So, back to some controversial political talk...
If I was a liberal, would I be upset? Yes. When people don't live up to their promises I usually don't trust them. Sounds like many of the promises Obama ran on during his campaign are morphing into something more, shall we say the word?, conservative. Is he going to pull out the troops within 3 months? NO! Is he going to raise taxes and smoke out the "rich"? No! Is he going to close down the Guantanamo prison? NO!
Ya know... it's like being a nurse. When you only understand half the picture, and then you start thinking, you start to think you are pretty smart. Don't get offended here nurses. I love you to death. Without you, hospitals wouldn't function or exist. We all know doctors are incapable of doing all the rigorous work you do. However, I can tell you on several accounts, that if I followed the advice of a nurse on big decisions, the patient would be put in harms way. The same exists everywhere. Just as nurses aren't in the know about everything going on behind the scenes, nor are we as citizens or political candidates in the grand scheme of world events.
We would like to think that GW Bush owned all the oil stock and thus the reason we are in the middle east. Or is it because due to the hang ups, our country would fail if we didn't have the stuff? Or is it because if things aren't controlled over there many more towers would be in a heap of rubble with many casualties? Sure, Bush made several mistakes in office, but he stuck to his guns on what he believed. And thus, if he says something, I tend to believe it. I disagree on his illegal immigrant stance, but I respect him for it. That's the difference between him and Obama. Don't get me wrong here thouth, I'm glad Obama is coming to the conservative side of some issues now that he has access to more complete information, but he sways like a long green twig in the wind. I just hope he surrounds himself with some level headed informants.
Maybe Obama is actually a Republican. After all, now it's not the REPUBLICANS that are spending our way to a China takeover. He will be spending more than any other president, and doing it speedily in his first term. It will be nice to tell our grandchildren how lucky they are because their dollars will help repay the debt we caused by letting these jokers exercise their governmental powers.
16 comments:
This is pretty much standard practice for a president. Ever since the days of Andrew Jackson, presidents have campaigned to their base and then once in office swing to the center. Obama is simply following tradition. To be honest, I am quite pleased with things thus far. I realize he is yet to even be inaugurated, but so far he has become a centrist (which is VERY pleasing to a moderate like me).
I can recall how even Reagan pandered like mad to the "Moral Majority" and the other ultra-conservative interest groups during his run for the White House. Once in office, however, he too became more of a centrist.
Being a centrist is almost a requirement for the president. It is virtually the only way things can get done. Any president worth his salt realizes this. The ones that don't (Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Richard Nixon, etc.) are the ones that end up having serious problems and falling flat on their face (much to the amusement of the American people might I add).
Now, of course Obama is going to be more democratic than republican, and I can't blame him. To the victor goes the spoils I guess. However, kudos to him for seeing the value of a centrist position. I'm happy with his choice to keep Robert Gates as Sec. of Defense. This was smart. I also like his decision to invite Rick Warren to give the prayer at the inauguration. It lost him a lot of points from the libs, but gained him some respect from the conservos.
Either way this goes, presidents are an interesting breed. They get more credit than they deserve when things go right AND too much scorn when things are bad. It is in how they choose to handle the highs and lows that really makes the difference, and I for one am excited to see how Obama shapes up during these next four years.
BTW, check out the POLITICS FIX blog, where we discuss the historical impact of presidents from Washington to Bush.
Ummmm Richard. Bush lied SEVERAL times during the past 8 years. Even his own party has acknowledged this. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? He sat in an interview on CNN during the Olympics and said that the economy is great and doesn't have a problem, then turned around months later and said we were in one of the worst financial states in US history. Honestly, I love your loyalty to your party, but is there any room for you to see that both sides are flawed and look at things from more of a central view? Believe no one and trust no one in politics. Judge only by actions and not reactions. Be hopeful, but not blind. Your die hard loyalty and rationalizations for the man who screwed up the US is almost cute. :) I can't WAIT to meet you in person. I have been telling Debbie we need to get out there. You will need to have several days off of work because we will need every waking moment to talk. lol (A break for sleep will be allow depending on your progress.)
