it was probably me. and although that was a knee-jerk reaction I could very possibly lean towards actually carrying through on it.

And there are foreign policy differences.

-Missile shield in Europe
-Forming stronger international bonds to pressure Iran
-Closing Gitmo
-Plans to end Iraq occupation
-Much more aggressive strikes on Taliban/AQ in Pakistan
-Working with Pakistan to get much greater cooperation in Taliban/AQ attacks
-Strict prohibition on torture

These are just off the top of my head. You don't have to agree with them, but saying they are the same as Bush is foolish.

Ya, it looks like you and SteveBollea who said he was going to vote 3rd party in 2012. I wonder if he still feels that way.

It amazing how things evolve in a short period of time - SteveBollea correctly pointed out back in those posts that the public option WAS the compromise. Now, any health care "reform" that actually gets through will be bragged about by the administration and the party as a huge success (under the "Better than Bush" rhetoric which has made an appearance here again) when back then, the base was freaking out just because the public option was on the fence.

I actually remember addressing this to the contrary, but don't let me derail your misinformation express.

IIRC, I responded to this by saying that Cheney & his acolytes really believe that counter-terrorism is like "24" when people with actual experience in counter-terrorism, including successful interrogators view Jack Bauer's methods as pretty much exactly the wrong ones.

But clearly I'm the one divorced from reality.


We still care, it's just that progress is being made. How are you not getting this?

I don't think good intention count for much. If someone promises something and they can't do it, that isn't better than someone who doesn't promise something because they know it's not realistic.

What if someone promises something and they can't do it to completion, but makes the situation better than it was before?

Just want to be sure I'm feeling the way you think I should.

Or because they know it isn't even desirable but has to appease the ill-advised masses.

You laugh at my 80% number, but interestingly don't quote my point about "bringing about a new way of doing business in Washington" being the central point of a ton of Obama's campaign speeches. Go ahead and google that phrase and variations of it in the context of Obama's campaign speeches. It's all over the place.

I can't disagree with much you've said here. I'm not sure that the only conclusion is to vote for the second guy but I agree that you've outlined the reasoning behind voting for the second guy, no matter how flawed it may be. My argument is that it's a lousy reason to vote for a guy, but we had millions of bumper stickers saying that exact thing. As long as we continue to vote for the other guy just because he's not that guy, we're not optimizing our chances to have a good leader that makes good decisions IMO.

I guess it depends on what you're talking about-

I don't think GITMO's really better or that any progress has been made there - the number of inmates there has been steadily declining since it was established. Most of the ones that are left are headed toward military tribunals, just as they were with Bush. (Hillariously, they'll give civilian trials to the slam-dunk cases and military tribunals to the guys who can't be convicted under civilian rules of evidence - how this is an "improvement" to someone who believes in civilian trials for terrorists I have no idea)

Public endorsements of torture have gone away, which is good. IMO, It's just going on now secretly, like it did under every other administration except Bush, who foolishly tried to justify it to the masses.

It's hard to imagine Iraq/Afghanistan being much different at this point no matter who was president.

Nothing's happened with health care yet - I'm sure SOMETHING will be passed eventually, I just hope it's not a step backwards from real reform.

The world does like us more, I know that was hugely important to some people.

I was referring to GITMO/torture, which is what you were referring to immediately before.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree; I do think that there has been incremental progress in improving that situation. You obviously think it's exactly the same as under Bush.

edit: It's difficult to respond to your points when you consistently edit your posts minutes after posting them.

I guess this is why presidential terms are more than a year?

I totally agree with Molson here. They've made progress in being smart enough to cover up and outsource the torture behind the scenes as was done before. Having Bush/Cheney explain torture was like having Bill Clinton explain what constituted sexual relations with a woman.

Yes I do. The claim that roughly 52 million people voted for Obama because he said he'd bring about a new way of doing business in Washington is risible.

Now, if you said 52 million people voted for Obama because he wasn't McCain, I might believe that.


That would be a fine argument if we weren't presented with a binary decision every time this comes up. The issue doesn't rest in the rationale people use to pick one of two guys for president. The issue rests with the long, long road that is taken to get to the point where a particular two guys become candidates.

And a year from now, we'll hear "I guess this is why presidential terms are more than two years." It won't be any better of a point than it saying it's only been a year, but it will surely be used.

A close runner up is Obama saying he'd rather be a good one-term president than a lousy two-term president. You've got to be good in the first term before you can make that claim.

