Obama's Path of Broken Promises

[dgriffin]

On one hand, we have CNN's Bill Schneider yesterday touting the possiblity of Obama being a "SuperPresident." On the other, there's this:





Obama's first 100 days littered with broken promises

Alex Conant

Given all the hoopla and high expectations surrounding the new president, it's easy to overlook how he has shifted since the election in both tone and substance.

As we approach the 100-day mark of his presidency, Barack Obama has broken or bent many tenets of his campaign, including promises on war, spending and good government.

In terms of tone, Obama promised to be a hope-filled change agent who could fix our politics and "heal a nation." He would do it by refusing to appoint lobbyists to his administration, increasing transparency in government, and forging new bipartisan consensus. His campaign promised to strengthen government checks and balances by limiting the use of presidential signing statements, mandating public review of legislation, and vetoing wasteful congressional earmarks. Yet none of those promises survived his first 100 days.

Look beneath the soaring rhetoric and it is clear Obama's presidency is off to a rocky start. He has consistently capitulated on the substantive issues that brought him into the office, eroding his credibility with many observers and making him appear more like a typical politician.

Even before he was sworn in, Obama picked several lobbyists for top administration jobs, including major cabinet deputy secretaries. When challenged to explain and produce the waivers that permitted those nominations, the administration dragged its feet, bending only after embarrassing questions from the White House press corps.

The promise-breaking did not stop with the inauguration. Soon after he was sworn in, the president signed an earmark-laden spending bill with virtually no bipartisan support or public review - and then promptly issued a signing statement.

The speed and ease with which Obama broke his promises for a new politics are only eclipsed by his policy shifts since taking office. But whereas his good-government reversals have consistently trended toward politics-as-usual, his policy reversals go both ways.

Some shifts are decidedly conservative, like his new Iraq policy, which looks strikingly similar to the one he inherited from President George W. Bush. Gone is Obama's promise to remove all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Instead, Obama is embracing a conditions-based withdrawal that would leave up to 50,000 troops in Iraq until the end of 2011.

MORE AT:

www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/Obamas_first_100_days_littered_with_.html


Can't say I'm surprised. He's an intelligent man. Any intelligent person would keep much of policies the US put in place after years of trial and experience. To expect the new administration make sweeping changes (as compared to promises), would have meant our former practices were so wrong that you'd have to explain how we survived them! Before the election, I used to cringe and turn away from the people (in numbers enough to be scary) who would address a national problem with, "Obama will change all that."

Couldn't resist the following re-touch, but on a more serious side, I have in fact noted the President's hardening visage as the affairs of state weigh down upon him.

[dgriffin]

By the way, switching sci-fi characters away from the Jedi, here's an interesting article written last June, before the election, about how Spock-like is our new President. It's a serious and fun piece.

henryjenkins.org/2008/06/is_barrack_obama_a_secret_vulc.html

[Clipper]

I find the man just plain scary along with his cohorts in congress. He runs around the world in his first 100 days, kissing the asses of every dictator in the world, and bowing and kissing hands of those that drain our wallets for their oil, after we have saved their biscuits from destruction or invasion.

He is condoning the idea that Pelosi, Feinstein, and the dems in congress should air our dirty laundry on the world clothes line, and pour kerosene on the fires of hatred for Americans that is already smouldering actively throughout the muslim world.

In the interests of national security, I believe that Nancy and company should be gagged with a dirty sweatsock, and any talk of prosecuting those involved in the torture should be admonished and left alone. The torture DID prevent other attacks on American soil. One act to fly a plane into the tallest building on the West coast was foiled through these interrogation methods.

This is not about payback from Pelosi, Kennedy, Feinstein, Harry Reid, and others. It is about national security and our ability to protect the people of the US. Revenge and retribution are not what this is all about. WE are in grave danger, and it is no time for paybacks on the political front. Pelosi and those that want to bring criminal charges make me want to puke.

Obama makes me want to puke also, with his ass kissing tours of the world. There is a reason for sanctioning those countries that are ruled by terror and dictators. There is a reason that Bush didn't go out for pizza with Chavez, or play golf with the president of Iran.

