cases are contested with the defendant proclaiming their innocence - or at least alleging flaws in their convictions. Should the president speak up on all of them? And if not, how should he determine when to comment on them? And how much time should he take studying up on each one in order to determine whether to say anything publicly? And considering that not one thing he says or does will have any impact at all on the outcome of a single one of these cases, what would be the point?

And, God forbid, if a Rick Perry or Sarah Palin or a Mitt Romney becomes President, should they ALSO speak up in such cases, expressing THEIR point of view of what's right? I shudder at the thought of a President calling for the execution of someone in a state prosecution, which is exactly what these people would do if given a chance.

Once again, I think what we're seeing here is a sense that the President has more power than he actually has and/or that the role of the President is to "stand up and speak up" on every issue that people care about. But the Presidency is more than just a bully pulpit for various causes.

[Whisp]

15. +!

thats too logical for some here, but very well put.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Then explain why he was all over the Skip Gates thing?

If the principle you speak of existed, he'd not have gotten deeply involved in a relatively minor matter involving a personal friend. He spoke from the podium on that, then held a 'beer summit' and that seems fairly odd, considering that each week, police abuse various minority people, why does Gates get the POTUS speaking out, and only Gates?
All humans should speak their minds on the collective killing of one of our own. Period. Especially those who will intervene for rich friends so actively. It is not his office, but his humanity that should have spoken.

[Empowerer]

23. He wasn't "all over the Skip Gates thing."

He was asked a question in a press conference about a case that had already been concluded and gave his opinion. But this was a VERY different type of matter and he wasn't attempting to affect the outcome, as some people seem to expect him to have done here.

And what makes you think that the President never does or never will "speak his mind on the collective killing of one of our own?" The fact that he didn't jump through his paces on a case that - although it was in play for decades, only recently got this kind of media attention in the last couple of weeks - does not mean that he doesn't or won't speak his mind about the broader issue of fairness in the criminal justice system.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. He was asked about Davis as well.

He should have said what he thought. You do not agree, you think his silence was the right choice. I do not. In the early ACT UP days we used a slogan that is too fitting for this occasion- Silence=Death.
Silence is never the right choice. That's my opinion. Yours can differ. But the words Obama said about his vote to allow the Palm Sunday crap do not really fit well with his silence this week.

[Empowerer]

26. Silence = Death is far too simplistic an approach

Yes, in certain instances, silence is wrong. But that does not mean that everybody must talk all the time about everything in every instance. That is just as and usually more dangerous than silence.

I don't want the president spending all of his time speaking about every injustice that occurs every day in America. He'd have no time to do anything else.

As I said, executions occur regularly in this country. Should he comment on each of them? Or just the ones he's asked about. Or just the ones that get most of the media attention? Or just the ones that YOU think are important? Or the ones I think are important?

And, given how blatantly inaccurate your claims regarding it were, you should stop trying to re-argue the "Palm Sunday crap."

[Bluenorthwest]

28. Your apporach is reductive, and involves not looking at the full

facts of the matter. And your response, well, I do not expect you to understand the history of that phrase, so I will not take offense at your words of ignorance.
The hyperbolic nature of your language is another problem. No one is saying 'spend all of his time speaking about every injustice' and you know that. So why the absurd framing?
Obama says the vote he most regrets from his time as a Senator is the one that allowed the Schaivo vote to continue. HE says that. He regrets it. When asked 'which vote do you regret the most' this is the one he cites. Are you claiming he does not regret it? That he did not vote to adjourn?
Silence = Death. Always. Knowledge = Life. Always.

[LWolf]

10. A two word game is fun.

Rank stupidity.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Obama allowed the Senate to adjourn thus paving the way for

the 'Palm Sunday' vote cast by his bipartisan partners. It would have taken one Senator voting not to adjourn. Any one of them could have stopped that fiasco. They all pushed it forward. Including Obama, who did nothing to stop it, says he knew better, says he regrets what he did, and what he did not do. Yet this week, he again did nothing when he could have done something.
It is what it is, he himself regrets his actions in that regard, as he should. There was a stand to take, and he did the opposite of standing, he got out of the way as asked, a Senator, bullied by his peers.

[SidDithers]

22. Oh, now you seem to understand...

moving the goalposts from "In the Senate, Obama voted with Frist and the Republicans to intervene in the Teri Schiavo case.".

Now, it's Obama voted with all the other members of the Senate to adjourn.

That's just a wee bit different than voting "with Frist and the Republicans to intervene in the Teri Schiavo case.

