Flip flops and governance: Obama not as advertised

[hokie4redskins]

So, I'm confused.

Do we agree that it looks like most of these broken promises seem to be of the sort of a promise made, then reality discovered once privilege to certain information became available?

And if that is the case, would it be better for him to say **** the reality of the situation, I'm going to follow through on the promise i made regardless?

I'd suggest it would be stupid of him to do so, no?

~Bang

You just nailed it.

Problem is, nobody gave Bush that benefit of doubt even though he was the one privy to the intelligence briefings.

Obama gets elected on absurd promises, gets a dose of reality on Day 1 in the Oval Office, it forces him to follow similar policies as the predecessor he and his cohorts routinely blasted.............

..........and Bush is the buffoon while Obama is praised for his acumen.

Hypocrisy: Expose it and watch the liberal mushroom cloud.

[PeterMP]

That sounds about right... also now it appears that he didn't even make the promise that he is supposedly breaking.

Actually, that assumes that the Uniform Code of Military Justice describes a method by which to try detained individuals from a non-decleared war zone, which I'm pretty sure it doesn't

In other words, the military tribunuals don't fit either of these criteria:

"It's time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice," Obama said in August.

Here's a copy if you want to read it:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

[Bang]

You just nailed it.

Problem is, nobody gave Bush that benefit of doubt even though he was the one privy to the intelligence briefings.

Obama gets elected on absurd promises, gets a dose of reality on Day 1 in the Oval Office, it forces him to follow similar policies as the predecessor he and his cohorts routinely blasted.............

..........and Bush is the buffoon while Obama is praised for his acumen.

Hypocrisy: Expose it and watch the liberal mushroom cloud.

Well, I think that the problem with Bush was that he had a war pop up in his term. This will unleash the far left anti-war peace-at-all-costs loonies every time regardless of the situation, regardless of how it is handled, regardless of anything.

I agree there has been plenty of hypocrisy to go around, but I also think that since Vietnam any president that goes to war will have that to deal with, and that crowd is QUITE LOUD.

~Bang

[alexey]

Problem is, nobody gave Bush that benefit of doubt even though he was the one privy to the intelligence briefings.

Obama gets elected on absurd promises, gets a dose of reality on Day 1 in the Oval Office, it forces him to follow similar policies as the predecessor he and his cohorts routinely blasted.............

..........and Bush is the buffoon while Obama is praised for his acumen.

Hypocrisy: Expose it and watch the liberal mushroom cloud.

Bush was doing the right thing all along... things would have worked out much better if we only gave him the benefit of a doubt.

[alexey]

Well, I think that the problem with Bush was that he had a war pop up in his term. This will unleash the far left anti-war peace-at-all-costs loonies every time regardless of the situation, regardless of how it is handled, regardless of anything.

I agree there has been plenty of hypocrisy to go around, but I also think that since Vietnam any president that goes to war will have that to deal with, and that crowd is QUITE LOUD.

~Bang

Yeah there are loonies, but I think a lot of opposition came from how he was waging that war rather than mere fact of waging it. No-bid no-oversight contracts, rampant waste, etc.

[Predicto]

You just nailed it.

Problem is, nobody gave Bush that benefit of doubt even though he was the one privy to the intelligence briefings.

Obama gets elected on absurd promises, gets a dose of reality on Day 1 in the Oval Office, it forces him to follow similar policies as the predecessor he and his cohorts routinely blasted.............

..........and Bush is the buffoon while Obama is praised for his acumen.

Hypocrisy: Expose it and watch the liberal mushroom cloud.

Except when you lie about the past policies of Bush and how they developed, and then you lie about the present policies of Obama and how close they are to Bush's, it becomes more difficult to take that argument seriously.

Bush ate with a fork, knife and spoon. So does Obama. Where's that change we were promised!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Baculus]

Anyone who actually followed Pres. Obama during last year's campaign shouldn't be terribly surprised. Even though he's been painted as a "far left radical," he is pragmatic in his viewpoint, and his debates with McCain demonstrated his intent to widen the war in Afghanistan while admitting that a quick withdrawal from Iraq would be difficult.

His foreign policy stance hasn't been terribly different than what he outlined during the campaign, including efforts to communicate with other nations. (Even, *gasp*, Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela!)

Gitmo is a difficult situation, for many reasons, including opposition from both the Left and Right ("Close it!" "Don't close it!" ), difficulty in relocating the prisoners, and attempting to formulate some sort of new legal method of tribunals which would satisfy legal requirements put forth by the administration (or at least resolve some of the criticisms of past tribunals).

Whatever he does, someone is going to scream foul, in some manner or another: that much has become obvious.

