U.S. Politics VI

[Sariel]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731549' date='Mar 24 2009, 15.56']I'm more worried about his broken promise to kick lobbyists out of the white house, to remove earmarks, and signing statements to name but a few.

But hey, our president appeared on leno. He's cool.[/quote]

why are earmarks such a bad thing? It makes little sense to me

[Fatuous]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731549' date='Mar 24 2009, 10.56']I'm more worried about his broken promise to kick lobbyists out of the white house, to remove earmarks, and signing statements to name but a few.

But hey, our president appeared on leno. He's cool.[/quote]

[url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/"]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/[/url]

I don't why I'm doing this because the Earmarks issue sounds more like McCain's promise and it's odd enough for the Executive Branch to make promises pertaining to Legislative Abuse of Power in the first place.

You're right about the Lobbyists though and the five days Public comment thing. I have previosuly commented that it's unfortunate that almost anyone of skill or position is tied to Lobbying in one way or another so that was pretty dumb on his part.

[Dinsdale!]

[quote name='Annelise' post='1731447' date='Mar 24 2009, 09.33']Whaddya think? Will anyone return the money voluntarily? Since they took it in the first place, I'm thinking [i]hell[/i] no.. unless honestly afraid for their lives.[/quote]

Signs point to yes.

[url="http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzaig246081339mar24,0,4449350.story"]http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzaig24...0,4449350.story[/url]

[quote]Fifteen of the top 20 employees at American International Group who received the $165 million in bonuses that prompted widespread public fury have agreed to pay them back in full - about $50 million - state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said late yesterday.

"I applaud the employees who are returning bonuses," Cuomo said in a hastily arranged telephone conference call with reporters, adding that he hoped it would set an example for other AIG employees.

Cuomo said his investigators are "working our way down the list," beginning with the highest bonuses and that he ultimately hopes to recoup much of the roughly $80 million in bonuses from U.S. employees. The remaining $85 million in bonuses that were paid out March 15 went primarily to foreigners, he said.[/quote]

[Annelise]

[quote name='Dinsdale!' post='1731624' date='Mar 24 2009, 11.40']Signs point to yes.

[url="http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzaig246081339mar24,0,4449350.story"]http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzaig24...0,4449350.story[/url][/quote]


*Crosses fingers* Thanks for posting that. :)

[Tempra]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1731568' date='Mar 24 2009, 11.06']"But a few"? Why not give us the whole list? (And I'm curious what, specifically, Obama promised re: earmarks.)[/quote]


Of his broken promises that bother me?

-Signing statements
-Lobbyists in the whitehouse. He lied about taking their campaign money and he lied about having them in the white house.
-$4,000 college credit
-All combat troops home from Iraq in 16 months- Less for failing to do so and more because it's a flat out lie of his.- Earmark reform. He said he would reform earmarks and go "line by line" to ensure there is no needless spending. He even stated that there were no earmarks in the stimulus bill...of course there were. He claimed to cut earmarks to below 1994 spending. He has already included 7.7 billion in earmarks leaving him exactly .1 billion left before he lies again.
- sunlight before signing promise - more symbolic than meaningful.

[Tempra]

[quote name='Sariel' post='1731606' date='Mar 24 2009, 11.33']why are earmarks such a bad thing? It makes little sense to me[/quote]

It would, of course, depend on the earmark. But lying that the stimulus bill includes none is not cool. And he pledged to cap earmarks to the 1994 amount, of which he has nearly met that mark barely 2 months into office.

[Tempra]

[quote name='Annelise' post='1731599' date='Mar 24 2009, 11.25']That's what you think it was about? Really?[/quote]


No, i don't think our president should be appearing on Leno nor should he be filling out march madness brackets for ESPN. These are dire times as he frequently tells us and not times to be fruiting around trying to be everything to everyone.

[Fatuous]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731664' date='Mar 24 2009, 12.02']No, i don't think our president should be appearing on Leno nor should he be filling out march madness brackets for ESPN. These are dire times as he frequently tells us and not times to be fruiting around trying to be everything to everyone.[/quote]

You're right. After two months on the job? He should be on vacation at Camp David. He's got some [i]nerve[/i] to appear on Leno or fill out a NCAA bracket.

