U.S. Politics VI

[The Iceman of the North]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1731714' date='Mar 24 2009, 17.37']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]
The O'Reilly Factor, "the most-watched program on cable news"?

[S John]

[quote name='Annelise' post='1731697' date='Mar 24 2009, 12.24']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.[/quote]

The sports guys were talking about this on the radio yesterday morning. Personally, I don't see any problem with any of this. I actually really like that Obama makes time to appear on Leno, ESPN, 60 minutes, or catches the occasional game. For one, he's a human being. If anyone has ever worked on anything for 10 hours straight for several days in a row you know that youre pretty burnt out by the end of it. Now magnify that times a billion when you consider the weight of every decision that the President of the U.S. makes. If you didn't take a breather once in a while you'd crack in a week. Just so happens that Obama would rather fill out a bracket or catch a basketball game to clear his head than fly off to Crawford to clear brush. Whats the big deal?

[Tempra]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1731728' date='Mar 24 2009, 12.49']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.[/quote]


The Status of Forces Agreement was all but assured by July of that year. It was hardly unexpected. I think the fact that he has already backtracked is a bit troubling. Whether all are out by August 2010 is yet to be seen. But still, i listed this as one grievance in a list of broken promises. I assume by ignoring the other things on my list, you acknowledge that he actually broke those promises?

[The Progressive]

A vital role for a president to play is to explain his decisions and to communicate his policy proposal in understandable language to the much larger public audience who are not news junkies. This nagging from the rightwing about Obama's appearance reeks of desperation and hypocrisy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

[quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1731758' date='Mar 24 2009, 13.19']A vital role for a president to play is to explain his decisions and to communicate his policy proposal in understandable language to the much larger public audience who are not news junkies. This nagging from the rightwing about Obama's appearance reeks of desperation and hypocrisy.[/quote]

Particularly when even legislators aren't given more than a few hours to review final drafts of important legislation.

;)

[The Progressive]

Scot,

Funny, I don't remember you protested this much when the Patriot Act was rammed through. ;)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

[quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1731777' date='Mar 24 2009, 13.30']Scot,

Funny, I don't remember you protested this much when the Patriot Act was rammed through. ;)[/quote]

Well, given the fact I didn't start posting here (well the EZboard version of here) until April 2003 (I remember because it was right before my daughter was born) it makes sense that you didn't hear me complaining about the ram through of the Patriot Act.

:)

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731753' date='Mar 24 2009, 13.15']But still, i listed this as one grievance in a list of broken promises. I assume by ignoring the other things on my list, you acknowledge that he actually broke those promises?[/quote]

I'm ignoring the other things on your list, because I think they pretty clearly show an emphasis on trivia when the large proportion of Obama's agenda is much the same as what he said during the campaign, and I felt that this particular issue was emblematic of the niggling-bullshit rhetorical strategy that you're adopting. I would have made the same general argument with any of them: namely, that yes, they are broken promises, and your faux-naif outrage is touching and all, but you can't seriously argue that they're a big deal.

And indeed you can't really say why the difference between May and August changes Obama's policy substantially; you can only insist, over and over again, that you are "troubled" by it.

[The Progressive]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731753' date='Mar 24 2009, 10.15']The Status of Forces Agreement was all but assured by July of that year. It was hardly unexpected. I think the fact that he has already backtracked is a bit troubling. Whether all are out by August 2010 is yet to be seen. But still, i listed this as one grievance in a list of broken promises. I assume by ignoring the other things on my list, you acknowledge that he actually broke those promises?[/quote]

And I could see that you're virtually silent on the promises that Obama kept: closing gitmo, stopping torture, reversing the ban stem-cell research, pushing for healthcare reform, etc.

By the way, Obama never stated that he would never used signing statements, what he actually said what that he would use them sparingly when the situation is applicable.

More rightwing's deliberate and ignorant smear.

[Annelise]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1731735' date='Mar 24 2009, 12.56']Annelise,

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.[/quote]

Well things obviously got markedly worse in Sept and the shitstorm had been intensifying since then, IIRC. Plus the additional uncertainty with a newly inaugurated President, etc. I don't disagree with you fundementally, I'm just saying I understand why they would fear something might get picked out and jumped on by the public during that time, tanking it and sending everyone back to the drawing board or even permanently tanking it - remember that nearly all Republicans were against it and had some success w/ public opinion criticising it. The public is also keeping closer tabs now days, certainly made opinions known during the Sept. bailout, so I think it's a reasonable worry that 5 days might have been more .. active than lawmakers quietly reading it cover to cover. :)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Annelise,

