Again, what matters is policy. Obama sets that policy. He is firmly against torture, and he will get America out of Iraq. Why not judge him on that 4 or 8 years from now; I fully expect you back here to admit how wrong you were.
MORE Really Bad Obama Appointments: Rendition and Torture
- Thread starter blackascoal
- Start date
Again, what matters is policy. Obama sets that policy. He is firmly against torture, and he will get America out of Iraq. Why not judge him on that 4 or 8 years from now; I fully expect you back here to admit how wrong you were.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Didn't Bush (due to Iraqi demands) just agree to have the bulk of the troops out by 2011? Which I assume Obama would not hinder?
SF, Clinton never veered to the left. His first few months were tough because he took all his Arkansas people with him, and they didn't know the ropes. The insiders, or as I have seen them called, and I really think it best describes the idiots "the villagers" turned into Heathers, as they are wont to do, and that hurt him. The other thing that hurt him badly, was that he announced in a very off hand manner, before he was supposed to, that he was going to be tackling gays in the military. That was not supposed to go down that way. So clinton was not the polished politican we know today.
And a lot of liberals in the blogosphere are now convinced that Obama is stacking his team with center-right people, so that he can govern center-left and the center-right team will give him cover. I mean, this is just ludicrous and people need to wake up.
"SF, Clinton never veered to the left. His first few months were tough because he took all his Arkansas people with him, and they didn't know the ropes"
Darla - Clinton started his 1st term w/ gays in the military, and a massive, closed-door plan for universal healthcare that Congress & the country were not ready for.
And no, I am not agreeing with SF.
Darla - Clinton started his 1st term w/ gays in the military, and a massive, closed-door plan for universal healthcare that Congress & the country were not ready for.
And no, I am not agreeing with SF.
Onceler, he doesn't owe us shutting liberals out. And that's what he has done. If you think he doesn't owe the people who got him the nomination anything, then I think that you are being stubborn. To me, that's as foolish as saying he owes them everything. He doesn't owe them everything, and he doesn't owe them nothing. He owes them something. They should have a seat at the table.
Your points about policies are well-taken, and I do believe we are going to be getting health care, but I'm holding my breath on what it's going to look like.
And Sumners is just not an acceptable appointee. He should have never went there. That's Rubin you know. And rubin just took down citicorp, which they said coudln't be done, so can anyone explain to me why he carries such weight? I would really appreaciate it.
I would say that if he felt he had to put the Republican turned "independent" head of the NY Fed as treasury sect, then in order to have balance, the balance and differing views he swore he wanted, he swore he would demand, he should have put either Stiglitz or someone of that caliber in Sumner's spot. Unless by "differing viewpoints" he only meant center-right and far-right? Because if that's the case then a lot of people were bamboozled as i would say, or as Obama likes to say "sold the Okey doke".
The gays in the military was a flub on his part, not that he wanted to do it, but how he did it. Accidently. That was supposed to be rolled out, and certainly not first thing. That set things off really badly.
He totally fucked up health care, but was it too far left at the time? I don't know, I don't remember. maybe you are right about that one policy, at that particular time. But I think it still had far more to do with complete incompetence. I mean you are talking about the guy who had to take back not one, but two, attorney general nominations. Let's face it, he was just not wise to the ways of washington. Which is one of the biggest reasons, the sole reason really, why I don't consider bringing in outsiders to be the "change' anyone was looking for. It leads to things like Clinton's first two years.
Well, the reason the Republicans trounced the Dems in '94 - and I mean trounced, like, the most depressing day I've ever had politically - is because of the perception those 2 actions created: this is a far left admin, and we need a GOP Congress to check them.
Obama knows that lesson; it's not one we want to repeat if we want to lose Congress anytime soon. I understand what you're saying about a seat at the table, but he IS appointing liberals in other areas of his admin, and as far as economic policy goes, you should check what's being said about his proposal. It is the new New Deal. It doesn't matter to me if someone he is appointing to his team believed something else at a certain point in time; what matters is that they implement the vision that is being discussed faithfully & with gusto.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LOL... so the whole Hillary care thing never happened? Just our imagination?
What do you suppose led to the ass kicking that took place in 1994? The Dems tried to exert force by one party control over all three houses. It blew up in their face. Ironically, the Reps didn't learn from the Dems mistake and thus got their ass kicked in 2006 and again this year.
I will wait to see these liberals.
Well, one of the things that lead to it was the insurance lobbyists spending a lot of money to scare the American people out of universal health care, with things like the harry and louise commercials.
What you are overlooking, certainly by accident, is that the subsequent years, with millions and millions of americans losing their health care, or having to declare bankruptcy because the insurance they had didn't cover anything that could actually kill them, has taught America that this "far left" position was actually good sense. That's why, today, universal health care is a centrist position, and it's why you're getting it.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Not really.
Bush and his neocon horde have been pushing for a long term agreement which would keep US troops and bases in Iraq indefinately.
The Iraqis aren't buying it.
Obama has flipped and flopped on his Iraq position so much that in order to ascertain what it is you'd first have to find out what time of day it is.
If it's the primaries, he wants troops out by the end of 2008
If it's the general .. uhh, he doesn't know
Now elected, who knows .. but he plans to continue pushing Iraq, thraetening Russia, expanding the war in Afghanistan, and continue to invade the sovereignity of Pakistan.
Remember, his brain on foreign policy, Brezinski .. said there is no such thing as sovereignity.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Absolutely well said.
Getting our troops out of Iraq was also a "far left" positon .. then centrists picked up on it when the wind blew their way .. unfortunately hundreds of thousands of innocent dead people too goddamn late.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I'm afraid you don't get it.
Try this .. google "barack obama flip flops on XXXXX"
Fill in the X's with any issue you choose.
You have no idea what Obama supports or believes.
If I'm proven wrong after, not 4 or 8 years, but in the first 100 days, I'll apologize .. have the decency to do the same brother .. you have no idea what is going on with this government.
Right, and yet, no one ever says, gee the left is right about some shit, or as is more accurate, a lot of shit. No, the left is still "the far left nuts", and every time they are right, then the center, or the Chapdog "independents" coopt the left's postion and start acting as if it was a centrist position all along.
It just makes you feel like banging your head against the wall.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
right... gotcha... tell me... what was the percentage of the population that went uninsured in 1974? 1992?
Did you know that the percentage of uninsured Americans is about the same today as it was in 1992? I am guessing you didn't. Most liberals want to keep touting that "record NUMBERS are without health insurance".... they just tend to leave out that the population has increased in size over the same period.
Universal care is still not a good idea. We cannot even afford Medicare and Medicaid (which are around $30 TRILLION underfunded right now). Yet you want to start up yet another healthcare plan that will further crush future generations with payments for our greed.
Ha ha, I know how worried you were and are about this over the trillion dollars on Iraq!
Sorry, but another "leftist" position has been coopted by the chapdog Independents. You are getting Universal Health care!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The combat troops are indeed going to be withdrawn by 2011. THAT was the stipulation the IRAQI people put forth... so hard to say they 'aren't buying it'.
Yes, we will have bases there. Just as we do in Japan, Germany and about 100 other countries.
Well, the only difference will be that our solidiers will continue to get killed in Iraq, but yeah, six of one...