U.S. Politics VI

[Tempra]

[quote name='DanteGabriel' post='1731836' date='Mar 24 2009, 14.03']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.[/quote]


Please refresh my memory since you say it's bad, but have you shown that any of the previous four presidents have broken promises as quickly as Obama? You did state i was wrong, right?

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731879' date='Mar 24 2009, 14.26']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.[/quote]

Why not? That's an even sillier argument: yes, several lobbyists now work for the White House, while many others have been barred from service in the administration because of this policy. Is it more former lobbyists than usual for the White House? Less? Who cares! It's "several", as in [i]more than one[/i]!

[Tempra]

[quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1731783' date='Mar 24 2009, 13.34']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.[/quote]


Why would i complain about promises he kept, especially when i agree with them?

[Annelise]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1731827' date='Mar 24 2009, 14.00']Annelise,



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]

It is, although I think you should rephrase and say without proper *opportunity* for legislative or public comment. Or really, rephrase the latter to media comment and thereby possible public comment because unless it's your job, who has time to sit (or inclination) to sit down and read something like the stimulus?

There's also potential for problems the other way, things getting blown out of proportion. Like I said, on the whole, the scale tips the same way for me, but for slightly different reasons perhaps.

[The Progressive]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731892' date='Mar 24 2009, 11.32']Why would i complain about promises he kept, especially when i agree with them?[/quote]

The point was that the promises Obama has kept are much more substantive than the ones he has to abandon due to pragmatism.

"Signing statement"? Seriously, what kind of trivial made up bullshit is that?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Annelise,

The legislative process is designed to be slow and difficult for a reason, to allow time for comment and debate. To allow people to voice their opinions regarding pending leglislation. Pushing things through quickly to avoid debate simply violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the process created by Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

It was wrong when it happened under Bush's watch, it's still wrong when it happens under Obama's watch.

[Tempra]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1731888' date='Mar 24 2009, 14.30']Why not? That's an even sillier argument: yes, several lobbyists now work for the White House, while many others have been barred from service in the administration because of this policy. Is it more former lobbyists than usual for the White House? Less? Who cares! It's "several", as in [i]more than one[/i]![/quote]


Because he said it wouldn't happen at all and it has. Therefore, he broke his promise. Did you pay attention to the campaign at all? He attacked Bush and McCain repeatedly for letting lobbyists run the white house/campaign. On his first day he signs a ban on lobbyists and almost immediately starts invoking the waiver to let lobbyists into the white house.

[Fatuous]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731887' date='Mar 24 2009, 14.30']Please refresh my memory since you say it's bad, but have you shown that any of the previous four presidents have broken promises as quickly as Obama? You did state i was wrong, right?[/quote]

I don't even know why I try as I just get ignored.

[url="http://socialistworker.org/2003-2/460/460_08_Clinton.shtml"]http://socialistworker.org/2003-2/460/460_08_Clinton.shtml[/url]
From something oddly entitled "the Broken Promises of Bill Clinton":

"While on the campaign trail in 1992, Clinton criticized Bush Sr.'s racist policy of intercepting and repatriating Haitian immigrants fleeing repression and trying to get to the U.S. Clinton said that he would consider their requests for asylum. But on the eve of his inauguration, he reversed himself and adopted Bush Sr.'s position."

Do I have to say it?

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731912' date='Mar 24 2009, 14.43']Because he said it wouldn't happen at all and it has. Therefore, he broke his promise. Did you pay attention to the campaign at all? He attacked Bush and McCain repeatedly for letting lobbyists run the white house/campaign. On his first day he signs a ban on lobbyists and almost immediately starts invoking the waiver to let lobbyists into the white house.[/quote]

I did pay attention to the campaign. I've also acknowledged that it was a broken promise. If you had an argument for why this particular broken promise is not trivial, what makes the "several" registered lobbyists in the White House so pernicious, I'd like to hear that, rather than a restatement of what you've already said. You have something on hand beyond phony outrage, right?

[Kouran]

You know the thing I find the most odd about the current political landscape is how much never really changes. Four years ago people were writing off the democrats after the defeat of Kerry. Now here we are 4 years later and people are writing off the republicans. If one were to have any common sense one would realize that the vast majority of people in the US are moderates, of course one could use the mailed fist of liberalism.

I for one hope the democrats are that foolish. Look at the polls people HATE congress and they arnt making distinctions between democrats and republicans. Push through legislation that is on its face a naked grab for power and you WILL get slapped down by the american people. Oddly enough I see a point in 6 months or so where the blue dog democrats side more often with the republicans than with the white house.

[The Progressive]

Look at the polls and see that people want health care reform now.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

That will all depend upon how much it will cost them. If it costs them nothing then sure people will back it. If it costs them alot and/or they lose services due to cost restrictions they will not be so happy. In other words, while that may be the case now, where cost restrictions are a verboten topic, it may not always be the case.