Here we are 100 days into his wonderful "bail out" plan, and already GM is warning the government that they most likely won't make their first required repayment of funds in June.

The buying into banks and car companies by our government to me is socialism, blatant, and apparent. It is a slippery slope we tread upon when we start buying into private business interests with taxpayer money, especially when the taxpayer has had no input into the process.

We that worried about socialism during the campaign were poo pooed and looked upon with disdain. Well, I am TRULY worried NOW that we have elected this man, and he IS heading in a direction that leans toward more government control over private matters and private industry.

He is a loose cannon, and he seems more interested in his personal image than that of the country. He loves the camera, and loves the applause, but he is a world leader, not an entertainment world idol of some sort. He seems to rush headlong into things like "repairing" relations with Cuba, Iran and N. Korea. Cuba maybe, but the other dictators are most likely laughing like hell at this guy that is bowing and scraping to them, while they wile away the hours formulating plans to bring about the downfall of the USA.


He DOES have positive attributes also, but I am simply unnerved by his rush to fix it all in 100 days. Our economy needs the most attention right now. Smacking the Bush administration around daily is not what congress should be focusing on right now.

It seems that due to the Bush years, there has developed an overly paritsan mentality, that sets aside the good of the country in favor of fighting across the aisle and seeking revenge for alleged wrongdoings.

Obama and congress need to leave the CIA alone, and keep the ACLU out of the halls of congress. What they are doing with the photos from Gitmo and Abu Graib is going to bring about the inflamed retaliation once again by muslim extremists. Just like they did in London, Madrid, and other places around the world. Every time they show something like that, terrorists get pissed and kill a few more innocents.

[frankcor]

Clipper, you wrote a good thesis on disenfranchisement. Or at least you spoke eloquently about and how the current state of events impacts you. You are in the minority.

In 2000, almost exactly half of this nation elected George W. Bush to be president, and the other half felt disenfranchised -- their vote didn't count. They had no say in invading Iraq and they had no say in how Bush treated the rest of the world -- we acted like the biggest, baddest thug on the playground who got sucker-punched in the head from behind. We stood up, turned around, rubbed our head and said "Somebody's gonna pay for that." They felt "that's not what this nation voted for in 2000."

Today, we have elected Barak Obama by more than half (more like 60%?) of the people. The minority feels disenfranchised. They have no say in significant fiscal and social policy reforms being undertaken at a rapid pace. They believe "That's not what this nation voted for in 2008.

You might ask if we are doomed to repeat this cycle of disenfranchisement forever?

This crap about retributions against the previous administration -- both the accusations and the defenses -- just don't feed the bulldog. It is a deliberate smokescreen; a distraction to divert your attention away from what they are doing economically and socially.

Don't take your eye off the ball.

[dgriffin]

I'll agree with the retributions stuff being crap, but dangerous crap.

Re "Obama's ass-kissing world tour." I was hoping that after he glad-handed the dictators, warlords, and dope dealer kings of the world and then left on Air Force One, that mean little pit bull Hilary Clinton would pull out the contract and say, "OK, here's the deal." And The Deal probably isn't much different than it was under Bush or her husband or Grandpa Bush.
She can do it. She is our next President, like it or not.


Below: "No, no .... THIS is how you give someone a wedgie!"

[Clipper]

It might appear that I feel disenfranchised Frank, but I actually had come over to the side of Obama in the late days of the election campaigns. I was also quite encouraged by some of his agenda, but I am simply afraid of where it is taking us right now, and it seems to be a runaway train, that can derail at any minute. He is too much in a hurry to cure the ills overnight, and congress IS on a campaign to get back at the republicans for the last 8 years. Where is there any productivity to be found in that?

I guess the only place that I would disagree with your view, is that I APPROVED of the war in Iraq and think it HAS accomplished something for the Iraqi people, and to stem terrorism to a certain extent in that country. If we accomplished nothing more, we disposed of a despot that was committing genocide and needed to be brought down. The hanging is one of the highlights of the average Iraqi's life.

