This is a pleasant surprise, especially in light of recent discussions I’ve been having with die-hard Obama supporters who continue to, unsurprisingly, parrot partisan polemic such as “vote for the lesser of 2 evils”, “he’ll get it done in the 2nd term”, “Ron Paul is a nutcase tea party racist” and so on. Wow, I can’t tell if they’re trolling or if the propaganda is really that effective. I’m guessing (and hoping) the latter.

In any event, is generally awesome but it’s nice to see them actually tackle some real journalism in a non-sensational manner whilst still being witty and peppering it with some clever jokes. Pointing out this isn’t necessarily a partisan issue, that Romney would do nothing about the NDAA and that this isn’t some dirty Republican trick or whatever is very, very refreshing.

But there are more problems with this theory. For one, no one can explain how Obama’s hands were tied. Does anyone really believe that Obama’s choices were to destroy due process or be called a president who doesn’t support the troops? If Obama sincerely opposed this provision, he could have gone on air and said, “Y’know, I want to do nothing more than send our troops aid, but, y’see, the Republicans insist that I can only do so if I have the power to imprison people indefinitely without counsel based only on a suspicion of aiding our enemies. So, y’know, please write your congressmen and let them know that that’s just not what we believe in as Americans.”

Had Obama done that, every self-proclaimed libertarian and liberal, and at least half the Republicans I know, would have praised him. Remember, liberals are supposed to love the Constitution, and conservatives are supposed to fear the powers of a growing government. There’s nothing believable about Obama being forced to sign the NDAA for fear of political fallout.