Drug Warrior Obama's "change" is an escalation and militarization of much more of the same.

Once change Obama has been trying to make is, like too many of his changes, simply a change in the rhetoric. He and his crew have stopped using the terms 'drug war' and 'war on drugs'. Semantic manipulation of the public debate. He wants the aggression of the drug war but he does not want to be rhetorically associated with aggression.

So whenever I write about President Obama I try hard to refer to him as Drug Warrior Barack Obama. Since the internet distributes blog and forum content based on such reference identifiers, over time, The American online lexicon of Obama in searches should become ever more associated with him being a drug warrior.

So I encourage all reform 'online' activists to try to use the term "Drug Warrior President Barack Obama" or "President Obama, Drug Warrior". The more it gets used the more it will appear thanks to Google algorithms and usage weighted indexing of the internet.

...that if there's a pile of Absolute Power right over there you'll see a certain type of people acting like flies do with piles of shit.

I'm not surprised to find you feeling smug over this, Pat. It's true that I have not condemned Obama as vigorously as you'd have liked, but everything I've ever said about him is right here on the site and it ain't exactly a lovefest.

I take no joy from being right about these horrific outcomes.

You have tried to be a critical optimist and I don't fault you for that. I wish I could be the same way but reality long ago disabused me of any delusion of optimism about American politics. American politicians are authoritarian no matter what the majority wants. Or what is best for all.

Now maybe we can work together to rip these bastards the new one they so richly deserve.

Not the states or any single sub issue.

While the efforts in the states serve to show the depth of support for reform in the end no meaningful change can happen unless and until the United States Congress changes the federal drug laws. This will not happen without a debate at the federal level that includes our drug warrior president Barack Obama.

This war, in its entirety, is destroying lives and killing people. Being distracted to only medical pot and only the few states where change is currently possible neuters reform. A vast majority of the energy is diverted from the one place where change must happen.

If we reformers don't tell congress, NOW, that we disagree with Drug Warrior Obama the congress will not hear any views in opposition to Obama.

Your Democrat pandering advice may do the Democratic Party and Barack Obama a lot of good but it will do drug policy reform no good at all.

NO MORE DRUG WAR!

NO MORE DRUG WAR!

The only argument that you arrogant Obama sycophants have is to imitate Drug Warrior Obama in deriding and belittling drug reformers.

This issue is going to cost not only Obama but the Democratic Party millions of votes going forward. Obama has disillusioned millions of good Americans who sincerely wanted to believe in him. Now you Obama apologists come along and sneer at the sincerity of these American voters.

Democrat Americans who are angry with the drug warrior Obama should download voter registration forms, fill them out as Independent's Greens or Libertarians and change you political affiliation NOW!

Join a group that reflects and respects your anti drug war values. Become independent or a Green or a Libertarian.

Now is the time to turn it up to the point where the congress won't have the luxury Obama took in this latest drug warrior declaration of civil war.

There are damn good national security, public safety, public health and social justice reasons for escalating the legalization debate. The Obama administration's foreclosing on the legalization debate before it is even joined will not look good to too many in congress if they see it incite enough anger among constituents.

Now is the best time.

If you really believe that, I have a bridge in Scottsdale, AZ that I will sell you, cheap.

I found this comment over at the Agitator; Radley posted a link to something about this, and this freedomfan guy answered your excuse much better than I could have, so I'll just quote him:

#12 | freedomfan | April 16th, 2009 at 10:40 am

J, that’s the exact same thinking W Bush’s supporters used to tell me during his first term. I would ask them when they thought he was going to get around to some of the small-government, fiscal conservatism he campaigned on in 2000. I asked about the Medicare Modernization Act (which W had promoted as costing about $100 billion and had then immediately admitted would cost over $500 billion after it passed), and further federalization of education, and steel tariffs, and so on down the line. All I got was “He can’t spend all his political capital on controversial things in his first term. Wait until he gets re-elected.” When I mentioned that it seemed like he was blowing his ‘political capital’ by not doing the things he campaigned on doing, I got, basically, “Yeah, but War on Terror; Supreme Court Justices; Ooga, booga, booga.” Well, we all know how much of a fiscal conservative he turned out to be during the second term.