I agree with both Richard and Brad...not sure how Lisa came to her conclusion because it seems to be more of a rant about Richard's "die hard loyalty and rationalizations for the man who screwed up the US". Even though he clearly stated that Bush made mistakes too. I think his point was that Bush was honest about them.
Anyway, I think the more you know the better decisions you make. And obviously once you become a president, all that info you are now privy to, helps you make decisions on the big picture. I'm also excited to see the changes he implements and I'm encouraged by his appointments thus far.
As for the spending...it seems that every president spent more than his predecessor.
I think there is going to be a huge push (now or later) for Obama's face on money.... We'll just see if it's on coins or bills.
Jenn writes:
"I think there is going to be a huge push (now or later) for Obama's face on money.... We'll just see if it's on coins or bills."
Well, I am all for changing the faces on money every 70 years or so. I think we are due. Now, does Obama deserve his face on money? I don't know. Certainly he is a historic president, but that shouldn't give a person an automatic right to his/her face on money. If I were going to redo the money, this is who I would have on it:
The Penny: Let's keep Lincoln. He's a legend.
The Nickle: Jefferson stays.
The Dime: Again, FDR stays.
The Quarter Washington stays. He's the last that sould be removed.
The 50 cent pieceI'll go with
Dollar Bill Again, Washington, but he is the only one who should be on two forms of currency.
$5I'm gonna go with Martin Luther King for this one.
$10Sorry Hamilton, but I am for putting Dwight D. Eisenhower here.
$20 Bye bye, Jackson. He needs to go. In fact, there are a number of Indian tribes that want to see Jackson go (Trail of Tears is a powerful reason). So, how about replacing Jackson with a Native American...maybe someone like Crazy Horse, Pocahontas or Sacagawea.
$50 I see no reason why we should keep Ulysses Grant on here. Yes, he was an important general in the Civil War (important, but not essential), but he wasn't that great of a president. How about putting OPRAH...just kidding...how about Thomas Edison or Susan B. Anthony.
$100 Oh, Benjamin stays...no doubt!!!
Oops...I never said who should go on the 50 cent piece. How about a wild card...someone like Neil Armstrong!
Naw Brad,
I think Fiddy Cent should be on the 50 cent. It would show America has it's priorities right in line with the people's. :)
Oh, Lisa...I'm shaking my head right now...
Loyalty to my party? I guess the Republicans share some of my points of views. It's like choosing to hang out with a thief who admits it or one whom you know is a thief yet denies it even when he's just taken your favorite pair of pants and is wearing them.
WMD's. Lets put you in Bush's shoes for a second...
Let's say your eyes and ears are the CIA, FBI, etc. All of a sudden ALL of them are telling you, hey, I swear on my mothers life that Saddam has WMD's, and is full set on using them on US citizens. (Okay, the latter part is a no-brainer since everyone knew his intentions thanks to his broadcasted ego). So, what would you do?
What happens when a 4 year old gets caught in between two fighting dogs who care nothing more than to tear each other apart? She ends up on my operating table. The correlation here parallels what "talks" will do to a dog like Saddam H. If you don't believe he is such, just watch the History channel documentary about the guy...that is, if you want to vomit in your mouth from the atrocities he caused. I can't even mention them, because it sickens me to this day.
I digress...Yes, no one president has been perfect, just some better than others. I support those with integrity. I HOPE B. Obama comes with such stuff.
bRichard writes:
"Naw Brad,
I think Fiddy Cent should be on the 50 cent. It would show America has it's priorities right in line with the people's. :)"
Oh now you've gone and done it! A major can of worms has been opened!!! So, with that in mind, here are the faces on money according to America's current priorities:
Penny Oprah
Nickle A gay pride banner with Ellen Degeneres on the front.
Dime The entire cast of The Real World.