Presidents have a tendency to moderate after being elected to the Presidency and rarely follow-up on every campaign promise. That's how it works -- the most we can hope for is enough consistency on those issues which we find important.

[PeterMP]

I'm a simple man and you are confusing me with your big words and compound sentences. Let me try again:

You do a bad job you get voted out.

Do you

a) disagree that that is the case and/or

think that's a bad way to run a nation?

1. I agree, but that's not the way I read your comments. Your comments read to me that person X does a bad job so person Y gets voted out because they are members of the same party. I don't think prior to 1980, you can make a good historical argument for that happening (except maybe Wilson in 1920).

2. If you do a bad job, sure. If somebody that happens to be in the same party as you does a bad job, you get voted out. No.

Think about this election. What had the Republicans actually done a worse job of then the Dems?

Post-2006 (as a party and even longer for some like McCain), it is hard to argue they were wrong on Iraq.

On economic policy, how was what they were proposing substantially different than the Dems to fix the melt down (both were pushing further defeciet spending at the leadership level)?

How were the Republicans more at fault than the Dems for the melt down (I don't want to start a debate. To say one party was substantially more wrong than the other to me is hard. Neither side was overly out there warning about the a housing bubble (yes there were some), neither were overly out there warning about goverment encouragement of said bubble, and I never heard a politician mention anything about regulating credit swaps.)

In 2008, the Republican party as a whole paid for Bush's unpopularity, which had built over his entire last term and not for being wrong on any given issue. There are never any perfect historical examples, but prior to 1980, there are no good examples of the same thing (except maybe Wilson in 1920).

[alexey]

In 2008, the Republican party as a whole paid for Bush's unpopularity, which had built over his entire last term and not for being wrong on any given issue. There are never any perfect historical examples, but prior to 1980, there are no good examples of the same thing (except maybe Wilson in 1920).

You make it sound like Bush became unpopular with the people not because he was wrong on any given issue but for personal reasons... My impression was that 2006 and 2008 elections were more about rejecting the GOP approach to governing. How about something along the lines of GOP selling it's soul to the Devil, people starting to see that, and Bush serving as the lightning rod for those sentiments?

Yeah it's a sexy narrative that people really voted against Bush instead of voting for Obama. Is that what really happened? I guess we'll have to wait until 2010 to find out.

[deejaydana]

I want just one person who voted for Obama to admit that they are frightened by his radical agenda on this board (ok, I actually have seen at least 2 posters admit to it so far).

[Hubbs]

More like:

Bush = incompetent screwup.

Obama = competent individual with common sense.

THEREFORE

Bush does it = probably going to screw it up.

Obama does the same thing = probably going to get it right.

You know, I'd love to hear you have a chit-chat with the Founding Fathers about government.

"Checks and balances? Are you guys ****ing retarded? All we need to do is make sure that a smart dude is the leader of the country! Come on, all this stuff about human fallibility is just jibba-jabba."

[Thiebear]

I'm quite pleased with the foreign policy that we see..

Biden is a complete screwup but his boss is kickin ass.

Locally: Bleh, not so good but he started with a mess and has only made it slightly worse.

I try not to spend every waking hour arguing with something i agree with, though i can see where Cheney is coming from. He was vilified for something that is being reported/acted on now as the same basic principles. Details are key and as i said before the election: Presidents have rules also, you can't just do anything you want up there mad with power. Be-it Kerry, Gore, McCain, Cheney in office you will get 90% of the same thing. The 10% is what matters.

[Burgold]

You know, I'd love to hear you have a chit-chat with the Founding Fathers about government.

"Checks and balances? Are you guys ****ing retarded? All we need to do is make sure that a smart dude is the leader of the country! Come on, all this stuff about human fallibility is just jibba-jabba."

That's ironic given how the past administration worked endlessly to avoid checks and balances in all situations and thumbed its nose at both the legislative and judicial branches repeatedly.

[Elessar78]

Never confuse campaigning with governing.

[SnyderShrugged]

That's ironic given how the past administration worked endlessly to avoid checks and balances in all situations and thumbed its nose at both the legislative and judicial branches repeatedly.

I'm fairly certain that Hubbs was not a supporter of the previous administration so there really isnt any irony there at all.

On the topic: I honestly don't think that President Obama is doing much different than he campaigned beyond putting out the perception that he was somehow an anti-war candidate. I even think that was more an incorrect inference from many of the folks on the left.

I was pretty certain that both McCain and Obama would carry on the same tired old policies or President Bush if elected.

I was 100% correct.

Someday soon, folks may start to realize that there isnt much of a difference between the 2 major parties and that a vote for either usually is a vote for status quo, or in the case of the last 2 options, status quo plus a pile of crap more on top of it all.

[alexey]

You know, I'd love to hear you have a chit-chat with the Founding Fathers about government.