BTW, I used W as an example because he’s the most recent. We could do the same thing with Clinton supporters claiming he would revisit the causes he let go (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, drug policy rationalization, etc.) in his second term. Same with Bush senior (who rightly never got a second term to get his mind right on gun bans, tax increases, the ADA, massive environmental regulations, etc.) and Reagan (passed on his chance to eliminate several federal departments he had criticized when campaigning, eliminate draft registration, reform Socialist Insecurity, etc.).

There will always be some excuse for a politician to not do what he really should. The reality is that Obama may not get a second term and it’s simply irrational to expect that he is secretly planning to do all things his fans want him to do once “he doesn’t have to worry about re-election.” The best predictor for what he will really do is the pattern he is establishing now. That is the best data we are ever going to get on how Barack Obama will act as President. If he doesn’t do what he said now, that’s an indication we should vote him out, not re-elect him

The second term argument is a sham. If the President can’t stand up now, then we are suckers to think he will stand up later. Politicians always have some reason for not doing anything that would disrupt the status quo. I guess they’re the ultimate procrastinators. All talk, no action.

Whoever is president will expand government more than the previous guy. Debt will grow more than the previous guy. And, you will be less free. There will also be a “military action” that used to pass as war. More Keynes. More socialism.

No, I don’t care who is president. Why would a president want change? They know exactly the game that made them happy before and got them elected to the office…why change?

This prediction will be true until there is an actual revolution in the US.

I'm pro-choice on EVERYTHING!

Janet Napolitano says no to legalization. What does that have to do with my unicorn? And since when do I have a unicorn anyway?

Robert, what specifically is it that I've said about Obama that is provoking all this hyperbole from you? "Your Savior..."? Show me something I've written that could reasonably be characterized as making Obama my savior. Everything I've ever said about him is right here.

I'm astonished that after the series of posts I've written attacking Obama over his opposition to legalization, you would come in here and try to surprise me with the news that Janet Napolitano is opposed to legalization. What do you want from me?

Where do these guys get of saying you call Obama savior? I guess because you don't want to riot in the streets, you are a pussy!? What I have noticed, on the months I have been on here, are that there are some on both extremes, that sound insane, at times. Being optimistic is far from claiming Obama as your savior! Do these guys think they garner support by attacking you and the site? Keep up the good work.

You would see that I have been pushing organizations to start public protests campaigns. For advocacy against an authoritarian government organizational cover is an absolute necessity. Anyone out on the street without organizational cover is fair game for police and prosecutors.

For years I have been face to face confronting politicians on the campaign trail. I not only write to the politicians regularly but I get letters published almost monthly confronting politicians about the drug war. (I have a letter approved at my local paper now that is in the cue for publication.) And i maintain web pages and a blog to excoriate politicians and offer Americans alternative perspectives and new arguments to help carry the reform effort forward.

At least I have the balls to put my name to what I advocate. While you anonymously snipe at me. what do you do beyond parroting the Drug Warrior Obama thuggery tactic of belittling people you cannot refute.

"Most of the action is in the states at this point, not at the federal level, in my view."

The states can't act without the federal government. Sure its not supposed to be that way but it is. The accumulated change in the states helps to push the federal government only to a point. Eventually critical mass on the streets must kick in motivated by the successes in the states.

In America's political system the state action leads inexorably to federal action. It is long past time that reform organizations now make the federal action a priority. LEAP has been doing it for a couple of years and they have the congress ripe for change. They need to have masses of people in the streets to punctuate the good work that they have been doing lobbying the congress on a daily basis.

Instead of your five tortured paragraphs parsing what Obama might be doing why not take the words of this consummate politician and lawyer at their face value?

I don't believe that any form of "crackdown" is appropriate. Except maybe a crackdown on authoritarians their appeasers and their apologists.

I favor a crackdown on the authoritarians, too, but before the crackdown must come the war.

