More 'Bush Cronies' in Obama Cabinet

[Cancel7]

Yes Duhla, let's not pretend John Fucking Kerry asked him to be his running mate in 2004!

Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways with me. You can have it both ways with a lot of the right here, and some of the left, but not with me.

Your claim is that people=policy. If that's true, then McCain's closest advisors on the economy (right wing nut Phil Graham) and on foreign policy (neocons) equal the policies he would have pursued, given the chance.

You can bamboozle those who have an agenda, whether it be right, or left, by tapdancing around and saying "people = policy with Obama" but "people don't = policy with McCain".

But not me.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

....yep, before he picked John Edwards, he asked John McCain to be his VP! ...That far-right-wing-wacko-neocon-John McCain! Amazing, but true!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh, and I never said "people=policy" that is your interpretation of what I said, for the record.

 

[Cancel7]

Oh, and I never said "people=policy" that is your interpretation of what I said, for the record.

Oh, so you disagree with bac and the righties on here who are saying that Obama's picks indicate a center-right policy, similar to what McCain's would have been?

Why haven't you said so, from your posts, I think they have the impression that you agree with them?

 

[Cancel7]

....yep, before he picked John Edwards, he asked John McCain to be his VP! ...That far-right-wing-wacko-neocon-John McCain! Amazing, but true!

I don't think Kerry ever asked, I think it was just reported that he was considering doing so. Which is probably true, because Kerry had no political backbone.

And McCain had done a superior PR job for many years, with the help of what he used to call "my base" - the media. He talked moderate and voted right wing. Amazingly, people actually just watch what you say, not what you do. I mean, Bush's approval ratings not cratering until his second term really prove that.

However, the voting records show that John McCain is a right wing con, and that Obama is at the very least, a centrist. I think you can make the case that his voting record is center-left.

So, what matters? Voting records, or the people you choose as your advisors? Why dont' you go on record with something Dixie, and stop all this tapdancing?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh, so you disagree with bac and the righties on here who are saying that Obama's picks indicate a center-right policy, similar to what McCain's would have been?

Why haven't you said so, from your posts, I think they have the impression that you agree with them?

I do agree with them, except for the "center right" part. Obama is a liberal, as are most democrats, as are most so-called moderates. Bush was a fiscal liberal and social conservative. McCain would have been more of a fiscal conservative and social liberal than Bush, I think. As for foreign policy, there isn't going to be a dimes worth of difference in the three, Obama, McCain, and Bush are all about the same, if you go by the cabinet Obama picked.

I think your problem is, you try to read too much into what I post. I said, you can tell a lot about policy by the players. That doesn't mean "people=policy."

It's quite a stretch to think Obama's policies will be radically different from the policy positions of his cabinet. Unless he just likes to be surrounded by political in-fighting and turmoil within his own cabinet, it wouldn't make much logical sense for him to pick a cabinet opposed to his planned policies.

 

[Cancel7]

I do agree with them, except for the "center right" part. Obama is a liberal, as are most democrats, as are most so-called moderates. Bush was a fiscal liberal and social conservative. McCain would have been more of a fiscal conservative and social liberal than Bush, I think. As for foreign policy, there isn't going to be a dimes worth of difference in the three, Obama, McCain, and Bush are all about the same, if you go by the cabinet Obama picked.

I think your problem is, you try to read too much into what I post. I said, you can tell a lot about policy by the players. That doesn't mean "people=policy."

It's quite a stretch to think Obama's policies will be radically different from the policy positions of his cabinet. Unless he just likes to be surrounded by political in-fighting and turmoil within his own cabinet, it wouldn't make much logical sense for him to pick a cabinet opposed to his planned policies.

I asked if you disagreed with bac and the posters on the right who claim that Obama's picks indicate a center-right agenda, and you say you agree with them, except for the center-right part? So you agree with them that Obama's picks indicate an agenda, but are unwilling to go on record with what kind of agenda?

The guy hasn't taken office yet. There are appointments of his I'd change, but I am not prescient enough to yet know what kind of agenda he's going to pursue. It's true that Bush surrounded himself with ideologues and then let them set policy, but bush is not an intellectual heavy-weight. It does not follow that Obama will do the same.