I don't disagree with EVERYTHING that Obama stands for, but I DO worry about government getting into private corporations and taking any sort of controlling interest in a private business. Socialized medicine and socialism in general is something that we all should fear and avoid at all costs. Big Brother doesn't need to run MY life.

Yes, he did have to put together a stimulus package to stop the downward spiral of the economy, but no, he did not have to just throw more and more money at it, unabated and without proper preplanning.

I don't profess to know the answer, but I know from history, that the answer is not for government to manufacture cars and run the banks. I will be waiting to see what happens if GM or Chrysler actually declares bankruptcy. It may end up being the saving grace for the entire industry, and the unions may have to make concessions to insure that the industry survives. Greed on the part of union employees and company management brought us to this point, and only concessions and a different way of doing business from both of their standpoints is going to cure the problem.

I am not for union busting as an overall policy, and unions have a place in protecting the workforce, but I would say dump the entire board of directors of these companies and start over with a newly negotiated contract with the labor unions.

As for party politics, and G.W., I approved of some of the things he did, but I sure as hell didn't like the arrogant bastard. I am as glad to see him gone as the next person. Have you noticed that he has faded into nothingness? Not a word about what he is doing in his retirement, or about Laura and any charity work or anything. This man made enough noise while in office, and we don't need to hear from him now, haha.

I did however agree with Cheney's take on the release of the white house memos and the pictures from Gitmo. He is correct in that Obama is letting the ACLU run the CIA into a dangerous position, that threatens national security. Cheney is another arrogant SOB that I agreed with on occasion but could not stand to see on TV.

George is counting his oil money, and Cheney is dragging in the bucks from the military contracts through KBR.

[gearofzanzibar]

The one truly bright spot of the current administration is that there's a realization among Republicans that their leaders have abandoned the ideals of small government. Hopefully that means the party will start shifting to a more Libertarian agenda in response to the statism of President Obama.

[frankcor]

Clipper, I believed that Iraq posed a threat to our national interests and the invasion was a valid and justified response to that threat. Do I wish we had a better plan than the one we used at the time? You betcha.

Gear, I fear the GOP has too far to go to be able to reform itself. The moral conservatives are unlikely to drop their agenda and thus will continue to permit the big-government (or statist as you say) wing of the party to spend us all into the stone-age.

[Clipper]

If we truly look back far enough, it is obvious to me that GW's daddy should have pushed Saddam all the way back to Bagdhad when we liberated Kuwait. We had the backing of our allies then, and could have effectively crushed Saddam' armies and saved alot of Iraqi, as well as American lives then.

It has also always been in the back of my mind that GW simply had a need to save face for his daddy and to go back and finish what daddy left unfinished during the Desert Storm campaign, and he did it with a hurried and ill conceived plan.

I simply don't want all the young lads that have sacrificed life and limb in the middle east to have done so in vain Frank. You and I know the heartache of losing friends and comrades that lie beneath the sod as a result of another ill conceived campaign that was lost by politics and the fact that we were ill prepared to effectively fight in the jungles of Viet Nam, against an enemy that in many cases could not be identified until they shot at you. the similarity makes my heart ache for our troops. Jungle warfare and Urban warfare are equally tough scenarios to fight under. Plain clothes enemies that all look alike are also very difficult to identify and fight. For politics to withdraw our troops prematurely would be a heartbreaking blow, and a huge mistake.

I liked the first President Bush, and found him to be an intelligent and likable man. Unfortunately when he and Barbara spawned GW and Jeb, they only had one helping of brains left in the gene pool, and had to divide it two ways. The result? TWO half witted politicians.LOL

I am not disenfranchised. I simply think that the balance of having a republican for a term or two, and then a dem for a term or two has always maintained a balance and an even keel in our government. One party did the deeds and the other came back in and undid the perceived wrongs of that party. Unfortunately, the Republicans, in the form of GW Bush, have done so many perceived misdeeds and assaults on the democrats, that they HAVE stirred a partisan hornets nest. YES, I do believe that there is too much dirt digging and mud slinging going on by the Democrats. The campaign is over and it is time to forget the republicans and get down to running our country. They are endangering the American people with the CIA torture probes and publishing photos that will serve no purpose other than to inflame radical Muslims around the world and bring about more terror attacks. Prosecution will have NO positive effect on us as Americans.