"Checks and balances? Are you guys ****ing retarded? All we need to do is make sure that a smart dude is the leader of the country! Come on, all this stuff about human fallibility is just jibba-jabba."

I am not sure why you would think that's where I was coming from. For me a "competent individual with common sense" is somebody who has full appreciation of the philosophy on which our country was founded.

[alexey]

I was pretty certain that both McCain and Obama would carry on the same tired old policies or President Bush if elected.

I was 100% correct.

Do you really think Obama is doing the same thing Bush was doing, and McCain would have been doing the same thing? Really?

Someday soon, folks may start to realize that there isnt much of a difference between the 2 major parties and that a vote for either usually is a vote for status quo, or in the case of the last 2 options, status quo plus a pile of crap more on top of it all.

I think a pretty good argument can be made for Obama not being an "establishment" candidate.

[PeterMP]

You make it sound like Bush became unpopular with the people not because he was wrong on any given issue but for personal reasons... My impression was that 2006 and 2008 elections were more about rejecting the GOP approach to governing. How about something along the lines of GOP selling it's soul to the Devil, people starting to see that, and Bush serving as the lightning rod for those sentiments?

Yeah it's a sexy narrative that people really voted against Bush instead of voting for Obama. Is that what really happened? I guess we'll have to wait until 2010 to find out.

Well, I haven't seen any evidence that Devil is interested in buying souls from politicians so I'm going to have to reject that idea (seems like it would be a waste of his money).

(Note- see my previous about deamonizing the entire Republican party)

(If you sell your soul to the Devil, does that make you a deamon?)

(and I'm not saying it is just the Dems doing it. It is going both ways. Also, it isn't like it is new, but just that it is more successful now then ever. It's great if you want to win elections (it's pretty easy to run a "national" campaign against a party if succusseful), but I don't think it is healthy for the country.)

I'll also point out that your post is at least incomplete. I guess people were voting for Obama in their state legislator as well:

http://ncsl.typepad.com/the_thicket/2008/11/small-gains-for-democrats-in-the-west.html

"Small Gains for Democrats in the West"

http://ncsl.typepad.com/the_thicket/2008/11/party-balance-in-midwestern-legislatures.html

"The big prizes of the 2008 election were the Ohio House and the Wisconsin Assembly, where Democrats gained a net of six and five seats, respectively, to take the majority in those chambers for the first time since the 1994 election."

http://ncsl.typepad.com/the_thicket/2008/11/reverse-coattails-in-the-south.html

"The South was the only region in which Republicans gained legislative seats and provided the most significant switches to Republican chamber control in the Tennessee House and the Oklahoma Senate."

The Democrats managed beat the Republicans everywhere in the country, except the south, at every level in this election.

People didn't vote for or against Obama or Bush in this election, except in the South they voted against Republicans.

[alexey]

Well, I haven't seen any evidence that Devil is interested in buying souls from politicians so I'm going to have to reject that idea (seems like it would be a waste of his money).

I imagine it to be more of an automated vending machine type transaction. You put your soul in, you get some power/money/priviledge out, then it all comes crashing down.

I am sorry but I am having a hard time figuring out what you're trying to say with the rest of your post. Are you trying to infer the main motivation behind people's voting one way or another? What if it's a combination of multiple things, and each one is strong enough to create the same effect on its own?

[Henry]

2. If you do a bad job, sure. If somebody that happens to be in the same party as you does a bad job, you get voted out. No.

Pete, now we're going to go off on huge tangents. My basic premise is that if the country is in the crapper, the party who controls all facets of government for most of the past decade is going to be held accountable. You disagree, and are now asking me for specifics. I can give you mine, but I'm sure everyone has their own reasons:

Post-2006 (as a party and even longer for some like McCain), it is hard to argue they were wrong on Iraq.

Unless you come to the conclusion that Iraq was unnecessary in the first place. Sure the surge worked, but our stated goals for going there in the first place were never met. No WMDS were ever found. A tactical victory does not excuse a strategic blunder.

Don't get me wrong. I supported Bush when he said we needed to go in and knock out Hussein. But I did with the caveat "you better know what you're doing." Here we are, six years later having spent trillions of dollars and the Taliban is running amok in Pakistan, Afganistan is widely considered a lost cause ... what did we win, exactly? The right to say we didn't get our butts kicked?

Bin Laden didn't attack the WTC to destroy America with conventional weapons. He did it to break us economically. Bush supporters often crow about how we haven't been attacked again since 9/11. That's great, but our economic back is breaking. Bush appears to have been fixated on winning the battle at the expense of the war, and his party was behind him the whole time.

Now, whether or not you agree with me is one thing, but the point here is the argument can certainly be made that the decisions of Bush, backed by the GOP, have put us in the precarious state in which we now find ourselves.