Lazy SOB...

[Annelise]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731664' date='Mar 24 2009, 12.02']No, i don't think our president should be appearing on Leno nor should he be filling out march madness brackets for ESPN. These are dire times as he frequently tells us and not times to be fruiting around trying to be everything to everyone.[/quote]


Wha? He was on Leno to sell his policies to the public, drum up support for the budget and so on. I mean, if you think he should have chosen another show or used other means, fine, but it was hardly "fruiting around." :lol:

[Tempra]

[quote name='Fatuous' post='1731685' date='Mar 24 2009, 12.13']You're right. After two months on the job? He should be on vacation at Camp David. He's got some [i]nerve[/i] to appear on Leno or fill out a NCAA bracket.

Lazy SOB...[/quote]


I'd prefer not to use Bush as my yardstick for acceptable presidential behavior.

[Annelise]

[quote name='Fatuous' post='1731685' date='Mar 24 2009, 12.13']He's got some [i]nerve[/i] to appear on Leno or fill out a NCAA bracket.

Lazy SOB...[/quote]


I find the March Madness / trying to be everything to everyone criticism curious, given that he's been a well known basketball fan since hitting national stage.

It's not the first time I've heard echoes if that lazy sentiment though. My Dad mentioned the papers where he lives (Pheonix) focusing on Obama partying it up. I did see a pic of him at a Wizards/Bulls game with a beer, which is a weird sight after the Bush years.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731652' date='Mar 24 2009, 11.57']All combat troops home from Iraq in 16 months- Less for failing to do so and more because it's a flat out lie of his.[/quote]

I agree that the plan has changed: the deadline is now 19 months rather than 16 months; the reserve force is going to be pulled out by the end of 2011 rather than staying there indefinitely; and the pace is different to keep more troops in Iraq throughout 2009. But I think this just goes to show what's silly about your line of argument; this is substantially what his plan was during the campaign, with some adjustments to get the relevant players on board and to adjust to the SOFA, which hadn't been in place when he came up with the plan. If you're literal-minded, you can call this a "broken promise" and feel that warm glow of being right, but meanwhile the troops are coming home. The same thing is true in general: Obama's agenda (stimulus, health-care reform, cap-and-trade) is substantially like he said it would be during the debates; one signing statement and a handful of lobbyists won't change that.

[Tempra]

[quote name='Annelise' post='1731687' date='Mar 24 2009, 12.13']Wha? He was on Leno to sell his policies to the public, drum up support for the budget and so on. I mean, if you think he should have chosen another show or used other means, fine, but it was hardly "fruiting around." :lol:[/quote]


The whole format was hardly effective for selling his policies to the public. Only a certain segment of Ameriacn society watches Jay Leno, so as a venue it fails completely. After rereading the transcript, the whole conversation is virtually devoid of policy. Of the time he is talking serious(about 50% of the time or so) most of it is describing the problem and offering no real policy. A 5 minute speech would have been far, far more effective at drumming up support for the budget/his policies. In fact, the only time he even mentions the budget is in reference to some money for new technology for the auto industry. That was probably the most useful thing he said.


Overall, the appearance comes off more as a political stunt than as a smart way to sell his policies to the American people.



[url="http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-and-leno-march-19-transcript.html"]http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/03/ob...transcript.html[/url]

[TrackerNeil]

As to health care plan? Ram that sucker through, if necessary. I'd prefer that Republicans saw the need for reform in this arena and sign on, but if they want to be obstructionist, mow 'em down. Time for the mailed fist of liberalism to start punching heads.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731709' date='Mar 24 2009, 12.34']The whole format was hardly effective for selling his policies to the public. Only a certain segment of Ameriacn society watches Jay Leno, so as a venue it fails completely.[/quote]

Really? So if only a portion of the American people consume any given form of political discourse (debate, speeches, conventions, 60 Minutes), they fail "completely"? Is there any venue that wouldn't "fail completely" under that standard?