I have faith that Obama and the Dems CAN undo some of the wrongs, and make things right. Not only on the economic front, but on the diplomatic front. I simply don't like to see him rushing headlong into making concessions to our enemies, and to the enemies of democracy and freedom. He should NEVER have allowed his photo to be taken shaking hands with Chavez, or smiling at Iran's reigning despot. It is reckless to even allow the perception that he may rush headlong into normalizing relations with "abnormal" and terrorist governments around the world.

Time to forget hanging chads, Florida recounts, Gore's "loss' to Bush, and time to pull ourselves back together as Americans and to rebuild our fine nation back to it's former glory, economically and diplomatically. Obama most likely has the brains and the tools to do it, but he needs to slow down. It won't be done in 3 months or even 3 years.

Another interesting thing to come out of all of this partisan wrangling, is the fact that if the republicans don't find a way to repair the damage done by Bush to their image, it will be the first time in history that a third party will have chance of garnering a substantial number of votes in the next election. One of those votes may be my own.

[dgriffin]

Apr 27, 2009 7:52:46 GMT -5 Clipper said:

If we truly look back far enough, it is obvious to me that GW's daddy should have pushed Saddam all the way back to Bagdhad when we liberated Kuwait. We had the backing of our allies then, and could have effectively crushed Saddam' armies and saved alot of Iraqi, as well as American lives then.

I always wondered why we didn't, even then. Anyone have suggestions why we left Saddam in place? Better than alternative? Too much carnage?

[dgriffin]

Apr 27, 2009 7:52:46 GMT -5 Clipper said:

Another interesting thing to come out of all of this partisan wrangling, is the fact that if the republicans don't find a way to repair the damage done by Bush to their image, it will be the first time in history that a third party will have chance of garnering a substantial number of votes in the next election. One of those votes may be my own. .

I wish I could believe that, but unless they have more advertising money than Republicans, there seems little chance of success. Americans have proved over and over again that in an election a majority will respond to their televisions rather than their good sense.

[frankcor]

I believe we didn't destroy Saddam's army in 1991 because it would have created a vacuum that would be filled by Iran.

[Clipper]

Very good possibility Frank.

Ya know, this forum really educates me daily. I have no over abundance of formal education, but I have an advanced degree from the school of hard knocks and I DO have firmly planted opinions, based on my limited knowledge of subjects of interest. I do stay abreast of current events, and I do read alot, and watch the news.

It amazes me, how my take on different issues can be critiqued and opposed by other members, and I can come away from the board better informed and yet not insulted by the criticism. I thank you for that Frank and others. That is what amazes me about this forum. One can be opposed without being ridiculed or slapped around verbally. One can express an opinion and have it countered in a civil and friendly manner.

Is it just me, or is this a unique quality possessed by the membership here at "The Corner."? I love the "family" atmosphere that you guys have created, and the forum that you guys have developed as a result. The forum truly does belong to the membership and you guys do a great job of moderating yourselves.

I look back at the first page of the forum, when I blindly went to proboards and simply opened an account with no other motive than to offer an alternative to the OD forum that was going away. YOU GUYS have made the forum what it is, from that day forward. Thank God for those of you with the tech knowledge that I DON'T possess, and the discretion and patience that I also don't always possess. LOL

I love having the forum to vent, to express outrage, and to find consolation when I have a bad day or a problem. I love the learning and the diversity of subjects discussed, as the forum grows and evolves.

Hey, it's just another rambling post from Clipper. Just some thoughts that crossed my mind as I read the posts today.

[frankcor]

"The love you take is equal to the love you make." -- The Beatles

[dgriffin]

It's true we can behave ourselves when we try.

If I may say so, I think most of us here are big enough to recognize that our thoughts and opinions are not always hard facts. We can be wrong and admit it.

Or at least not push it.

I was wrong once back in 2008, I think.

Unless you're counting when I just mouth off with an opinion. Or I opine in a direction contrary to everyone else.
That would increase the number dramatically.