Flip flops and governance: Obama not as advertised

[Henry]

I think Republicans are "angry" because there is a sense that the democrats "stole" the election by "lying". Than Republicans were right on these issues, but Democrats used them to deamonize Republicans.

Only speaking for myself here, but I think Republicans, and guys like Karl Rove in particular, need to get over it.

Republicans can be as 'right' as they want on the issues, but if the country is in the crapper after 8 years of GOP rule they're gonna lose an election. It's not that complicated.

[PeterMP]

I am actually seing him doing what he promised... So far I am certainly not seing any evidence of him betraying any principle that I expected him to uphold, except for maybe that lobbying thing. Can you provide some specific examples of what you are talking about?

You mean other than starting up the military tribunuals thing.

There's this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479952,00.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/

The cap and trade bill that appears is going to pass is ALMOST useless (and I don't think anybody believes it will actually obtain their campaign promises):

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896799,00.html

And these are things that I actually think he was right about duing the campaing.

[PeterMP]

Only speaking for myself here, but I think Republicans, and guys like Karl Rove in particular, need to get over it.

Republicans can be as 'right' as they want on the issues, but if the country is in the crapper after 8 years of GOP rule they're gonna lose an election. It's not that complicated.

On one hand, I agree.

On the other hand, that's a stupid way to run anything. You aren't going to be successful at anything very long if you simply assing blame to large groups of people w/o some understanding/realization of the role of individuals.

[Burgold]

Republicans can be as 'right' as they want on the issues, but if the country is in the crapper after 8 years of GOP rule they're gonna lose an election. It's not that complicated.

Yup.

The Republicans lost this election through their actions and inactions over eight years. The Dems didn't steal it (even though they have been a complicit and willing partner in the overall incompetence.)

[Henry]

On one hand, I agree.

On the other hand, that's a stupid way to run anything. You aren't going to be successful at anything very long if you simply assing blame to large groups of people w/o some understanding/realization of the role of individuals.

On the other hand, holding our leaders accountable through the election process is exactly how we've run things for over 200 years. And as a nation we have been pretty successful. Go figure.

[December90]

What we are seeing is called "On the Job Training" for an executive trainee that this nation happened to elect to the most important job in the world based on an bunch of uninformed empty cliches and promises Now that he has had a small taste of the "real world" he realizes how full of :pooh: some of his campaign rhetoric is/was and faces the real possibility that another trainee with big empty promises will unseat him in the same way he swept into power.

We survived FDR, We survived Carter, we can survive this ignorant trainee as well. There will be pain (unemployment, etc...) but we will make it thru.

[Henry]

We 'survived' FDR?

Oy.

[alexey]

You mean other than starting up the military tribunuals thing.

There's this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479952,00.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/

The cap and trade bill that appears is going to pass is ALMOST useless (and I don't think anybody believes it will actually obtain their campaign promises):

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896799,00.html

And these are things that I actually think he was right about duing the campaing.

Did you expect all of his policies to get implemented on Jan 20 by a simple wave of a magic wand?

I understand that some policies need to be implemented in steps... for example I think it would be better to phase in teeth for cap-and-trade legislature as we are making progress in the smart grid area.

[Jeeb]

We 'survived' FDR?

Oy.

He was so terrible he was elected four times.

[December90]

He was so terrible he was elected four times.

He meant well, but his policies greatly lengthened the Great Depression.

When you suck on the Government nipple, you tend to vote for the guy who stuffed that nipple in your mouth.

[Heisenberg]

What we are seeing is called "On the Job Training" for an executive trainee that this nation happened to elect to the most important job in the world based on an bunch of uninformed empty cliches and promises Now that he has had a small taste of the "real world" he realizes how full of :pooh: some of his campaign rhetoric is/was and faces the real possibility that another trainee with big empty promises will unseat him in the same way he swept into power.

We survived FDR, We survived Carter, we can survive this ignorant trainee as well. There will be pain (unemployment, etc...) but we will make it thru.

LOL

Who exactly was to blame for the "pain" that occured recently even before this past election?

[Henry]

He meant well, but his policies greatly lengthened the Great Depression.

No they didn't.

Hey, this is fun.

[PeterMP]

On the other hand, holding our leaders accountable through the election process is exactly how we've run things for over 200 years. And as a nation we have been pretty successful. Go figure.

Eh. I think you over estimate the historical effect of the "failure" (or "success") of the "leaders" of political parties on elections.

I think you can easily make a historical argument that this is MOSTLY (not completely) a more recent thing with the growth of the modern media/communications, and the growth of the "national" media.

I'm actually not even sure if it is what you say today. Carter only beat Ford by 2%.

The Dem/Repub ratio in the Senate didn't change at all and the Dems only gained one seat in the House.

Despite the failure of the Republican leaders (Nixon for watergate, Ford for pardoning him, actually having been the party of record at the time Vietnam was lost, and an economy that was pretty bad) there were minimal ramifications for Republicans (and even Ford, who actually had a decent chance of winning).

The vast majority of the public separated Ford from Nixon and the rest of the Republicans when voting.

[Burgold]

He meant well, but his policies greatly lengthened the Great Depression.