[Tempra]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1731702' date='Mar 24 2009, 12.29']I agree that the plan has changed: the deadline is now 19 months rather than 16 months; the reserve force is going to be pulled out by the end of 2011 rather than staying there indefinitely; and the pace is different to keep more troops in Iraq throughout 2009. But I think this just goes to show what's silly about your line of argument; this is substantially what his plan was during the campaign, with some adjustments to get the relevant players on board and to adjust to the SOFA, which hadn't been in place when he came up with the plan. If you're literal-minded, you can call this a "broken promise" and feel that warm glow of being right, but meanwhile the troops are coming home. The same thing is true in general: Obama's agenda (stimulus, health-care reform, cap-and-trade) is substantially like he said it would be during the debates; one signing statement and a handful of lobbyists won't change that.[/quote]

The troops were already coming home in 2011. Obama staked a lot of his campaign on the differences in his iraq policy from everyone elses. So yes, when he fails to live up on a key distinction between his policy and others, he should be called out for it.

Now, i'd prefer he not rush us out of iraq and have everything fall apart, but he broke his promise plain and simple.

[Tempra]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1731714' date='Mar 24 2009, 12.37']Really? So if only a portion of the American people consume any given form of political discourse (debate, speeches, conventions, 60 Minutes), they fail "completely"? Is there any venue that wouldn't "fail completely" under that standard?[/quote]


There are far better options for airing your policies than on a comedy show at 11:30 pm on a weeknight. Like, i don't know, the standard 8 PM presidential speech that is covered by ABC/NBC/FOX/CNN/CBS/etc?

But i guess i'm nitpicking.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731717' date='Mar 24 2009, 12.40']The troops were already coming home in 2011. Obama staked a lot of his campaign on the differences in his iraq policy from everyone elses. So yes, when he fails to live up on a key distinction between his policy and others, he should be called out for it.[/quote]

You're all sorts of confused. The "key" distinction was the timeline for withdrawal. McCain's policy certainly didn't include the troops coming home by 2011. He opposed a timeline for withdrawal, and in fact frequently called that policy "waving the white flag of surrender." See [url="http://www.blogsforjohnmccain.com/category/tags/timeline-withdrawal"]this official statement[/url], from last July: "An artificial timetable based on political expediency would have led to disaster and could still turn success into defeat." And his plan didn't include the Status of Forces Agreement, because [url="http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSLH492272"]that wasn't approved until after the election[/url].

And it doesn't change the fact that you're offended by a difference of three months that you don't even necessarily oppose on policy grounds.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Annelise,

[quote name='Annelise' post='1731599' date='Mar 24 2009, 11.25']Scot,

I thought we got the Dodd amendment because the cap was questionable legally because of the previous contract. It's possible public pressure could have kept the cap in, true, but would that make the reasons it was supposedly pulled any less an issue? I don't view having to explain such things to the public as bad but it is complex legislation, and not hard to hang up on stuff like the bonus cap.. while the economy flounders in uncertainty, waiting to see what sort of action is or is not going to be taken... Wrt the omnibus, someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that the deadline was looming in a few days and that going back in the drawing board could have resulted in a Federal shutdown until they hashed something out.

In short, I'm not saying I agree with quickpitching the public, but I understand why they do it. Lawmakers drawing up legislation very quickly, like the bonus tax, worries me more because it doesn't seem like they are taking time to think it through. (The stimulus and omnibus were far longer in creation and negotiation).



Did anyone notice that a volcano in Alaska erupted? I couldn't help but think of Bobby Jindal.[/quote]

I understand pushing for quick legislation. However, I don't five days public comment is too much to ask even on the stimulus bill. Good lord the economy had been limping along for a year before it was passed what difference will five days make. Not to mention the fact it would allow the members of congress (or their staff) to actually read and analyse the bill before it is voted on.

[Annelise]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731722' date='Mar 24 2009, 12.43']But i guess i'm nitpicking.[/quote]

Well before you weren't even acknowledging that he was there on business, so criticising his sales strategy is an improvement, IMO. :)

It *was* a departure from standard (non election year) Presidential approaches. But he's also essentially campaigning, so it sort of makes sense in a way. I have no idea if it was directly useful to his goal or not.. but I saw some polls that suggest his popularity hasn't suffered over the course of the AIG uproar. *shrugs*