Anyone encouraged by what they see from Obama?

[The Moz 69]

We have had several posts on how he sucks so far -- wondering if anyone has a opinion the other way?

 

I am actually encouraged by what I have seen thus far.

 

Willingness to make the right choice ( in regards to cabinet / staff ) no matter if it is what he personally would want , The rest of the world pretty much having a new attitude towards us , the fact he has prolly put in more work as the prez elect than Bush W did in 8 years.

 

I just don't understand what the naysayers are talking about already? The economy sucks whic is why jobs are getting lost not because Obama is president - or are people really that dumb to think it is Obama's fault?

[Bert 1,092]

I just don't understand what the naysayers are talking about already? The economy sucks whic is why jobs are getting lost not because Obama is president - or are people really that dumb to think it is Obama's fault?

Goes with the territory. People like yourself blamed everything bad on Bush and everything good on left overs from the Clinton administration. So if you were dumb enough to blame everything on Bush you're dumb enough to blame everything on Obama.

[wiffleball 4,646]

The naysayers are the same trolls who though McCain/Palin was a solid ticket, so take that for what it's worth.

 

Like you, I'm impressed with his cabinet choices. Keeping Gates on is a good idea. Compare that to the Bush camp's complete dismissal of anything the prior administration had to say about security (hence, 9-11) and it's a good start.

 

I can't stand HRC, but, if Biden was going to be veep, then I guess it's a good pick. He had every right to blow her off - especially given Bill's performances, but doing so will strengthen him with the party and she brings some credibility. (God, that was hard to say)

 

I like the fact that he selected Rahm. Hard-nosed SOB will get shiit done. He's got proven history. Definitely like him selecting republicans. Will hopefully help him reach across the aisle. I also like the fact that not everybody in his party agrees with each other. That focking mindless groupthink of the BushCo (where Liberty University graduates were in the top echelons of the JD? - Geebus) is ridiculous.

 

As much as I like Biden, he will eventually go off the rails.

 

More than anything, I like that he's actually hitting the ground running - but showing deference and respect at the same time. Bush wasn't exactly an eager-beaver in that regard. Sorry, there's no warm-up period (hence, 9-11). We don't have time for that.

 

Look, I don't know if this guy will be worth diddly-damn. Haven't been many since FDR that really were. And plenty of people from back in the day have bad things to say about even him. Reagan's revisionism is just pathetic - and I liked him. Ultimately, it's about the lesser of two evils. The McCain/Palin campaign may go down as one of the worst run campaigns in recent history. That's not me saying that. That's William Kristol and other noted Conservatives saying that. We had to choose somebody. If you can't run a campaign, you can't run a country. P.E. Obama proved he can run a campaign better than pretty much anybody in recent history - without taking public money. That's a focking refreshing first.

 

I'm gonna give him time. Hell, I liked BushCo at first. Only time will tell. The good news? He can't fock up the country any worse. He's like Bill Parcells coming into the Dolfins.

[KSB2424 3,083]

I just don't understand what the naysayers are talking about already? The economy sucks whic is why jobs are getting lost not because Obama is president - or are people really that dumb to think it is Obama's fault?

Cause it's fun?

 

In all seriousness, I hope people have a wait and see approach to Obama, that is only fair. However the fact that he is supporting all these bailouts, and wants another (even bigger) stimulus package, ect. that will be funded by the gov't is a little concerning to me. Plus, I'm willing to make a wager that all those tax raises on the wealthy he promised will not come to fruition nor will he repeal any of Bush's tax cuts. When it is all said and done his tax plan will look more like McCains. I read an article as such just yesterday where Obama would prolly have to halt his plans due to the economy. Most of us knew his tax crap would not fly in this economy months ago. I just think alot of that was smoke being blown up our collective asses to get elected.

[The Moz 69]

Goes with the territory. People like yourself blamed everything bad on Bush and everything good on left overs from the Clinton administration. So if you were dumb enough to blame everything on Bush you're dumb enough to blame everything on Obama.