When you suck on the Government nipple, you tend to vote for the guy who stuffed that nipple in your mouth.

People go back and forth on whether that's true. I think that it's not. There were two things that FDR had to do simultaneously... fix the economy and massage the American Morale and psychology. He was able to do that and brought us back not only through the Depression, but WWII.

Back to the other side of the ledger. Why is it that FDR, Clinton, and now Obama always have to salvage the economy from the Republicans. Why do the Hoovers, Reagans, and Bushes always leave with the banks collapsing, huge debt, and, depressed stock markets, recessions, and elevated unemployment? Why do Republicans endlessly set up disastrous conditions that a Dem has to clean it up.

And then complain when a Dem has struggles righting the ship that the Repub sabotaged. I swear the Repubs are all reincarnations of Gomer Pyle. Luckily, most Dems are reincarnations of Maxwell Smart.

[PeterMP]

Did you expect all of his policies to get implemented on Jan 20 by a simple wave of a magic wand?

I understand that some policies need to be implemented in steps... for example I think it would be better to phase in teeth for cap-and-trade legislature as we are making progress in the smart grid area.

Like, I said, I understand the idea of needing to get votes and issues come up that prevent implementing plans.

He also did implement ending the military tribunuals just to restart them.

He could end don't-ask-don't-tell tomorrow.

You want to phase in cap-and-trade. Fine. Write the law in a manner that phases them in. It isn't like laws are never written with moving targets.

My point isn't that I ever expected him to be 100% successful at implementing his policies or that they would happen right away. My point is that more general. What principle did he promise to up-hold that he hasn't?

His number 1 principle. Changing how Washington works.

I'll throw the challenge back you to (I gave you issues. You just ignored mine.)

What do you see from this administration that makes it really look any different than the political status quo we've had for the last 30 years?

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

With Obama and Cheney having speeches around the same time today, MSNBC.com has clips on the homepage. The frame on Cheney is great: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

:rotflmao:

[Henry]

I'm actually not even sure if it is what you say today. Carter only beat Ford by 2%.

The Dem/Repub ratio in the Senate didn't change at all and the Dems only gained one seat in the House.

Despite the failure of the Republican leaders (Nixon for watergate, Ford for pardoning him, actually having been the party of record at the time Vietnam was lost, and an economy that was pretty bad) there were minimal ramifications for Republicans (and even Ford, who actually had a decent chance of winning).

Pete, that's one election. You could just as easily look at 1980.

Besides, Ford DID lose the election. And the GOP lost significant House and Senate seats in '74, just like they did in '06.

I'm not sure noting the closeness of a loss negates the reason for it.

[alexey]

What do you see from this administration that makes it really look any different than the political status quo we've had for the last 30 years?

Talking about issues openly and honestly. Energy policies. Investment into science and using scientific information for decision making. Intellectual honesty. Blackness.

[PeterMP]

Pete, that's one election. You could just as easily look at 1980.

Besides, Ford DID lose the election. And the GOP lost significant House and Senate seats in '74, just like they did in '06.

I'm not sure noting the closeness of a loss negates the reason for it.

Well, by 1980, you clearly have a national media in place.

I picked the 1976 election on purpose because it so well models the 74-76 election. The Republicans paid in '06, but in '08 kept paying.

You'd have to look at in some detail, but '74 would be the need to leave politicians (politicians that for some reason had up-set their constituents not necessarily a vote against the "party"). 1976 would be the "punishment" phase. There was essentially no extended punishment.

Obviously, the party exist because of some shared belief system. If those beliefs result in bad policies, then the "party" is going to be "punished" because those advocating those beliefs are going to lose elections.

That's still a vote against (or for) the policies, not just the leaders.

Go even further back in time. Look at 1956. Eisenhower killed Stevenson, but the Republicans lost house seats and had no affect on the Senate.

FDR had large "coat tails" (of course the Republicans were wrong on issues so they lost a lot because most of them were wrong). However, in 1940, FDR was still winning elections big, but the Republicans gained 3 seats in the Senate.

It is difficult historically to make the arguement of punishing down ticket candidates because of the incompetency of the leaders.

[PeterMP]

Talking about issues openly and honestly. Energy policies. Investment into science and using scientific information for decision making. Intellectual honesty. Blackness.

Well, I'll give blackness, but for the others do you want to cite an actual example.

Where has he been intellectually honest in a manner that is different than the last 30 years or so.

Oh and just so you know, the Obama proposed budget increase to the NIH in 2010 1.5%.

http://www.genomeweb.com/obamas-2010-budget-proposes-308b-nih

[Predicto]

Karl Rove characterizes Bush's actions and characterizes Obama's actions, and we all accept his characterizations without question? What the hell?

Hokie4Redskins says none of us can refute these arguments on the merits. Bull.

Here's one example. Rove is complaining that Obama is continuing military tribunals... therefore Obama is the same as Bush and it it unfair because Bush was criticized for how he handled Gitmo prisoners. And all of you are swallowing this argument whole hog.

It's crap.