And that's not your biggest problem. Your biggest problem is the complete, catastrophic, implosion of right wing ideology, and what it has done to this country. That, in itself, is going to preclude a center-right agenda. Worst case scenerio is we get a centrist policy, and Obama fails to move the center back to the left (because the right did suceed in moving it righward for decades).

And that's really the worst case scenerio. Not something I'd be happy with because it precludes things like sentencing and prison reform, and perhaps, single payer (though that may come as a natural progression of Obama's current health care plan). It will kill any chance of ending the war on terror. But i don't live in crankworld, I live in realworld, and in the real world, America was never going to end its war on terror, because Americans love war. they just don't like getting bloodied in their wars. And they don't like to have to pay for them. so make them short, make them murderous, genocidal even, for the other side, but with few casualities on our side, and America will stand, waive a flag, and cheer. That's who we are.

However, you are not going to like any of it, and the far right, as represented by bush, are done for quite a number of years.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So you agree with them that Obama's picks indicate an agenda, but are unwilling to go on record with what kind of agenda?

Oh, I went on record, you just misinterpreted what I said. I think his foreign policy will not be drastically different than Bush's, or much different than McCain's might have been. What course the War on Terror takes, depends largely on whether we have another terrorist attack, which is probably more likely under a liberal administration, because that is precisely what enabled the one on 9/11. Clinton's failure to address the growing threat of Islamofascism, is exactly what lead to the events of 9/11, and nothing you can ever say will convince me otherwise.

As for Conservatism, it's not dead, not by a long shot. You can think whatever you like, it suits me fine if you want to believe that bullshit, because you will find out soon enough.

 

[Cancel7]

Oh, I went on record, you just misinterpreted what I said. I think his foreign policy will not be drastically different than Bush's, or much different than McCain's might have been. What course the War on Terror takes, depends largely on whether we have another terrorist attack, which is probably more likely under a liberal administration, because that is precisely what enabled the one on 9/11. Clinton's failure to address the growing threat of Islamofascism, is exactly what lead to the events of 9/11, and nothing you can ever say will convince me otherwise.

As for Conservatism, it's not dead, not by a long shot. You can think whatever you like, it suits me fine if you want to believe that bullshit, because you will find out soon enough.

By your reasoning, Bush Sr's failures enabled the first attack on the WTC, which took place in February, when Clinton had only been in office for one month, and not the eight months Bush Jr had been in office for when the 9/11 attacks took place, and for which the historical record now shows he received warnings that Clinton never got the first time around.

Again, you can't have it both ways, no matter how many temper tantrums you throw. Sorry.

 

[Onceler]

"As for Conservatism, it's not dead, not by a long shot. You can think whatever you like, it suits me fine if you want to believe that bullshit, because you will find out soon enough. "

You have no idea what's about to happen, do you? You'll all see!

Sarah Barracuda!!!!

 

[blackascoal]

What do you want Obama to do about Iraq? Go back in time and end the war a year ago? He ran on withdrawal within 16 months, and he is still saying that, even though the Bush adminstration is as far as I know, going by the Iraqi plan of withdrawal by 2011. Which would make them two different plans, and not the same one as Dixie is claiming.

But be that as it may, this war has dragged on for, soon to be, six years now. It's been winding down because the Iraqis want us out. Obama can't go back in time and end it sooner. There's nothing more he can do on that front.

It doesn't make any difference what Obama, McCain, or Bush may or may not have done with Iraq. The Iraqis are calling the shots now and 2011 is the end date no matter who the US president is.

Iraq is not the problem.

As for his revealing his center-right positions during the primary, again, we'd have to define the center. I don't see how the man who never ran on withdrawing from Afghanistan, and who even on the very day he gave his speech against attacking Iraq, made it very clear that "I'm not against all war, I'm against this war", tricked anybody.

