04 Aug 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonHas Obama specifically mentioned Bush by name, or has he simply pointed out the state of the country at time he took over? Doing so is a completely valid point. Things don't magically change over night. It takes months or even years depending on the problem and the severity.
I under stand what you are saying.Personally, Bush upset me w/many of his polices ,as well.When he was in office (or any other President I recall) did not bring up the prior administration as a scape goat.Obama and his followers constantly do this.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe topic is Obama and his administration,not Bush.that is my point.
Has Obama specifically mentioned Bush by name, or has he simply pointed out the state of the country at time he took over? Doing so is a completely valid point. Things don't magically change over night. It takes months or even years depending on the problem and the severity.
04 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by bill718Come on man!! The left pointed out over and over again it was because of forieign oil. So what are we doing about our dependence on foriegn oil I wonder? That's right, NOTHING!! And as far as Iraq goes, guess what, we are still there!!
Ask Bush! I'm not a mind reader.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonI welcome the comparisons. It is when you compare Bush and Obama you have the oppurtunity to show how much alike they actually are.
Its the same old tactic of the left. When ever you point out a grievance about Obama they pull out the "Bush card". Its getting tiresome. I had someone bring up Bush Senior today as a rebuttal to Obama renigging on a campaign promise.
To get back to the OP,it is very confusing.The mixed messages.He needs to use his community organizing skills on his ...[text shortened]... t.
The old saying comes to mind, "what a tangled web we weave......"
You know the rest.🙂
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by whodeyObama has done NOTHING about our dependence of foreign oil or just things that you disagree with?
Come on man!! The left pointed out over and over again it was because of forieign oil. So what are we doing about our dependence on foriegn oil I wonder? That's right, NOTHING!! And as far as Iraq goes, guess what, we are still there!!
We're still in Iraq because Padora's box has already been opened. If Obama just immediately withdrew all troops at lightning speed you'd be getting on him for being irresponsible. But now that he's leaving responsibly it's, "if you disagreed with the war why are we still there?" You'd pretty much criticize him on Iraq no matter what. Am I wrong?
04 Aug 09
2 edits
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperNo. You're right. An immediate withdrawal would have been disastrous. An orderly withdrawal, giving all of you time to make sure things stay stabilized as you withdraw makes much more sense.
Obama has done NOTHING about our dependence of foreign oil or just things that you disagree with?
We're still in Iraq because Padora's box has already been opened. If Obama just immediately withdrew all troops at lightning speed you'd be getting on him for being irresponsible. But now that he's leaving responsibly it's, "if you disagreed with t ...[text shortened]... are we still there?" You'd pretty much criticize him on Iraq no matter what. Am I wrong?
The point is though, why does every critique of Obama have to turn into "Well, Bush lied about Iraq."? Whatever Bush did wrong, it doesn't give Obama a license to do anything he wants, as long as it's not more wrong than the worst thing Bush did.
The point of this thread is that the Obama White House seems like it's in disarray right now. The Geithner and Summers comments might not have been necessarily that there WILL be a middle class tax hike, but it was a clear equivocation on a key campaign pledge. It was so clear that they had to repudiate it the next day. In the last few weeks, the Obama White House (including the President) has shown a startling inability to stay on point and to maintain internal discipline and party discipline in Congress. The fact that the Blue Dogs came out with their own independent statement in the healthcare bill shows poor back room management and negotiation.
There's still plenty of time to turn this thing around, especially if the economy recovers (as it's looking more and more like it might do so soon). But right now, the Dems might be headed for a mini-1994.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76I think total disarray is a gross exaggeration, especially in this case.
No. You're right. An immediate withdrawal would have been disastrous. An orderly withdrawal, giving all of you time to make sure things stay stabilized as you withdraw makes much more sense.
The point is though, why does every critique of Obama have to turn into "Well, Bush lied about Iraq."? Whatever Bush did wrong, it doesn't give Obama a license to do any ...[text shortened]... more like it might do so soon). But right now, the Dems might be headed for a mini-1994.
The treasurey secretary rightfully did not close the door on any options since you never know what you might deal with in the future. When some in the media read too much into his words he reiterated that Obama is still committed to the middle class tax cuts that were passed.
You want frankly spoken language but when it's given Obama's adminitration gets tarred and feathered.
Mind you, there are some examples of a failier to keep a tight rope. Remember the NYC flyover? Or half the time when Biden opens his mouth, but come on. That's Biden. There are fair criticisms but I don't think total disarray is a fair description.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76Isn't that just a least worst option strategy, and instead of leadership wouldn't that be a bit like being led by poll driven sheep?
The point is though, why does every critique of Obama have to turn into "Well, Bush lied about Iraq."? Whatever Bush did wrong, it doesn't give Obama a license to do anything he wants, as long as it's not more wrong than the worst thing Bush did.
04 Aug 09
2 edits
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI said "disarray," not "total disarray." That's a subtle difference, but an important one.
I think total disarray is a gross exaggeration, especially in this case.
The treasurey secretary rightfully did not close the door on any options since you never know what you might deal with in the future. When some in the media read too much into his words he reiterated that Obama is still committed to the middle class tax cuts that were pass t's Biden. There are fair criticisms but I don't think total disarray is a fair description.
You can defend the Geithner and Summers comments if you like, but the White House felt the need to strongly repudiate them. Obviously, the White House doesn't think those comments were very smart. If they had to do it again, I don't think they would have made those comments.
I do want frankly spoken language; not flip-flops. The comments and the repudiation of said comments were a flip-flop. Not by Obama himself, but by his White House.
On the positive side, at least he didn't say "I voted for the middle class tax hike before I voted against it." 😉
04 Aug 09
1 edit
One thing that bothered me about the comments was the wimpish tone of them -- it was like they were constantly glancing at some poll-meter after every two words, ready to instantly change their phrasing if some warning light suddenly went on.
When these people go on the air, they need to know exactly what they want to say and say it like the really mean it. If they aren't sure, they shouldn't show their faces in public until you ARE sure. I think this is one reason why people are developing doubts about Obama's policies.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76I think we're just disagreeing about the intended meaning, not the words themselves.
I said disarray, not total disarray. That's a subtle difference, but an important one.
You can defend the Geithner and Summers comments if you like, but the White House felt the need to strongly repudiate them. Obviously, the White House doesn't think those comments were very smart. If they had to do it again, I don't think they would have made those comment ...[text shortened]... least he didn't say "I voted for the middle class tax hike before I voted against it." 😉
It's kind of like when Obama was trying to make the case for more troops in Afghanistan and he said something like, "We need more troops there because all we're doing now is air raiding villiages and killing civilians and it's causing lots of problems there"
The real message was that, with the lack of troops, we're having to rely too heavily on air power and it was causing problems. This directly mirrored Commander of Allied Forces at the time said.
Like Obama the Treasurey Secretary had a poor choice of words.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesI don't know if he has a new one now, but Obama's first Press Secretary was horrible. I haven't heard if he's "resigned" yet.
One thing that bothered me about the comments was the wimpish tone of them -- it was like they were constantly glancing at some poll-meter after every two words, ready to instantly change their phrasing if some warning light suddenly went on.
When these people go on the air, they need to know exactly what they want to say and say it like the really mea ...[text shortened]... ARE sure. I think this is one reason why people are developing doubts about Obama's policies.