Bush at first didn't want there to be any trials AT ALL of the guys in Gitmo and claimed that they were "illegal enemy combatats" (a brand new term) and thus had no right to even appear in US courts to try to assert their rights even if they were US CITIZENS. He got shot down by the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

Then he went back and wanted to have double secret star chamber trials that provided none of the due process protections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva conventions or our Constitution. He got shot down by the Supreme Court AGAIN in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

So then Congress authorizes military tribunals provided that due process is protected.

When Obama comes in, he suspends the military tribunals and has his people review them. Then he announces that he's going to try most detainees in federal court, but a few will be tried in military tribunals - and the few tribunals that are held again will need to be changed in to better protect the rights of the accused.

So now Karl freaking Rove himself, the ultimate political crap-peddler, comes along and says: "See, Obama is exactly like Bush and supports all the Bush actions of the past eight years. How unfair the criticism of the Bush Administration was. What hypocrites you all are."

Rove ignores all that history, spews that nonsense - and all of you are playing along and letting him do it and pretending that the comparison is valid and legitimate.

You guys are total suckers. I expect Rove to be able to play hokie4redskins like a fiddle, but not the rest of you.

[hokie4redskins]

Karl Rove characterizes Bush's actions and characterizes Obama's actions, and we all accept his characterizations without question? What the hell?

Hokie4Redskins says none of us can refute these arguments on the merits. Bull.

Here's one example. Rove is complaining that Obama is continuing military tribunals... therefore Obama is the same as Bush and it it unfair because Bush was criticized for how he handled Gitmo prisoners. And all of you are swallowing this argument whole hog.

It's crap.

Bush at first didn't want there to be any trials AT ALL of the guys in Gitmo and claimed that they were "illegal enemy combatats" (a brand new term) and thus had no right to even appear in US courts to try to assert their rights even if they were US CITIZENS. He got shot down by the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

Then he went back and wanted to have double secret star chamber trials that provided none of the due process protections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva conventions or our Constitution. He got shot down by the Supreme Court AGAIN in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

So then Congress authorizes military tribunals provided that due process is protected.

When Obama comes in, he suspends the military tribunals and has his people review them. Then he announces that he's going to try most detainees in federal court, but a few will be tried in military tribunals - and the few tribunals that are held again will need to be changed in to better protect the rights of the accused.

So now Karl freaking Rove himself, the ultimate political crap-peddler, comes along and says: "See, Obama is exactly like Bush and supports all the Bush actions of the past eight years. How unfair the criticism of the Bush Administration was. What hypocrites you all are."

Rove ignores all that history, spews that nonsense - and all of you are playing along and letting him do it and pretending that the comparison is valid and legitimate.

You guys are total suckers. I expect Rove to be able to play hokie4redskins like a fiddle, but not the rest of you.

Coming from a guy who took a cropped video from Dailykos showing Fox "lying" about the size of the "tea baggers" and proclaimed it as gospel.

:thumbsup:

And actually, it was Henry who said that the article can't be refuted. Learn to read and comprehend context before you go spewing venom uncontrollably.

The bottom line, Obama crapped on Bush during the campaign and then continued down very similar paths. This thread isn't full of "suckers." It's full of people aware of the hypocrisy.

Now go take a Xanax.

[Burgold]

Great answer Predicto. Lazy retort Hokie.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Karl Rove characterizes Bush's actions and characterizes Obama's actions, and we all accept his characterizations without question? What the hell?

Hokie4Redskins says none of us can refute these arguments on the merits. Bull.

Here's one example. Rove is complaining that Obama is continuing military tribunals... therefore Obama is the same as Bush and it it unfair because Bush was criticized for how he handled Gitmo prisoners. And all of you are swallowing this argument whole hog.

It's crap.

Bush at first didn't want there to be any trials AT ALL of the guys in Gitmo and claimed that they were "illegal enemy combatats" (a brand new term) and thus had no right to even appear in US courts to try to assert their rights even if they were US CITIZENS. He got shot down by the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

Then he went back and wanted to have double secret star chamber trials that provided none of the due process protections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva conventions or our Constitution. He got shot down by the Supreme Court AGAIN in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

So then Congress authorizes military tribunals provided that due process is protected.

When Obama comes in, he suspends the military tribunals and has his people review them. Then he announces that he's going to try most detainees in federal court, but a few will be tried in military tribunals - and the few tribunals that are held again will need to be changed in to better protect the rights of the accused.

So now Karl freaking Rove himself, the ultimate political crap-peddler, comes along and says: "See, Obama is exactly like Bush and supports all the Bush actions of the past eight years. How unfair the criticism of the Bush Administration was. What hypocrites you all are."

Rove ignores all that history, spews that nonsense - and all of you are playing along and letting him do it and pretending that the comparison is valid and legitimate.

You guys are total suckers. I expect Rove to be able to play hokie4redskins like a fiddle, but not the rest of you.

I've pointed this out in a few other threads, and its usually the thread ender.

[The Evil Genius]

And actually, it was Henry who said that the article can't be refuted. Learn to read and comprehend context before you go spewing venom uncontrollably.

True. Not that I expected anyone to actually refute the article........cogently that is.

Care to restate that, 4skin?