With truth being the first casualty in war,  I never take the word of any politician at its face value, ever.  Especially when contradictions exist between their actions and words or available evidence.

Obama’s actions regarding the drug war have so far favored reform.  His publicly announced support for medical marijuana, and his appointment of a moderate to head the ONDCP, indicate someone who is open to change on the drug issue.

Obama’s actions contradict his words when he talks about crackdowns.  That’s a better political position for drug law reform than if the crackdowns are real.  If and when the added police activity shows up along with an increase in the numbers, I’ll know what was real and what was empty rhetoric.

Until then, I think much of Obama’s behavior regarding the drug issue can be blamed on delicate political issues that are yet to be worked out.  The adverse statements Obama makes on the drug issue keep the Republicans off his back long enough for him to get other things done.  The president’s opponents are clearly in a panic to find any reason to attack Obama, and I think if the Republicans get the chance to revive and expand a dying drug war to discredit the president, they won’t hesitate to act.

Also, Gil Kerlikowske hasn’t been approved yet by the Senate as ONDCP chief.  For now, a perceived status quo on drugs is safe politics for both Obama and Kerlikowske to guarantee a Senate approval.

any of your theories about what Obama could be may be might be or will some day be thinking its all just misleading silliness to ascribe any intentions other than the intentions that he actually articulates.

Your theorizing Obama's motives and back room tactics only serve to lead people down a primrose path.

The Democratic leadership in the U.S. has always been authoritarian. They have always used the drug war to win right-wing voters by looking tough on their own poverty oppressed and minority constituencies. Obama is no different.

So I won’t try.  But having BushCo in power for eight years taught me to be wary when Bush claimed environmental responsibility by appointing a logging executive to head the Dept. of the Interior, et al.  With GWBush, to know what was going on, you had to watch what he did, and ignore what he said.

Also, we expect an orator of Obama’s legal abilities to be precise in the words he chooses.  It’s obvious he thinks before he speaks.  However, by itself the term ‘crackdown’ is just too vague a word to draw any conclusion from based on the short sound bite that’s aired.  The choice of the word is intentional.  We don’t know who he’s planning the crackdown for, or on what.  Coke?  Meth?  Oxycontin?  Doubtful for pot.

Is he referring to cracking down on cartel-linked drug operations in the United States?  Probably.  That would put it into the context of the speech.  Maybe he’ll arrest Limbaugh on some upgraded federal drug conspiracy charge.  Maybe not.  But the possibilities are still there for reform.

Asserting delusional "possibilities" have have no context in the discussion serve only to dilute criticism of the authoritarian Obama.

With Obama all anyone has to do is actually listen to what he says and they know where he is going. Unfortunately, there are a lot of reformers mike you who insist on muddying the waters with delusions that misinform and misrepresent what Obama is actually saying.

You are subverting critical analysis of drug warrior Barack Obama.

Thank you for the subversive part.  It’s what I do best.  But I don’t engage in delusional possibilities when I say that Obama or his speechwriter is being vague.  The English language backs me on that one.

Also, Obama is no absolutist or ideologue.  And he has to know what most people know, that the drug war is a failure.  He will act based on what he thinks works, and since nothing works when it comes to a drug war, he’s stymied before he begins.  Really, what’s he going to do?  It's pointless.

Also, for the record, Obama is not an authoritarian.  He’s the virtual opposite.  People like G. Gordon Liddy and Chuck Colsen are authoritarians.

Authoritarians are like the angry white guy who keeps complaining that the world is going to hell in a hand basket because 'all them damn dirty hippies is smoking dope.'  Authoritarians are always complaining about a decline in society’s morals.  They don’t advocate any kind of change unless perhaps it’s to change the Constitution in a way designed to eliminate a certain segment of the population.  Authoritarian idiots bomb first and ask questions later.  I note this not so much to make a point about Obama, but because it’s important that everyone understands that this type of person makes up a big part of the crazies we know as drug warriors.  Check out John Dean’s book “Conservatives Without a Conscience” and Robert Altemeyer’s books on the subject.  Authoritarianism in all its gory details is an eye opener, and it’s scary.  Know your enemy.  Seriously.