During the primaries he said he would bring US troops home by the end of 2008, he was against the Patriot Act, against FISA and illegal wiretapping by the government, against declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, would seek new ways to peace in the middle east, would talk to leaders we don't like without preconditions, and would end the mindset that took us to Iraq .. among lots of other things he flip-flopped on once securing the nomination.

There is no mystery why many took him at his word and saw him as a man of peace. The point I made about Iraq is it would be foolish to believe he would have voted against the resolution had he been in office .. evidenced by virtually everything he's done since the primaries. He simply used the antiwar faction to become the president.

All of that given, events are moving faster than any person could. The right wing ideology has suffered such a crushing failure on all fronts, that the theory that the center will naturally move to the left, may be right. And I think that Obama is a centrist. Maybe the best we get is universal health care, out of Iraq, regulation of the financial industries, a labor dept that is not a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate america, and no new wars.

One would hope that is the least Americans can get .. however, I don't believe universal healthcare will get passed, there is no choice on Iraq, who do you think financed more than half of Obama's fundraising fortune .. Wall Street, and get ready for Iraqistan .. which surely you can see coming.

John McCain would not have made these appointments. Even some of the economic appointments, which could be considered center-right. (honestly, I don't like his economic team for the most part) However, John McCain's biggest advisor on economics was Phil Graham, and his foreign policy advisors were bush neocons, so let's not revise history and pretend that John McCain was the "moderate" that the right right wing noise machine tries to brainwash us into thinking he was. That is how they keep moving the center to the right. There is little doubt that we could be living in a situation right now where wingnut Phil Graham was the incoming Treasury Sect., and then you can call it a day, because there would be no hope. We'd be third world within four years, and living like it. Many of the low income idiots who waive flags and voted for McCain would be dead from starvation. They're the lowest on the food chain in this country, but too stupid to know it.

John McCain was no fucking moderate, and no one advising him was any fucking moderate, and we have no reason to believe that he was going to pick anyone other than the lunatic right Grahams and neocons for his appointments.

My argument is not that McCain is any better than Obama, but rather that McCain couldn't have gone to the toliet without democratic permission. My argument is that McCain couldn't have gotten us into anywars the democrats didn't approve of .. but Obama has no such impediment .. in fact, republicans are becoming his biggest fans.

I expect Obama will have more opposition from the left than the right.

 

[Cancel7]

It doesn't make any difference what Obama, McCain, or Bush may or may not have done with Iraq. The Iraqis are calling the shots now and 2011 is the end date no matter who the US president is.

Iraq is not the problem.



During the primaries he said he would bring US troops home by the end of 2008, he was against the Patriot Act, against FISA and illegal wiretapping by the government, against declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, would seek new ways to peace in the middle east, would talk to leaders we don't like without preconditions, and would end the mindset that took us to Iraq .. among lots of other things he flip-flopped on once securing the nomination.

There is no mystery why many took him at his word and saw him as a man of peace. The point I made about Iraq is it would be foolish to believe he would have voted against the resolution had he been in office .. evidenced by virtually everything he's done since the primaries. He simply used the antiwar faction to become the president.



One would hope that is the least Americans can get .. however, I don't believe universal healthcare will get passed, there is no choice on Iraq, who do you think financed more than half of Obama's fundraising fortune .. Wall Street, and get ready for Iraqistan .. which surely you can see coming.



My argument is not that McCain is any better than Obama, but rather that McCain couldn't have gone to the toliet without democratic permission. My argument is that McCain couldn't have gotten us into anywars the democrats didn't approve of .. but Obama has no such impediment .. in fact, republicans are becoming his biggest fans.

I expect Obama will have more opposition from the left than the right.

Bac he could not have possibly said he would have the troops home by the end of 2008, when he knew he wouldn't be taking office until 2009. I think he always had this 16 month time table, because I always remember thinking "that's too long". he did say he would "begin" to bring the troops home in 2009, but it was always going to be a long process, according to him.

For the rest: he was against the Patriot Act, against FISA and illegal wiretapping by the government, against declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, would seek new ways to peace in the middle east, would talk to leaders we don't like without preconditions, and would end the mindset that took us to Iraq .. among lots of other things he flip-flopped on once securing the nomination.