On economic policy, how was what they were proposing substantially different than the Dems to fix the melt down (both were pushing further defeciet spending at the leadership level)?

How were the Republicans more at fault than the Dems for the melt down (I don't want to start a debate. To say one party was substantially more wrong than the other to me is hard. Neither side was overly out there warning about the a housing bubble (yes there were some), neither were overly out there warning about goverment encouragement of said bubble, and I never heard a politician mention anything about regulating credit swaps.)

Even if you don't think lax regulation/oversight is the fault of the GOP, which is an arguable point I suppose, they spent 6 years rubber-stamping unprecedented deficit spending during an economic boom. And now that the economy is on the verge of collapse we are further in debt than we've ever been, so any further spending to stimulate our staggered economy is viewed with extreme trepidation (ironically, by the GOP). We're trying to fight recession with one hand tied behind our back and the GOP supplied the rope.

In 2008, the Republican party as a whole paid for Bush's unpopularity, which had built over his entire last term and not for being wrong on any given issue. There are never any perfect historical examples, but prior to 1980, there are no good examples of the same thing (except maybe Wilson in 1920).

In 2008, the GOP as a whole paid for an almost-unprecedented economic downturn. McCain was running pretty even with Obama until banks started failing right and left. Heck, when the crisis in Georgia broke out McCain was actually starting to pull ahead of Obama. I don't think 'lying' by the Dems had anything to do with them winning in '08. They just happened to be the protest vote, at the right place at the right time. And there's nothing unusual or crazy about that.

And Karl Rove, of all people, should understand that. I think he does, but he figures his readers don't.

[JMS]

I just think the GOP is proving over and over again how out of touch they are.

As polarizing as Obama is,

Wow!! That's quite a statement considering the folks he's upsetting the most are on the fringes of his own freaking party..

Has kept George Bush's Tribunals

I think that would be true if you said he's decided to use military tribunals as one in a set of five different tools to address the mess in Gitmo which Bush has left him with. Even so they aren't the same "military tribunals" bush conducted, because those have been slapped down twice in the US Supreme court. Obama is proposeing differnt rules of evidence and different standards of proof as well as more rights for the defendant... They aren't the "same military tribunals" and they won't be used across the board.

Failing to meet his deadlines

He hasn't failed to meet his deadline yet. Congress and the Senate have pooh poohed his deadline, but Obama reiterated it yesterday. It's not at all clear yet he will fail to close Gitmo.

Finally I would like to ADD that the GOP told us that Obama was the most liberal senater in the chamber when he was running for President. Just as they said it about Kerry before Obama. This knowing that one of the senators is a member of the socialist party!!! This is just another in a long line of mistruths spoken by the GOP. Obama has proven to not be a liberal, to not be an idealog at all. He's shown that he is a well organized pragmatist who has elected many conservatives and moderates to key positions throughout his administration. To the shock of the fringes of his own party, and really to the delite of the GOP. Trying to paint him as an extreamist or polarizing is just fantasy.

[SnyderShrugged]

Do you really think Obama is doing the same thing Bush was doing, and McCain would have been doing the same thing? Really?

I think a pretty good argument can be made for Obama not being an "establishment" candidate.

LOL!! I don't have to "think" it, the facts are right in front of us!

Where is there a significant difference in foreign policy, spending (except even more), or program expansion (again, even more) for both McCain and Obama?

Lets see, troops remain in the ME: Bush, McCain, Obama: check

Spending in exhorbitant levels: Bush, McCain, Obama: check

etc, etc, etc

Your take that President isnt an "establishment" canidate literally made me laugh out loud! (OLS!)

[GibbsFactor]

Wait, what's this thread about?

[alexey]

Where is there a significant difference in foreign policy, spending (except even more), or program expansion (again, even more) for both McCain and Obama?

Lets see, troops remain in the ME: Bush, McCain, Obama: check

Spending in exhorbitant levels: Bush, McCain, Obama: check

etc, etc, etc

Well yeah everything is the same if you generalize it like that.

All 3 have troops overseas? Sure. Are those troops doing the same thing in the context of the same foreign policy? Not really.

All 3 spend at "exhorbitant levels"? Sure. Are they spending on same things? Not really.

[SnyderShrugged]

Well yeah everything is the same if you generalize it like that.

All 3 have troops overseas? Sure. Are those troops doing the same thing in the context of the same foreign policy? Not really.

All 3 spend at "exhorbitant levels"? Sure. Are they spending on same things? Not really.

It's not really a generalization in light of the end results of such policies. If you truly desire to vote around semantics and forever ignore the core issues within these policies, go ahead. But in the end, a vote for any one of them results in the same tired mess we began with.