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731887' date='Mar 24 2009, 14.30']Please refresh my memory since you say it's bad, but have you shown that any of the previous four presidents have broken promises as quickly as Obama? You did state i was wrong, right?[/quote]
You're not worth arguing with substantively. For your own pathetic ego gratification, I will accept your narrow, self-serving definition of "the first sixty-four days" as some kind incredibly meaningful defining period in which a President may break promises. Of course that ignores that Obama is simply attempting to do more stuff in his first few months in office than Bush did before September 11, or that Bush's broken promises over the course of his presidency were substantively disastrous and damaging, and most of what you are dinging Obama for is window dressing, but I guess this is the only way for you to score some cheap rhetorical points these days.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Specter says that [url="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/specter-ill-vote-no-on-employee-free-choice-act.php?ref=fp1"]he'll vote against cloture[/url] for card-check. There goes his support from organized labor. Presumably too this will persuade a prominent Democrat to jump into the race.

[Kouran]

[quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1731956' date='Mar 24 2009, 14.08']Look at the polls and see that people want health care reform now.[/quote]


I am sure they do. Just as I am sure they dont want to pay for it either. The average voter is frankly a lazy, stupid and incompetant lout. Everyone wants a free lunch, it's just too damn bad that there are no free lunches. One of these days in the not to distant future all this debit will be an albatross around our necks.

[The Progressive]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1731958' date='Mar 24 2009, 12.10']Lev,

That will all depend upon how much it will cost them. If it costs them nothing then sure people will back it. If it costs them alot and/or they lose services due to cost restrictions they will not be so happy. In other words, while that may be the case now, where cost restrictions are a verboten topic, it may not always be the case.[/quote]


[quote name='Kouran' post='1731967' date='Mar 24 2009, 12.19']I am sure they do. Just as I am sure they dont want to pay for it either. The average voter is frankly a lazy, stupid and incompetant lout. Everyone wants a free lunch, it's just too damn bad that there are no free lunches. One of these days in the not to distant future all this debit will be an albatross around our necks.[/quote]

Surely you meant that people will became aware of how much health care is already costing businesses and tax payers in terms of increased premiums?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

[quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1731977' date='Mar 24 2009, 15.23']Surely you meant that people will became aware of how much health care is already costing businesses and tax payers in terms of increased premiums?[/quote]

I'm certian that will be part of the argument. The questions for most people, at the end of the day, will be what will it cost [i]my family[/i] and [i]me[/i]? What will [i]my family[/i] and [i]I[/i] get for the amount I'm paying for the service? If those questions are answered in such a way that it costs less for Government sponsored health care, in the short term, people will support it. If the benefit isn't derived until some significant amount of time has passed I doubt most people will support it and it will have to, as Tracker so eloquently put it, "Ram that sucker through."

[Ormond]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731709' date='Mar 24 2009, 11.34']Only a certain segment of Ameriacn society watches Jay Leno, so as a venue it fails completely.[/quote]

Uh, excuse me, but where IS there a "venue" these days that more than a "certain segment of American society" watches?

I don't watch Jay Leno and did not see Obama there. But I certainly think enough people do regularly watch that program that it should be about as effective as anything else on network TV these days at getting his message across.

[Annelise]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1731905' date='Mar 24 2009, 14.38']It was wrong when it happened under Bush's watch, it's still wrong when it happens under Obama's watch.[/quote]

I think? it would be every other president's watch too, wouldn't it? I understand how the process is designed, but AFAIK we've always operated without a 5 day waiting period and I don't see a reason to make more of it than what it deserves. *shrugs* I also think you're putting your eggs in the wrong basket if you think it will have much practical legislative benefit, on the whole. But even though I see no better than mixed results as far as that's concerned, I will not endorse pols treating us like idiots (and certainly not as victims to be taken advantage of).. even if we do act stupid, some of the time. And we're relatively to deeply ignorant on certain matters.

[The Mance]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731690' date='Mar 24 2009, 08.17']I'd prefer not to use Bush as my yardstick for acceptable presidential behavior.[/quote]

Well, I doubt anyone blames you for that. Just stop trying to push your rhetorical ideal instead.

[quote name='Tempra' post='1731709' date='Mar 24 2009, 08.34']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]

[url="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aE4s6jqewwQs&refer=muse"]Leno ratings[/url]

[quote]The first late-night talk-show appearance by a sitting president posted an 11.2 household rating, Leno’s best since January 2005, NBC said today in an e-mailed statement, citing preliminary Nielsen Co. data. Each rating point equals 1 percent of the 114.5 million U.S. TV households[/quote]

Actual viewer numbers aren't out yet, but 12-13 million US households should break down to 15-20 million individuals. Not quite Superbowl or SotU ratings (or even *sigh* Idol) but still a wide net. Plus he probably got his message to a large group of people who normally wouldn't bother to tune in to an actual SotU or PTA, so ++ imo.