The only thing I know of that he flipped on from the above, is FISA.

I am going to wait until he actually takes office before I pass a final judgement. It's one thing to express an opinion on what his appointments might mean, it's another thing to declare his Presidency written in stone, as if it has already occurred.

I know the right is rooting against him. It's why people like Damo and Annie and others love you now. They are very much hoping for a failed presidency, even at the cost of damage to their own country.

But as for me, I'll wait and see, and give it a chance. I certainly hope for the best. I always have, even when Bush took office, though I didn't have high hopes considering that I was in the unfortunate position of knowing his record and his ideology. But I waited.

 

[blackascoal]

Bac he could not have possibly said he would have the troops home by the end of 2008, when he knew he wouldn't be taking office until 2009. I think he always had this 16 month time table, because I always remember thinking "that's too long". he did say he would "begin" to bring the troops home in 2009, but it was always going to be a long process, according to him.

For the rest: he was against the Patriot Act, against FISA and illegal wiretapping by the government, against declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, would seek new ways to peace in the middle east, would talk to leaders we don't like without preconditions, and would end the mindset that took us to Iraq .. among lots of other things he flip-flopped on once securing the nomination.

The only thing I know of that he flipped on from the above, is FISA.

I am going to wait until he actually takes office before I pass a final judgement. It's one thing to express an opinion on what his appointments might mean, it's another thing to declare his Presidency written in stone, as if it has already occurred.

I know the right is rooting against him. It's why people like Damo and Annie and others love you now. They are very much hoping for a failed presidency, even at the cost of damage to their own country.

But as for me, I'll wait and see, and give it a chance. I certainly hope for the best. I always have, even when Bush took office, though I didn't have high hopes considering that I was in the unfortunate position of knowing his record and his ideology. But I waited.

I misspoke .. he didn't say HE would bring the troops home by 2008, but that Bush should.

Obama's New Iraq Plan: Troops Out by End of 2008

Sen. Barack Obama is unveiling a new plan for Iraq in Iowa today. Huffington Post has received an advance copy of his speech and posted excerpts.

This one is curious.

"Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now. We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year." (my emphasis.)

Didn't Obama, just two months ago , call for all troops to be out of Iraq by April 30, 2008?

“It’s time to set a hard date to signal a new mission in Iraq and to begin to bring our troops home. It’s time to ensure that we complete the change in mission and the drawdown of our forces, by the end of April 2008 – a date that is consistent with the date in my plan back in January.”

Why is he now extending that to the end of 2008?
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/9/12/13551/3214

I can understand your "wait and see" approach .. but I have a daughter in the military and I have no such luxury. I do not want her to die in Iraqistan and Obama being black offers no solace to that thought .. in fact, his being black makes it all the worse.

I think Damo and Annie see the same things you, I, and many others saw in George Bush. I see many of the same dangers in Obama.

 

[Cancel7]

I misspoke .. he didn't say HE would bring the troops home by 2008, but that Bush should.

Obama's New Iraq Plan: Troops Out by End of 2008

Sen. Barack Obama is unveiling a new plan for Iraq in Iowa today. Huffington Post has received an advance copy of his speech and posted excerpts.

This one is curious.

"Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now. We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year." (my emphasis.)

Didn't Obama, just two months ago , call for all troops to be out of Iraq by April 30, 2008?

“It’s time to set a hard date to signal a new mission in Iraq and to begin to bring our troops home. It’s time to ensure that we complete the change in mission and the drawdown of our forces, by the end of April 2008 – a date that is consistent with the date in my plan back in January.”

Why is he now extending that to the end of 2008?
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/9/12/13551/3214

I can understand your "wait and see" approach .. but I have a daughter in the military and I have no such luxury. I do not want her to die in Iraqistan and Obama being black offers no solace to that thought .. in fact, his being black makes it all the worse.

I think Damo and Annie see the same things you, I, and many others saw in George Bush. I see many of the same dangers in Obama.

I do not. Nor do I believe they do, since they never considered Bush a danger. They're just out for payback and a retaking of power.