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

27. No, Sid. He voted to adjourn, which as he knows and says

was necessary to allow the 'Palm Sunday' thing to happen. They adjourned so they could vote with just three, but it took the full Senate to allow that. Obama says he regrets allowing the adjournment and thus the vote. He cast a vote to adjourn, without that vote, they could not have intervened, Obama makes no bones about the fact that he knew the vote to adjourn was a vote to allow the interference. He is very detailed and public about what he thought at the time, and about his later regrets.
I am basing my statements on what Obama has said. When asked what Senate votes he regrets, his answer has always been the vote that allowed them to intervene on Schaivo, because he understands that his one vote to remain in session would have meant the full Senate would have to vote on it, as they should have done.
He voted with them to adjourn and he himself says it was the biggest regret and mistake of his Senate career. He says that, not me.
Are you claiming that when he expresses his regret, that is false, he does not regret it because it did not happen? He says it happened, he should have voted otherwise, that is what he says about his own actions.
So Sid, the 'two words' thing is not nearly as complex as Obama's many words on that subject. It is reductive, and the fact is, ANY single Senator could have prevented the Palm Sunday vote. Obama was one of them. He did not stop it, and he regrets that. Just how it is, Sid.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. To the OP:

The actual facts, as spoken of by the President after the fact, show us all that this is a far more complex and nuanced situation. Those 'two words' you have for us just open up another world of questions. When the State is killing one of our own, we'd best be engaged in full truthful discussions, it is wrong to make political fodder out of dead people. To claim you can point at dead Teri and that explains all is lazy, inaccurate, and frankly disrespectful of the dead and of the President, who has clearly grappled with these issues as any person would. Obama is not trying to reduce it to soundbites. He has spoken at length about the Schaivo vote, at more length than most elected officials ever speak about any vote they cast. It is good that he speaks of it deeply, and not as if it was just some vote.
The facts of the matter make Obama look better than the fact free version does, because he is detailed in his regret, in his consideration, and that is how he should be. 'I got two words for you' is not really fitting for a discussion of the death penalty. The only two words that count from yesterday are 'Troy Davis'.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. The bottom line here is that the president can't do anything right.

Had he inserted himself, the media would have lost their damned minds. But since he didn't insert himself, the ODSers are losing their minds.

They are screaming that he *could have* issued a statement. But I'm willing to bet that had he sucumb to their DEMANDS, they would still be unsatisfied.

For months now, they have been screaming and crying that the president needs to use the bully pulpit more; that he needs to make more speeches. And when the man does just that, they STILL aren't happy, claming that "all he does is make pretty speeches."

Again, there's nothing--NOT ONE THING--that he can do that would satisfy anyone. Not only is it ridiculous and outrageous, it is demoralizing the Democratic base.

[TwilightGardener]

32. +1000. But this is just another weapon to use against him.

[EffieBlack]

33. +1000

[glowing]

30. Please, this world is not an ideal perfected place where logic rules the day.

AND especially, in the United States where civilization is on a decline and a political party is using sharp division and angry words to excite violence and feed off of the fear and hate for their own ends.

We know, had the President stepped in to stop this execution, that today we would be seeing an ad that states President Obama "freed" a cop killer. Not enough people know the direct issues involving the case on a national basis... and we have gone from a county that was more than 50% opposed to the death penalty to now where more than 50% are in favor of the death penalty. AND this was in the south.

The better way to deal with the death penalty, torture, war, and general violent--fear inspired reactionary thought processes is to actually deal with addressing these issues on a moral basis. To show humanity in the face of the greatest evil... to show mercy when the other had none... to take these ideals and push them into discourse among the people. Then, perhaps, we can do away with the death penalty all together. (Its not the cheaper option by a long shot for any state either; its a good reason for those who don't embrace the "morality" and "compassion" of being a better human). Reacting to individual cases in this manner is much harder to deal with on a whole. Getting rid of the death penalty is the place to fight the battle.

Also, its time for logical, rational, thoughtful, compassionate, empathetic, persons to make their voice. Claim back the moral superiority even though one embraces any individuals decision on a religious or non-religious path. Allowing the evangelicals to hi-jack the Christian religion and marry it to the Republican political party has been wildly bad for this country. People who have a strong belief in a God and heaven and their soul in an after life, are going to tend to go along like a sheep with their Pastor attending as a shepherd to the flock. The Pastor's become corrupt, the flock becomes just as corrupt because they are worried about their mortality. AND the harder people's lives become economically, the harder these people cling to the religion and their Pastor's words. Now, we see a group of people who identify themselves as Christian, supporting war, torture, death, selfishness, dividing themselves from "others" so they cannot see the hypocrisy of their own lives. They were led to the cliff and now they are willingly jumping off of it.

[TwilightGardener]

31. It would be a bad precedent--everyone on death row would want him to weigh in on their cases.

[styersc]

34. Very Good Point.

Davis' defense failed him, not the system.

[EffieBlack]

35. Davis' "defense" was part of the system that failed him.

But it wasn't the President's doing nor was it within his power to stop it.

[bemildred]

36. Correct. +1.

Unfortunately correct, but still correct.