Candidate Obama vs. President Obama on presidential power

After listening to President Obama’s speech this afternoon regarding Syria, I read an article in the newspaper. I imagine the national pundits have already made note of the contradiction I discovered, but I don’t listen to a lot of talk radio, so it struck me as a profound about-face.

Here’s what Candidate Obama told the Boston Globe in December 2007 (which was quoted in an AP story I read in the Journal Star this morning):

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

But today, President Obama had something different to say (emphasis mine):

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. […] Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.

So Candidate Obama believed the President does not have the power to authorize military action unilaterally, but President Obama does believe the President has the authority to take military action unilaterally. What has changed since 2007? Well, obviously, Obama is now President! It appears that the power of the Presidency has changed Obama’s mind.

Who will get Sandberg’s seat?

I considered throwing my name in the running for Gary Sandberg’s seat. However, after talking it over with my family, I decided this just isn’t the right time (not that I had any illusions of actually being chosen, but I believe you shouldn’t apply for something unless you really are willing to serve).

There is no shortage of other applicants, however. Here are the 31 people who submitted their resumes:

  • Denene Ricks
  • Ken Goldin
  • Randy Ray
  • Thomas Stevens
  • Conrad Stinnett III
  • Harry Block
  • Alma Brown
  • Jody Hoerr
  • John D. Marter, Jr.
  • Patrick Williams
  • Kyie Hess
  • Robert J. Rivoli III
  • Jeff Stauthammer
  • Gloria Cassel-Fitzgerald
  • Monty Spivey
  • Joseph B. VanFleet
  • Brad Douglas
  • Martha Ross
  • Amy Eckardt
  • Martin Deters
  • Brett Kolditz
  • Katherine Coyle
  • Clyde E. Gulley, Jr.
  • Todd A. Dennhardt
  • Patti Sterling-Polk
  • Tara Gerstner
  • Elizabeth Jensen
  • Thomas Angelo
  • Franklin L. Renner
  • Andre Williams
  • Bill Spears

Interesting list. Notable applicants: A couple of former council members who didn’t run for reelection the last time (Gulley, Spears); a current District 150 school board member (Ross); former city attorney (Ray); recent council also-rans (Sterling-Polk, Williams); former City of Peoria Communications Manager Alma Brown; and neighborhood advocate and “Friend Of Peoria Chronicle” Conrad Stinnett.

Notable omission: Patrick Sullivan didn’t throw his hat in the ring.

You can read the resumes of the applicants on the City’s website by clicking here. The council has 60 days to choose a successor. Any wagers on who will get the nod?

Journal Star cuts more content

Peoria’s newspaper of record, the Journal Star, continues its death spiral as it announces today that it is cutting still more content from the paper. Executive Editor Dennis Anderson writes in a “Note to Readers” in Monday’s edition:

The format of the Monday Journal Star is changing starting today.

The newspaper will have two sections on Mondays. The A section continues to house national and world news. Added to the expanded A section is Local & State, which appears on Page 3. The A section also contains the TV page, obituaries, police and courts news, matters of record, the Leisure & Advice page and weather, located on the back page of this section, and other features. The Comics page also is in A section today.

Sports is at the front of the B section today. Also inside the B section are classifieds.

The Opinion page will no longer be published on Mondays. It returns on Tuesday.

The editor apparently didn’t feel any need to explain the reason for this reduction in content to his readers who are not, of course, getting any commensurate cut in their subscription rate. But then, the Journal Star stopped caring about its readers a long time ago. The removal of the Forum section today (part of the Opinion page) illustrates the paper’s complete disregard for its bread and butter.

Given the staffing cuts (and attrition) and the resulting, inexorable reduction in content, it won’t be long until the Journal Star is nothing more than an ad circular.