 

[evince]

Things change , like the conditions that would allow them to be pulled out safely by Dec 30th.

 

[blackascoal]

I do not. Nor do I believe they do, since they never considered Bush a danger. They're just out for payback and a retaking of power.

I don't get into the "good cop, bad cop" game of useless politics democrats and republicans play. I simply call it as I see it irrespective of party affiliation.

I see the exact same dangers of Bush in Obama because both of them have their strings pulled by the exact same puppetmasters.

It's interesting watching Obama pull democrats over to the dark side. Their support of Obama now makes them supportive of illegal wiretapping and spying by the government, the Patriot Act, "collateral damage", a cabinet member who thinks women are genetically stupid and non-white life is worthless, and the invasion of sovereign nations.

Soon aftr he takes office, the body bags will be coming home with his name on them .. and those who supported him .. no differently than Bush and those who supported him.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's interesting watching Obama pull democrats over to the dark side. Their support of Obama now makes them supportive of illegal wiretapping and spying by the government, the Patriot Act, "collateral damage", a cabinet member who thinks women are genetically stupid and non-white life is worthless, and the invasion of sovereign nations.

I said back when Kerry was running against Bush, it might be the best thing that could happen for the War on Terror, for a Democrat to win. At least we get the pinheads on the right side of the war, instead of fighting against America. Because if Kerry, Obama, Hillary, etc., say we must do this or that, the pinheads will suddenly accept it and go along with it, as long as it's Bush saying it, they are going to throw fits.

It's interesting how I was absolutely right about that. Now that Obama is going to be president, with practically a supermajority in Congress, watch how things change with regard to perspectives about the War on Terror. Our policies and actions will not be much different, only those in power have changed, and it will make all the difference in the world to the left. Hell, Micheal Moore might actually do a real patriotic movie, before it's all said and done.

 

[Cancel7]

I don't get into the "good cop, bad cop" game of useless politics democrats and republicans play. I simply call it as I see it irrespective of party affiliation.

I see the exact same dangers of Bush in Obama because both of them have their strings pulled by the exact same puppetmasters.

It's interesting watching Obama pull democrats over to the dark side. Their support of Obama now makes them supportive of illegal wiretapping and spying by the government, the Patriot Act, "collateral damage", a cabinet member who thinks women are genetically stupid and non-white life is worthless, and the invasion of sovereign nations.

Soon aftr he takes office, the body bags will be coming home with his name on them .. and those who supported him .. no differently than Bush and those who supported him.

Yeah, I don't support any of those things...but I never thought anyone was getting us out of Iraq within a matter of a couple of months. Even Edwards didn't say that, and Kucinich never could have delivered it. And anyone who thought otherwise was naive at best.

For now, again, I'll wait till he actually takes office and does something before I start making grandious moral prouncements and passing judgement on others.

 

[Cancel7]

I said back when Kerry was running against Bush, it might be the best thing that could happen for the War on Terror, for a Democrat to win. At least we get the pinheads on the right side of the war, instead of fighting against America. Because if Kerry, Obama, Hillary, etc., say we must do this or that, the pinheads will suddenly accept it and go along with it, as long as it's Bush saying it, they are going to throw fits.

It's interesting how I was absolutely right about that. Now that Obama is going to be president, with practically a supermajority in Congress, watch how things change with regard to perspectives about the War on Terror. Our policies and actions will not be much different, only those in power have changed, and it will make all the difference in the world to the left. Hell, Micheal Moore might actually do a real patriotic movie, before it's all said and done.

You know what's interesting to me?

How much you and bac sound alike. And how sure you both are that you are in the position to foresee future events, and evalute other people's thoughts, none of which you are even privy to.

 

[Onceler]

"Our policies and actions will not be much different"

Give me an f'in break. Our policies will be completely different; the Bush doctrine is DEAD. We're not going w/ the sledgehammer approach anymore.

We'll know in 3-4 months. At that time, you can come back and try to flail wildly as you "spin" how you were right once again, even though our foreign policy & actions against terror will bear no resemblence to the Bush admin whatsoever.