As for a subverting critical analyses of Obama, I don’t have a subversive intent.  I just don’t think Obama can legalize pot and survive politically.  He said (and I believe him this time) that the administration doesn’t favor legalization.  He didn’t mention the reason, but it’s obvious that appearing pro-drug at this time in his career would unleash authoritarian attack dogs on his presidency at a precarious time for him politically and at a precarious time for the country.  At the moment, he can’t even shake hands with President Chavez of Venezuela without being attacked by Fox News.

The problem for drug law reform is that it still needs Obama to accomplish various goals related to legalization.  There’s a pressing need among other things to reorganize the NIDA, HHS and DEA to allow qualified scientific research on illicit drugs, even though results of the research might somehow prove that the drug isn’t so bad, no matter what the ONDCP says.  Giving Obama grief doesn’t help.  He knows what we want.

Legalization of drugs will come from a groundswell of support from below and through the individual states.  Washington, D.C. will demand to be dragged kicking and screaming through the door of legalization.  Obama can’t lead on this one.  Legalization is our job.

The cadence of his speech is just plain awful! I cannot understand why people think he's such a "great speaker", even with a teleprompter he pauses (long pauses) after every third word. Drives me crazy, I cannot listen to him at all, I have to turn him off or leave the room.

Maybe he was chosen just because of that horrible speech pattern, just to drive the nation's real patriots nuts.

I'm pro-choice on EVERYTHING!

is directed. Not at reformers but at reform organizers and leaders who I think can be doing more.

Vociferous debate is valid discourse that I believe can better motivate others in some situation.

You don't like it that I work hard at making things happen. Tough love Bubba. You obviously don't have any monopoly on ideas or you would be willing to sign you name to your distracting Democratic Party hack bullshit!

I was around when Richard Nixon declared this war on drugs and I want to still be around when it is ended. That will not happen if we follow your do nothing rants.

Unlike you I consider the children being thrown into American prisons each and every day that this drug war continues. I will not fight this fight another 37 fucking years.

I consider the death and destruction in Mexico and Afghanistan and I will not tolerate this for another fifty fucking years. All we hear from you is shut up an sit down. NO!

Letters to the editor that identify politicians and their failings on drug policy go a long way toward forcing politicians to stop and think about their policy positions.

We need to be flooding the congress with our opinions.

Screw Barack the Abomination.

When we get out into the streets they will listen.

I just don't know what to say. What a weak example. If you thought I was making excuses, you fundamentally misunderstood the post. Yes, I think Obama privately understands our argument better than he's letting on, and that assumption is based on his own 2004 statement in favor of decrim. But the fact that he continues to support the drug war even though he knows it's wrong is reprehensible.

Here's what I wrote the day before that:

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2009/mar/26/obama_insults_onlin...

Ass-kissing?

You truly don't understand that telling someone that their words to a politician could have a deleterious effect is no more than trying to stop a person from speaking by making them gag themselves. Politician who can't handle vociferous political speech are pretty poor politicians. I am not going to self censor to appease a politician who I already know wants desperately to fuck over everything I believe in.

I knew Obama was an a-hole drug warrior two years ago so don't you try to make me responsible for his authoritarian ways. I tried to warn America against him and apologist sycophants like you shouted me down.

'Think globally act locally' is politician speak for do nothing effective. Any protest of a few people in a small town MAY, if its the slowest news day of the year, get page B-10 coverage in the local paper and nothing more. This kind of action or coverage will NOT impact the opinions of members of the United States congress. Members of state legislatures. There is only one way to impact the politicians in a way that EFFECTS change in the politicians and that is mass protests. Large protests in large cities. Protests in state capitals. Protests in Washington,D.C.

Your ineffectual appeasers posture toward Democrat drug warrior politicians is sickening. Don't expect any further responses from me because you are distracting from the topics and issues while contributing nothing.

that ALL drugs need to be re-legalized to stop drug war violence; and that we need to stop electing "politicians" and start electing libertarians in order to maintain a free society.

I'm pro-choice on EVERYTHING!