And more specifically, the lack of involvement by the voting public in the state primaries that select the candidates. People bitch about the fact that there's only two choices, but there is an opportunity to select from varying viewpoints within the party to some extent.

Well, at least we know you won't be biased in your posts. Oh wait.

I agree with your second comment. Nothing wrong though with saying that in general. I mean, I'd rather be rich than poor, don't we all say what we want to happen?

Sorry about that, I should have added a new post there because that edit sums up the whole thing to me.

I don't remember a single poster/campaign promise saying that we should give civilian trials when there's zero risk of acquittal, but if a terrorist, for a variety of reasons, couldn't be convicted under civilian burdens of proof and evidentiary rules, then we should give them a military tribunal and lock them up for forever.

The Bush administration knew that civilian trials were unrealistic, so they didn't purse them, and were hammered. Obama has now come to the same conclusion (except for a couple of hand-picked show trials with nothing at stake), and it's completely OK. Did Obama learn this on the job, or did he lie to everyone to get votes? Does it matter?

Is the "improvement" in the rhetoric of idealism? Because I don't see any in practical reality.

I would love for the government to figure out how to reform healthcare (bring costs down first, cover or facilitate coverage of more people/everyone second), and make and encourage creative and dramatic advances in the way we consume and utilize energy. I'd vote for anybody who could pull off just those things.

Those things represent the future of our economy, budget, security, and environment. I don't think either of these things will ever happen though, and I don't think I'll ever even be given the chance to vote for anyone who can make those things happen.

Edit: I don't think those two things require "big government" to solve everything. I'm not smart enough have all the answers, but believe that the best chance of success is a government that understands its role and is extraordinarily supportive of private industries/non-profits.

Obama is just kind of a red herring. He's not the guy that's going to make anything better.

Er, no.

It's not a claim, it's a statement of aspiration. Therefore, it's not a comprehensive either-or.

Unless I misread Obama's statement and he claimed he already was a good president in his first term.

You damned fascist, trying to insinuate that Obama is a Communist.

Point taken. It's an aspiration that he's falling short of at this point.

Yet the Bush administration allowed Richard Reid, Aafia Siddiqui, Mohammed Babar and others to be tried (and convinced) in civilian courts.

Let's also remember that the Bush administration also muddied the waters by their liberal use of torture on these detainees, meaning there's plenty of evidence that will now be inadmissable certainly in civilian courts and probably in military tribunals.

There's no way that was the "only" reason, but I believe that it was a factor for a huge majority.

When Obama preached about "changing the way business was done in Washington", did you believe him, or do you just think that falls under "acceptable campaign fluff/lies".

I agree. I don't think it was ever expected that he would actually accomplish all of that, let alone make significant progress in a year...especially with senate members who vote against bills they sponsor. But I'm not really about blaming the party of no, I place equal blame on the party of no activity. But I mean to think that all of this falls on the president is a little short-sighted. Sure, he can try and set policy but we all know Congress is where bills are made and passed.

I think the majority of the public isn't looking for a savior, they are looking for somebody who won't fuck things up too much. They looked at McCain and Palin and saw two people, both of whom just wanted to stay the course. I voted for Obama, but really didn't care for him all that much. I would've voted for a dildo over McCain/Palin; at least I don't have to listen to the dumb rednecks cheer while I'm getting it in the ass from the dildo.

I'm not saying Bush was any kind of foreign policy wizard. If everyone is ultimately satisifed with a "better than Bush" final assessment of Obama's presidency, I'm sure they won't be dissapointed. But I think this was such a gradual let-down from the campaign that few noticed.

The whole civilian trial/military tribunal song and dance has been butchered by everyone. A formal, consistently applied tribunal process should have been in place years ago.

Apparently you did.


You ain't heard nothing yet, I assure you. The ecstasy of ridding the nation of Obama & the majority of his cronies would set off a four year celebration that will be loud and hopefully unrelenting.

I think that's true of most presidential elections, including Bill Clinton's, but I still think something different was going on with Obama (not for everyone, but definitely for the younger, first- or second-time voting crowd. There was litterally celebrations in the street.) Maybe I've just been brainwashed by the media as to the extent of the hysteria.

I doubt it. This is, after all, the same demographic who can't even make it through a NASCAR race anymore.

As opposed to the current bitchfest that is loud and unrelenting? How on earth will we be able to tell the difference?

I think that hysteria would be equally as silly as the pro-Obama hysteria.

I'm not going to be celebrating in any streets screaming about a revolution if Obama loses to Mitt Romney. (Though I'm sure many will if, god forbid, Sarah Palin is elected.)