Quarter Simon, Paula and Randy from American Idol
50 Cent Richard is right...Fiddy Cent has to go here
$1 Any crazy Evangelical minister. Pat Robertson comes to mind.
$5 Any crazy Hollywood actor/actress. Take your pick, but they have to be one of those political freaks who eats only vegan foods to save our planet!
$10 Any of the numerous nut-job conservative talk show hosts. I would be for Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, or Lavin
$20 Cartman from South Park
$50 Larry the Cable Guy
$100 A teacher having sex with his/her student.
I need to send you a video from PBS that outlines the lies and evilness of Bush's VP. You will never convince me that Bush did not KNOW he was full of crap. All of the greed and messed up politics you mention did the most damage under BUSH in the last eight years. This has been the worst adnimistration in American history. Look around you. The crap we are swimming in now is a direct result of the past eight years of Bush.
Jenn - you MUST be joking that Bush was honest about his mistakes. He refused to allow for flexability thus resulting in all of our problems now. He refused to acknowledge his mistakes until he already had one foot out of the door of the white house. I'm not saying he was a bad guy, just a bad president. :)
Lisa, yes we need to get together. Maybe come spring we can work something out.
That was hilarious!! Mary Letourneau comes to mind for the teacher/student sex one.
You know, no matter what anyone says, I think Bush has been a great president and has really done his best and lead us through a really rough time (even if times are rougher). And we all know that (as prophesied) the times are only going to get harder....
Jennerator writes:
"You know, no matter what anyone says, I think Bush has been a great president and has really done his best and lead us through a really rough time (even if times are rougher)."
OOOH...I think you are showing your Republican allegiance on that one. To be honest, I don't agree with those that are sickened with "Bush Derangement Syndrome," (i.e. the belief that Bush is the worst president of all-time). However, I think it is a BIIIIIG stretch to call him a "great president." I think of Bush as a Rutherford B. Hayes type president. He's not in the top 10 or the bottom 10...but he's closer to the bottom 10 than to the top echelon of presidents.
Maybe I should say this differently...from the presidents I remember in my lifetime, I think he's great.
By the way, weapons of mass destruction are just that. Massively destructive. Chemical and Biological included. Saddam used mustard gas and nerve agents (biological and chemical). He even tested them on his own people and used them frequently in the Iraq-Iran war. So WMD? Uh...yeah (even if he hid them pretty darn well, there's no dispute).
Jennerator writes:
"Saddam used mustard gas and nerve agents (biological and chemical). He even tested them on his own people and used them frequently in the Iraq-Iran war."
Yes, you are 100% right. But what did we do back when he used those weapons??? NOTHING. Why??? Because he was "keeping the peace" in the region, and after all, that is why WE helped to put him in power to begin with.
Iraq is a textbook case of how modern politics can come back to bite you. During the 70s and 80s, Iraq was much as it is today, a religious plurality that was constantly fighting with itself. To "bottle up" the fighting, the U.S., along with most European powers, sought a hard-fisted leader who would oppress the religious fighting of the time. Saddam was a natural choice. He was, after all, not a devout Muslim (in reality, he was a "Jack-Muslim), who saw religious freedom as nothing but a hindrance. His gassing of the Kurds was to silence the outbreak of religious fanaticism, and it worked. Iraq was quickly subdued and religious expression was silenced. Once Saddam was removed from office, it was like removing a cork from a bottle. All of the religious expression that had been silenced was unleashed.
So, we can talk all we want about how Saddam was a bad dude (and he most certainly was) but let's not forget that we did NOTHING to stop the gassing, etc. After all, at that time, he was our "buddy."
I agree with you 100%!
Yes,Brad, I think Hollywood depicted that American problem quite well and almost in a slapstick fashion in the latest James Bond movie.
You had the American CIA agents in cahoots with the evil French guy (I think he was french), out to kill Bond because he was getting in the way of things.
It didn't work for the Romans, nor for the British and their Russian hired thugs you told me about. HIred mercenaries to keep the peace always seem to make things worse.
Post a Comment