 

 

I am registered republican and the only thing I ever really Blamed on Bush seriously was the Iraq war. Was the Iraq war ( total an complete fock up ) someone else's fault? If so please let us know.

[Strike 3,980]

I don't really see what there is to be encouraged about. He kept Gates? Didn't he bash Bush's handling of the Iraq war constantly during the election? Yet, he decides to keep on Bush's Defense Secretary? That doesn't seem wise given his opinion of the Iraq war. I don't like the Clinton nomination either, but that's because I don't think she's qualified to do ANYTHING. Seems like some of his appointments are simply political favors and payback. I thought he was supposed to be different? Obama has already backtracked on just about every campaign promise he made so now not only do I not like his policies, I don't even know what the fock they are. So, we'll see what actually happens once he's in office but encouraged; No I'm no encouraged.

[wiffleball 4,646]

I am registered republican and the only thing I ever really Blamed on Bush seriously was the Iraq war. Was the Iraq war ( total an complete fock up ) someone else's fault? If so please let us know.

 

Exactly. It's this kind of spin you hear from KSB and others as well. "You HATE Bush! You HATE him! You blamed him for EVERYTHING!!!"

 

 

Well no hon, actually I was the one going round and round with Torrid back in the day. I voted for the focker the first time around - lots of people did. His platform was great. Unfortunately, he lied about every focking thing he campaigned on. There's a VAST difference between those who voted for Bush once and those who voted for him twice. - Mostly based in intellectual capacity. - As evidinced repeatedly by the remaining bored members who continue to support the failed policies of the GOP and believe the half-witted bumper-sticker soundbites.

[posty 2,296]

half-witted bumper-sticker soundbites.

 

This coming from the guy who supported the candidate that all he said was HOPE and CHANGE...

[remote controller 133]

Very! I am hoping for the best for our country, and Obama is soon to be in charge. I hope he does what he says, and not what his record shows he has done. So far, I have been impressed, and hope he keeps it up. What this country needs is people to stand by what they say, and to throw out those who fail in that regard, like Congress. We have to finally pull together and support our President. We Republicans screwed up when we went after Clinton for his morality. The fact that he lied to a Grand Jury is one thing, but to try to crucify him for a human mistake was wrong, and Bush paid for it. In this internet age, it will be difficult for there to EVER be a popular President, as blogs can say what ever they want. We, as Americans have to help Obama succeed!! I am tired of the back and forth, and I hate seeing other country's predicting the demise of the USA!!! Bush deserves credit for protecting us since 911. After that happened, that was JOB #1 for him, and he succeeded. We need to help Obama succeed now, in Economic recovery, and realize, he too, wants the USA to be Great and to protect her. He will try.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

He hasn't done anything so far except name a bunch of ex Clinton douchebags to be part of his administration. So anybody that supported him initially will say that they are encouraged by what they have seen. Anyone who opposed him will say they are not. He hasn't done anything either way to sway anyone. Bump this thread in 2 years to get some real answers.

[wiffleball 4,646]

This coming from the guy who supported the candidate that all he said was HOPE and CHANGE...

 

No, that's all Fox told you he was saying - and you ate it up with a spoon. That's exactly the kind of simplistic soundbite nonsense that I'm talking about.

[Bert 1,092]

Exactly. It's this kind of spin you hear from KSB and others as well. "You HATE Bush! You HATE him! You blamed him for EVERYTHING!!!"

I'm not spinning anything. I'm glad you brought up the revisionism of the Reagan years. We seem to have the same thing going on with the Democrats that voted to go into Iraq. When more than 50% of the Democratic Sentors give approval to go in they should be held accountable as well as this POS administration. Sorry for got the Link

 

As for the dumber sticker comment, I ask you which is worse the people that believe the half-witted bumper soundbites (like hope and change) or the people that elected a president based only on the color of his skin?