[quote name='Annelise' post='1731786' date='Mar 24 2009, 13.35']Well things obviously got markedly worse in Sept and the shitstorm had been intensifying since then, IIRC. Plus the additional uncertainty with a newly inaugurated President, etc. I don't disagree with you fundementally, I'm just saying I understand why they would fear something might get picked out and jumped on by the public during that time, tanking it and sending everyone back to the drawing board or even permanently tanking it - remember that nearly all Republicans were against it and had some success w/ public opinion criticising it. The public is also keeping closer tabs now days, certainly made opinions known during the Sept. bailout, so I think it's a reasonable worry that 5 days might have been more .. active than lawmakers quietly reading it cover to cover. :)[/quote]

I get that, I simply have a problem with the proposition that it is important the public not know what is being done in their name, particularly when it comes to economic policy. If something has to be passed quickly so the public can't complain I have to ask whether it should be passed at all.

[The Progressive]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1731711' date='Mar 24 2009, 09.35']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.[/quote]

I see this as inevitable and necessary given that health care reform is too crucial to allowed the Republicans to derail and fuck it up like usual.

[S John]

[quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1731758' date='Mar 24 2009, 13.19']A vital role for a president to play is to explain his decisions and to communicate his policy proposal in understandable language to the much larger public audience who are not news junkies.[/quote]

I guess this is why I like it. I am not a news junkie [i]at all[/i]. I hate the news, honestly. Its all depressing stories or political wankery and I have my own life to deal with before worrying about the state of the world, or what Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are doing. However, I did happen to catch Obama on 60 minutes the other day becuase I was watching whatever was on before that. I think its great that he's making an effort at having a transparent administration, or at very least keeping us somewhat in the loop. I just didn't feel like Bush was all that interested in keeping us up to speed on what he was up to. So far I get the vibe that Obama is the opposite of that, which I consider to be a good thing. He seemed pretty up front about the challenges we're facing as well.

As an aside, I guess its funny that he was painted as an elitist during the election, when I get the vibe that he would actually be much more approachable than his predecessor.

[Annelise]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1731793' date='Mar 24 2009, 13.39']Annelise,



I get that, I simply have a problem with the proposition that it is important the public not know what is being done in their name, particularly when it comes to economic policy. If something has to be passed quickly so the public can't complain I have to ask whether it should be passed at all.[/quote]

The public had plenty of time to complain about the stimulus, although not on the final particulars of course. But the gist of it, yes. (And the omnibus had been out there for a long time). I guess it depends how troubled you are by the notion historically. I personally think a 5 day wait measure would be a wash as far as bringing beneficial or harmful legislative results, but I support it for other reasons.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Annelise,

[quote]The public had plenty of time to complain about the stimulus, [b]although not on the final particulars of course[/b]. [emphasis added][/quote]

That's a problem, in my opinion. How easy is it for someone to bury little gems into the voluminous legislation without public or legislative comment?

[...]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731722' date='Mar 24 2009, 11.43']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.[/quote]

You mean like his [url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090324/ts_alt_afp/usfinanceeconomypoliticsobama_20090324102504"]8:00 primetime[/url] address tonight.

[DanteGabriel]

As I expected: Tempra is inflating a whole host of mostly minor bullshit so that he can score Obama as somehow more duplicitous than our previous President.

But it's cool, since he specifically structured his critique of Obama to talk about all the shit that he has done or failed to do when Obama literally inherited the hurricane -- the first few months of Bush's time in office, after all, were filled with vacations to "clear brush" on his dude ranch, secret meetings with the energy industry, and inattention to national security memos about al Qaeda.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Elipsis,

It's a press conference, not an address. Further, it's preempting NOVA when NOVA's already been gone for three weeks due to PBS pledge drive programing.

:mad:

[The Progressive]

This is how clueless and inane Republican's opposition to needed regulatory reforms are:

[url="http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUSN2434481320090324"]Republican Boehner called Geithner's reform proposal a 'power grab'[/url]

Have fun howling "NOOOO" in the wilderness.

[Tempra]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1731782' date='Mar 24 2009, 13.34']I'm ignoring the other things on your list, because I think they pretty clearly show an emphasis on trivia when the large proportion of Obama's agenda is much the same as what he said during the campaign, and I felt that this particular issue was emblematic of the niggling-bullshit rhetorical strategy that you're adopting. I would have made the same general argument with any of them: namely, that yes, they are broken promises, and your faux-naif outrage is touching and all, but you can't seriously argue that they're a big deal.

And indeed you can't really say why the difference between May and August changes Obama's policy substantially; you can only insist, over and over again, that you are "troubled" by it.[/quote]

Call the extension of the withdrawal timetable trivial. Fine. But don't call Obama's bullshit about lobbyists trivial. He banned lobbyists from the white hosue and has since sought several exemptions from his prohibition. That isn't trivial.