Obama: How much slack?

[dcmdale]

I have been noticing a fair number of opinion articles since the election in the same vein as this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/us...er=rss&emc=rss

Personally, I am willing to give the President some significant slack, but that is probably because I never believed in his campaign promises to begin with. Change is a lot harder than Obama, the candidate, believed. I knew that. Now he is president and he is finding out how hard it is. It is a good maturing process for him. As much as I voted against him, I would be crazy to not want him to be successful as president.

However, my perception is that there is swelling opinion on both the left and the right that he needs to be held to his campaign promises. What is the opinion here? Are you happy with his compromises (so far) with reality? Think he is becoming another Clinton? Glad that the left is criticizing him?

[OROD]

Let me explain the simple maths to you:

Obama = politician = liar

I know you're all excited about change you can believe in and all that, but I only care about the change I can take to the bank.

.

[Mergs]

How much slack? The same amount that was afforded his predecessor. Why should he be treated differently? You make promises to the people, you should be expected to live up to them. It's called credibility. And it is a binary condition. Either you have it or you don't. The first time you go against it, you've lost it.

[noodle]

it really surprises me how people think that the president is the iron-fisted god-king of the country, and, on the other side of that coin, that campaign promises are sacred.

just because he said he'll do something doesn't mean that the rest of government will actually facilitate what he wants. and just because he said he'll do something doesn't mean it'll get done immediately, or get done at all.

[Slim]

I have been noticing a fair number of opinion articles since the election in the same vein as this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/us...er=rss&emc=rss

Personally, I am willing to give the President some significant slack, but that is probably because I never believed in his campaign promises to begin with. Change is a lot harder than Obama, the candidate, believed. I knew that. Now he is president and he is finding out how hard it is. It is a good maturing process for him. As much as I voted against him, I would be crazy to not want him to be successful as president.

However, my perception is that there is swelling opinion on both the left and the right that he needs to be held to his campaign promises. What is the opinion here? Are you happy with his compromises (so far) with reality? Think he is becoming another Clinton? Glad that the left is criticizing him?

The question is, how do you define success? What's your measure of a successful president?

If it is in pushing forth his and Pelosi's partisan agendas, then no...I dont want him to succeed. I want him to fail.

The so called bail-out bill dripping with pork fat and new social programs...nope, I'd like to see that fail also. I don't believe it's a long term win for the country.

If it's working intelligently to get us out of this financial hole and holding people accountable for the mess they created, then I'm right behind him.

Nominating and supporting 2 tax cheats, one of which will be in charge of actually collecting taxes isnt a very good start. If it was not so sad, it would be funny.

He catered to the left, and now he going centrist, like they all do..but the left tend to eat their own more viciously than the right does. At least it will be entertaining.

Late breaking update...now its up to 3 tax cheats.

Timothy Geithner
Tom Daschle
Nancy Killefer

[Slim]

Let me explain the simple maths to you:

Obama = politicial = liar

I know you're all excited about change you can believe in and all that, but I only care about the change I can take to the bank.

.

That's all you're going to have left buddy. Change.

[Hauptman]

it really surprises me how people think that the president is the iron-fisted god-king of the country, and, on the other side of that coin, that campaign promises are sacred.

just because he said he'll do something doesn't mean that the rest of government will actually facilitate what he wants. and just because he said he'll do something doesn't mean it'll get done immediately, or get done at all.

This is too true. Nothing is accomplished politically without compromise. Personally I prefer pragmatic compromise over standing fast to principle and accomplishing nothing.

Is Obama perfect? Of course not, but he's sure better than any of the other candidates that were up for the job.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Late breaking update...now its up to 3 tax cheats.

Timothy Geithner
Tom Daschle
Nancy Killefer

Two of whom have dropped out. That's why there's a confirmation process in the first place.

Here's the good point Tyler Cowen makes Here--

I am more than willing to grant that not every nominee deserves to be appointed to rule over me. But I'm also worried about the incentives we are producing by applying tougher standards. Knocking out the caught cheaters won't make all the DC people honest or virtuous. The long run effect is to select for people who have known -- from the very beginning -- that they seek power and who are willing to pay money to the taxman to keep that option alive. We are selecting for people who are very good at covering up their misdeeds. We're selecting for honest people too. There's lots of posturing on this issue, but I'm not sure whether the net effect of the crackdown is positive, once you take all these selection effects into account. There's something to be said for selecting people who are relatively bad at cover-ups.