[KSB2424 3,083]

I'm not spinning anything. I'm glad you brought up the revisionism of the Reagan years. We seem to have the same thing going on with the Democrats that voted to go into Iraq. When more than 50% of the Democratic Sentors give approval to go in they should be held accountable as well as this POS administration. Sorry for got the Link

I remember after 9/11. All the fury and pride of Americans. Democrat/Rebulican it didn't matter. These colors don't run!@#! and Let's Roll!@#! We went after Bin Laden, based on info that dated through the Clinton administration we went into Iraq. Terrorism was going down. Fock those guys! The public was all for it, CONGRESS (majority of both sides) was all for it.

 

Time went on...Bin Laden was harder to find than we thought....that info the Clinton administration also believed turned out to be false....and some mis-steps happened along the way.

 

Should some of those mis-steps be blamed on Bush? Sure. But now the war is blamed on Bush, he made up the WMD's out of thin air, ect. When the war and times got tough you folks bailed on your President and made it a politcal catch phrase for your party's gain.

 

It is/was partisan revisionist history at it's best. The media plays into it and mooks like Wiffle spout it on internet message boards.

[RLLD 3,455]

I cannot find any meaningful "fault" in his actions thus far.

 

Then again, I do not exactly subscribe to the notion that he will be able to step in and fix everything that ails this nation. If he can avoid falling victim to the lobbyist propaganda machine there is at least some hope that his decisions will help us more than they hurt us...

[wiffleball 4,646]

I'm not spinning anything. I'm glad you brought up the revisionism of the Reagan years. We seem to have the same thing going on with the Democrats that voted to go into Iraq. When more than 50% of the Democratic Sentors give approval to go in they should be held accountable as well as this POS administration.

 

I've covered that one before. If you'd bother to educate yourself by reading the books written by Bush's own guys, you'd hear the shiit that they were telling Congressmen before the invasion. Like I've said before, if MY President told MY Senator that Saddam Hussein had barges off the Atlantic Coast with Remote Controlled planes filled with Anthrax, I'd GOODDAMN SURE want my Senator to vote for that war. Of course, the expectation is that the President and his administration is neither 1) Incompetent and 2) Lying. In this case, they were both. That's just one example of the stuff that was told in classified congressional briefings.

 

Again, if you'd educate yourself (you won't), you'll find that there was ONE source for most of the intel that Cheney and Co spewed to Congress. A guy named "Curveball" (no relation). He was so un-credibile that even the CIA handlers in Germany taking his shiit didn't believe it - and told the CIA so when they reported it. The guy claimed to be an engineer. Turns out, he was a cab driver. Rums, Wolf and Cheney ignored all of the warnings about the credibility and ran with it.

 

It's pretty common sense. Again, just educate yourself on PNAC. Who was in the upper echelon of PNAC? Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol from Fox News, and about 25% of the Bush WestWing. What did they openly call for? An INVASION OF IRAQ. They did so long before Bush took office. They did so in the WSJ for Chrissake. On July 2001, Powell and Rice (not members of PnAC) exclaimed: "The inspections are working!" 3 months later, they weren't? Come on. Any half-assed attempt to educate yourself shows that BushCo used 9/11 as a pretext for invading Iraq. - Even though 9/11 had nothing to do with it.

 

How do we know this? Diick Cheney goes on MTP one time and says "it's been pretty well confirmed that Al Qaeda met with Iraq". A year later (post invasion) when confronted on this statement what does Diick say? "I never said that! Never Said it! Nope. Uh-uh. Wasn't me." - Even though they had him on videotape!! - I mean, you'd have to be focking retarded not to see the lie there. Think he wasn't telling Congress the EXACT SAME thing - and more? Now we know for sure that's EXACTLY what he was doing.

 

Like I've said before, the problem with the books from BUSH's OWN GUYS is that the people who NEED to read them will assiduously avoid them like the plague. - And those that do buy them already had a pretty good idea before they ever do.

 

One of the best/worst scams pulled on America since the USS Pueblo - Mission Accomplished.