Trust me, you'll know, at least you will if the noise of the celebration is accompanied by an insistence on better performance (no secret that I was disappointed by Bush's second term in particular).

At the moment, there's little we can do but bitch & try to thwart the enemy at every turn. Hopefully next time we won't see people lose their nerve & fail to follow through on matters that need to be addressed.

we're fucking lucky this attitude wasn't around a couple thousand years ago or we'd all still be wallowing in our own shit and living it mud houses and eating berries.

I disagree. Elections where things are generally going well (2000, 1996, 1988, 1984) are generally about who will fuck things up the least. I'll fully admit to not being overly worried about Bush's election in 2000 because I figured he wouldn't have the support or werewithal to do anything catastrophic. Boy howdy was I wrong.

Elections where things aren't going so well (2008, 2004, 1992, 1980) are about picking the guy you think has the best path (or the least worst path) forward. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean the incumbent is fucked. As pointed out in 2004, the incumbent who caused the problems can still win if he's got a better message than his opponent.


If you take the historic nature of the moment of the first black president being elected and add it to the fact that, for many, the Bush administration was, especially by its end, the worst period in their lifetime, it's easy to understand the elation. You don't even need to get into unicorns and ponies to understand it.

I can understand the first black president angle. That's worthy of some celebration.

I think though, that there was this huge myth that exploded in our culture about Bush = my life being bad, Obama = my life being good. Bush was assumed to have this god-like mystique and ability to personally alter the fate of every individual American. Everything in culture, every problem, came back to him in some way, in that myth. I guess from that, you're going to have huge hyperbole at the end that carries over to the next guy in the opposite way.

59,000,000 people voted for Kerry in 2004.

69,500,000 voted for Obama in 2008.

Seems at best 10.5 million voted because Obama was going to change everything.

It may not be as far as you or I or unnamed hippie expected, but there have been a lot of changes to how the executive branch works. The number of lobbyists in government is significantly lower. Visitor logs for the White House are public for the first time ever. FOIA requests are answered quicker. And if I spent more time researching I could find other examples.

It's like Ronnie said, is there any credit given to not reaching a goal, but moving closer towards it?

But 10.4 million of them voted for Obama because of Sarah Palin.

:D

I believed he'd try, but I didn't think he'd succeed because I figured the Republicans in Congress would be in no mood to be bipartisan and the Democratic leadership in Congress wouldn't be able to move stuff along.

You can even see it in my Hopes & Predictions post on, I think, Page 4 of this thread.

Of course, the key question here is what you mean by "changing the way business is done in Washington". It can mean many different things to many different people, which is why it's always such a good campaign promise.

I'm sure some naive hippies heard this and envisioned Democrats and Republicans beavering away in bipartisan bliss while Saint Obama watched approvingly from on high.

I'm sure some people heard this and figured he'd try a more low-key engagement approach with specific GOP Reps & Senators in an attempt to pass some key legislation.

And I'm sure still some others figured that at the very least he'd not be quite as authoritarian and abusive towards Congress as the Bush White House was.

month over month, sorry

Thanks, it just didn't click for me when I read it.

Beavering away?

SI

I dunno- I suppose it depends on what the year brings. And the next and the next.

What if he somehow passes banking reform, cap and trade, the house health care bill, successfully gets don't ask don't tell off the books, and card check this year? About as likely as the Nets winning the NBA title, I know. What if this year he doesn't do a thing because of election contentiousness and only gets banking reform done but comes back next year and does the rest? What if he does none of them and shows he's inept at any sort of Congressional wrangling? What if he does none of the above, coaxes them into passing some massive executive powers bill and after signing it, pulls off his mask to reveal he's Dick Cheney and then goes on to nuke Iran just because?

Lord knows I've written volumes here from praise to critique and we're only a year in. Yeah, I have hope that he will change things for the better. Yes, I also think he looks way in over his head right now politically with no idea of how to proceed to get what he wants done.

But I have no say in the matter for 3 more years so before I try to start examining his Presidency in a historical context, I'd like to see him actually get more than 1/4th or 1/8 of his term through. Hell, do what you want. I know I've made judgments already but they're subject to change with each decision considering how much and how widely a President effects the world with just what he does on a daily basis.

SI

If he passes cap and trade, there's a 0% chance our economy will be better a year from now (and will almost certainly be worse in many areas).

also

Should the Supreme Court be beholden to public opinion?

I think DT was referring to Senator Mitch McConnell.

My bad if so. Looks that way upon rereading.

yep. was referring to McConnell