[erooMynohtnA]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

[SabreReedfrost]

I would like to see him do the right things... but I'm still waiting for him to come out and pave my road with gold.

[Slim]

Two of whom have dropped out. That's why there's a confirmation process in the first place.

Here's the good point Tyler Cowen makes Here--

Really? Didn't seem to stop a tax cheat from getting confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury. The head of the tax collection agency is a tax cheat. And it was known to everyone during the confirmation process.

Hope and Change.

[I_luv_saber]

This is too true. Nothing is accomplished politically without compromise. Personally I prefer pragmatic compromise over standing fast to principle and accomplishing nothing.

It's a helluva lot easier when your party controls everything and can slide everything through. Congress should not be a huge, insurmountable hurdle to the things he wants done.

And, I gotta say, at least where I live, Bush was damned for the first bailout while Obama is being praised for this one. Biased much? (of course, that's just here, dunno about elsewhere)

Like I said before, I think Obama is in a perfect position politically. If the country does well, he made good on his promises (regardless if any of it has to do with him), if he fails epically then Bush just left everything so bad off that there was nothing he could do in a mere 4 years.

I still stand by my position that the majority of Obama's voters drank the kool-aid. Voting for him based on the issues and such I can respect. But I just don't think that was the case with the majority of people who voted for him.

[Lemonaide]

Patience is a virtue.

[OROD]

Patience is a virtue.

Oooh cool, are we doing cliches now? My turn, my turn...

In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.

Oh, crap, wait... I guess that only applies to people not being nominated for an Obama administration job.

I screwed up.

[telkanuru]

Yawn.

Is there anything going on here besides people who would never support a Democratic White House complaining and being told to stuff it by people who would never support a Republican one?

[noodle]

Yawn.

Is there anything going on here besides people who would never support a Democratic White House complaining?

another thing i'm amazed at is how quickly the "we're at war and you should support our president" switches when the power switches. the same people who were spouting it a year ago today are now saying they hope obama fails. talk about hypocracy.

[OROD]

another thing i'm amazed at is how quickly the "we're at war and you should support our president" switches when the power switches. the same people who were spouting it a year ago today are now saying they hope obama fails. talk about hypocracy.

What exactly is it about politics and hypocracy that amazes you?

.

[noodle]

What exactly is it about politics and hypocracy that amazes you?

.

how quickly people flip. usually, hypocrites do it gradually so that its not easily noticeable. also, how brazen people are about it. its like they think their past statements haven't been recorded somewhere.

[OROD]

how quickly people flip. usually, hypocrites do it gradually so that its not easily noticeable. also, how brazen people are about it. its like they think their past statements haven't been recorded somewhere.

Well, it's the smarter and sneakier ones that space things out.

In any case, in politics reasons are just rationalizations. What works for your guy may not necessarily work as soon as the other guy gets elected. You dont really think that Republicans believe that gay marriage is some great threat to the American moral fiber? Do they actually believe there is a "culture war" going on? Hmm? "War on Christmas" anyone? Please! Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. He was right, but politicians (especially recently Republicans) have learned this lesson and expanded it to a whole new realm. Joseph Goebbels could have learned some lessons from these people.

What's interesting to watch is how the "media" plays into this. You have your Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys who's shows are basically non-stop propaganda for one side. Then you have your Rachel Maddows basically doing the same on the other side. Jesus Christ, sometimes I have to change the channel during Maddow's show cause I get the urge to punch her smug face.

Then, one level down from them you have your Bill O'Reillys and Jon Stewarts... their shows are MOSTLY propaganda, but they mix in enough of the other sides' stuff to make you think they might actually be "fair and balanced". But, they're only more subtle it. And, unfortunately, there's enough morons and sheeple out there that watch these shows and then go to sleep happy with themselves thinking that they are the trully clear-thinking and open-minded ones, and everyone else is just somehow misguided or not that bright. Yeah, well guess what...

[/rant]

[Slim]

Fear mongering or just plain stupidity?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E