[Bert 1,092]

I've covered that one before. If you'd bother to educate yourself by reading the books written by Bush's own guys, you'd hear the shiit that they were telling Congressmen before the invasion. Like I've said before, if MY President told MY Senator that Saddam Hussein had barges off the Atlantic Coast with Remote Controlled planes filled with Anthrax, I'd GOODDAMN SURE want my Senator to vote for that war. Of course, the expectation is that the President and his administration is neither 1) Incompetent and 2) Lying. In this case, they were both. That's just one example of the stuff that was told in classified congressional briefings.

 

Again, if you'd educate yourself (you won't), you'll find that there was ONE source for most of the intel that Cheney and Co spewed to Congress. A guy named "Curveball" (no relation). He was so un-credibile that even the CIA handlers in Germany taking his shiit didn't believe it - and told the CIA so when they reported it. The guy claimed to be an engineer. Turns out, he was a cab driver. Rums, Wolf and Cheney ignored all of the warnings about the credibility and ran with it.

 

It's pretty common sense. Again, just educate yourself on PNAC. Who was in the upper echelon of PNAC? Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol from Fox News, and about 25% of the Bush WestWing. What did they openly call for? An INVASION OF IRAQ. They did so long before Bush took office. They did so in the WSJ for Chrissake. On July 2001, Powell and Rice (not members of PnAC) exclaimed: "The inspections are working!" 3 months later, they weren't? Come on. Any half-assed attempt to educate yourself shows that BushCo used 9/11 as a pretext for invading Iraq. - Even though 9/11 had nothing to do with it.

 

How do we know this? Diick Cheney goes on MTP one time and says "it's been pretty well confirmed that Al Qaeda met with Iraq". A year later (post invasion) when confronted on this statement what does Diick say? "I never said that! Never Said it! Nope. Uh-uh. Wasn't me." - Even though they had him on videotape!! - I mean, you'd have to be focking retarded not to see the lie there. Think he wasn't telling Congress the EXACT SAME thing - and more? Now we know for sure that's EXACTLY what he was doing.

 

Like I've said before, the problem with the books from BUSH's OWN GUYS is that the people who NEED to read them will assiduously avoid them like the plague. - And those that do buy them already had a pretty good idea before they ever do.

 

One of the best/worst scams pulled on America since the USS Pueblo - Mission Accomplished.

 

[remote controller 133]

FOX News scares the hell out of Democrats!! I don't get it. All of the other networks bother me, but why do you have to control the spin from all networks? Is something wrong with the message, or is there something to hide? You also want to try and control talk radio because nobody wants to listen to your message, or the one trying to deliver it. If you don't like something turn it off!!!! Don't whine about it!!

[jerryskids 5,210]

He hasn't done anything so far except name a bunch of ex Clinton douchebags to be part of his administration. So anybody that supported him initially will say that they are encouraged by what they have seen. Anyone who opposed him will say they are not. He hasn't done anything either way to sway anyone. Bump this thread in 2 years to get some real answers.

I am actually encouraged a bit by this, as I am by his starting to backtrack on things like his tax plan. Shows he has a bit of a pragmatic streak and is willing to modify his stances based on current info. You know, actually grow into the role. I've always hated when people say "Senator, 4 years ago you wanted X, now you want Y, you flipflopper!@#" In our country today you can't respond "umm yeah, I'm 4 years older and have 4 more years of info, and now I think Y is better, stupid."

[KSB2424 3,083]

I am actually encouraged a bit by this, as I am by his starting to backtrack on things like his tax plan. Shows he has a bit of a pragmatic streak and is willing to modify his stances based on current info. You know, actually grow into the role. I've always hated when people say "Senator, 4 years ago you wanted X, now you want Y, you flipflopper!@#" In our country today you can't respond "umm yeah, I'm 4 years older and have 4 more years of info, and now I think Y is better, stupid."

Well, sure. I totally agree with THAT example. However it's been 4 weeks not 4 years, or even 4 months.

 

To implement his tax cuts to the "95%" of the voters, meant that he had to put in his plan to heavily tax the rich and corporations to compensate. Anybody with half a brain knew that would be economic suicide in the current economy and would never happen. But it sure sounded good on the campaign trail that we all would get all this money so vote for me.

[Franknbeans 46]

This coming from the guy who supported the candidate that all he said was HOPE and CHANGE...

HOPE and CHANGE trumps FEAR every time

[jocstrap 8]

Is it possible to fight a winless war on their turf and have a successful economy back home?

[KSB2424 3,083]

Empty Promises trumps the Truth every time.

:sadbanana:

[wiffleball 4,646]

Is it possible to fight a winless war on their turf and have a successful economy back home?

 

Just ask the commies.

[Mungwater 588]

Speaking of 9-11, whos willing to bet that Bin Laden is already dead? I mean, the dude does need dialysis twice a day, he can't live in a cave for long.

 

Just like Ocelan, we'll let someone else take teh credit for his death.

[jets24 6]

I'm encouraged by what I've seen and I posted exactly that a week or two ago. For the most part, I like his appointments. I hope he does well. I really do. It's a tough battle and the die hard Republicans (I am one) would be better off supporting him and his staff. I must admit though, the one thing that will likely happen is that when the troops start coming home, it will be all Obama's doing and he will be praised for it. The war in Iraq may prove to be a vital win for our country and say what you want, President Bush stuck to his guns there, pushed for the surge which has worked very well and may never get credit for it. Other than that, I am excited at the prospect of new Government and hope they can turn things around. Personally, I will just be happy to hear less Bush bashing. I think that is disrespectful and doesn't help the country.

[MLCKAA 400]

the fact he has prolly put in more work as the prez elect than Bush W did in 8 years.

 

 

I didn't vote for Bush in either election, but I have to point this out as an example of some of the blatantly stupid things that Bush detractors say.

 

Consider that Bush had 9/11, Katrina and the Iraq invasion during his presidency. Regardless of your opinion on any of those subjects, their handling or causes, you look like a fool to criticize Bush as a slacker. Say he is a poor decisionizer, but to call him lazy is foolish.

[Mungwater 588]

I didn't vote for Bush in either election, but I have to point this out as an example of some of the blatantly stupid things that Bush detractors say.

 

Consider that Bush had 9/11, Katrina and the Iraq invasion during his presidency. Regardless of your opinion on any of those subjects, their handling or causes, you look like a fool to criticize Bush as a slacker. Say he is a poor decisionizer, but to call him lazy is foolish.

 

Not to mention the space shuttle blowing up

 

He has had one of the hardest presidencies in a while, granted some of it was of his doing, but he's had more challenges since maybe Eisenhower.

[jocstrap 8]

Just ask the commies.

 

 

didn't know they had a booming economy?

[The Moz 69]

didn't know they had a booming economy?

 

 

stupid Jocstrap

 

 

 

before the Afgan invasion bread lines were longer.

[wiffleball 4,646]

I didn't vote for Bush in either election, but I have to point this out as an example of some of the blatantly stupid things that Bush detractors say.

 

Consider that Bush had 9/11, Katrina and the Iraq invasion during his presidency. Regardless of your opinion on any of those subjects, their handling or causes, you look like a fool to criticize Bush as a slacker. Say he is a poor decisionizer, but to call him lazy is foolish.

Let's break that down a bit:

 

 

9/11: Bush was on vacation for FIVE STRAIGHT WEEKS just prior to 9/11. He never ONCE met with his CIA Director. When in DC, he meets with him every single day -at least once. By the way: He'd been on the job for what? 6 months? And that wasn't even his first vacation!

 

OBL: Regarding OBL. First he says "Finding OBL is our first priority". 3 months later, he says, "meh, I don't really think about him. He's not a priority."

 

Katrina: Roundly criticized BY THE REPUBLICANS for not responding to the news of the levee breaks soon enough. Of course, he couldn't help it. - He was on vacation for ONE FULL MONTH at the time - and stayed on vacation even after the news broke.

 

Now, I don't blame him for Katrina. I think the locals should have handled all that and frankly, NOLA people are largely scum. BUT how many of US get the chance to step away from the office for say, 4-5-6 weeks at a time? - And if you're President and you know a cat 4-5 is coming, don'tcha think to yerself, maybe I should just pop back to the office for a few days? - Even if for nothing other than appearance sake?

 

Bush is roundly known as having taken more vacation time than any single president in modern history. It got so bad the press corps was quietly threatened to stop posting how many days he was off. Before you pull the whole "he's NEVER on vacation" line, consider this: GW Bush took more official vacation days in his first term than Bill Clinton did in eight years. The technology for staying in touch wasn't that different. Or consider this: HW Bush had more press Q&A's in his one term than GWB had had in TWO terms.

 

- Pretty much makes him look like a slacker to most people. - Unless you think the CEO of most major corporations take nearly HALF the time that GWB does.

 

As of early 2008, He has spent 879 days in Crawford.

 

BTW - That doesn't NEARLY count the 600+ days he's spent at Camp David.

[jocstrap 8]

stupid Jocstrap

before the Afgan invasion bread lines were longer.

 

 

Didn't know Afgan's were commies

[The Moz 69]

Didn't know Afgan's were commies

 

[naomi 343]

If you can't run a campaign, you can't run a country. P.E. Obama proved he can run a campaign better than pretty much anybody in recent history - without taking public money. That's a focking refreshing first.

Have to agree with that to an extent. If McCain had come off more like he did in his concession speech throughout the campaign, he'd have been better off. While Palin energized the campaign for a time she needed to handle herself better. I do think the media made it hard for her and that's not an unfounded thought, they even admit to it. Any and all controversy regarding her was good for ratings. We didn't have to see Biden insulting a reporter and bragging about his IQ and his academic placements over and over. Even without that though, McCain's idea of a winning image was off. Obama's wasn't on the other hand, it just doesn't set right how it appealed. If it's somewhat of an insight into ability to run the country, well then I'd imagine he could definitely run it, likely not in a way I like, but he could get what he wants done. Hoping the cynical part of those thoughts turn out to be unwarranted.

 

It was smart not taking public financing, but think about why he appealed. The electorate is always passionate about the other party during realigning elections and they have 'hope' about 'change.' Always. Along comes someone who's smart enough to capitalize on that dynamic to the inth degree and he should do well. If McCain had been elected it would be off putting why that appealed, unless people could defend their views philosophically-you could tell it was more than the package being responded to. All that said, since he backed off of his financing agreement with McCain...he was certainly being smart, but the principle of it and WHY it happens to be smart...don't know about "refreshing."

[kilroy69 995]

People like yourself blamed everything bad on Bush and everything good on left overs from the Clinton administration. So if you were dumb enough to blame everything on Bush you're dumb enough to blame everything on Obama.

so wait, what you are saying is that bush is in fact not in the top 5 for the worst ALL TIME presidents. It was just the haters out there that said so?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

With the cabinet Obama is picking you can look to 4 years of him being a puppet for the the old Clinton regime.

[YoMan 0]

Well, sure. I totally agree with THAT example. However it's been 4 weeks not 4 years, or even 4 months.

 

To implement his tax cuts to the "95%" of the voters, meant that he had to put in his plan to heavily tax the rich and corporations to compensate. Anybody with half a brain knew that would be economic suicide in the current economy and would never happen. But it sure sounded good on the campaign trail that we all would get all this money so vote for me.

I think he still plans to implement the tax cuts/increases that he campaigned on but it will be at least a year before he does so and will depend on how the economy looks at that time.

 

It is too early to really make any determinations as to how Obama will govern but I am encouraged that he will govern towards the center by some of his cabinet choices.