(June 30, 2012 at 12:42 am)jackman Wrote: my guess is that forfeiting a campaign promise in light of learning more about the effects of moving too swiftly or unilaterally, is a show of intelligence. people who don't change, show me that they're not open to new information or feel like they already know it all. president is not dictator, he tries to rule by committee which isn't doing him any favors, because repubs block so much of his work. and they do it with a very upfront and outspoken agenda, starting with grover nordquist's pledge. how much sense does it make to sign a pledge from some guy upon entering elected office? you corner yourself from negotiations right off the bat.
the reason it seems to me, that min invoked mccain is that the complaint is how slow obama is traversing his list of promises, versus what would've gotten done if he didn't win. i agree with what he said and i have no way of knowing if it would've been right, but this is a discussion forum and for coversation's sake, based on just the links he posted, it makes sense. yes, you can't keep saying it's all bush's fault, unless it is. when we're put in a predicament like his administration put us in, you don't pop out in 3, 4 or maybe 8 years, with shiny new pearls but you chip away at it until it clears up. you need to tear shit up worse sometimes, to fix things. i think he is the best chance of keeping things on that path in november.
Quote:Your political messiah doesn't give a shit.i wish i was privied to the info that you are, to be able to make a comment like that.
My use of the word 'messiah' was intentional and referenced the unyielding fealty Min has for the Democrat party, perhaps too much poetic license...I'll leave it to you.
Everyone understands the turd that President Obama was given, but at some point you have to stand up, turn around and flush the turd. You talk about the 3, 4, or 8 years required to enact change. If there were some semblence of change, as promised, in the first 3 to 4 years I would be inclined to do my part to ensure the man got to continue the mission to the 8th year. The problem is that nothing has changed. David Patraeus is a perfect example. Bush's General darling that is now the director of the CIA...all Obama. There was a Democrat, might have been Hillary but I forget, that got some stick for referring to him as Betrayus. My brother that's in the Army laughed it off saying that people in the Army had been calling him that for years, yet he becomes the director of the CIA.
You claim that the Republicans have hampered Obama. No shit. This has been the case since the Constitution was ratified and the obvioius result of a two party system. My problem is that this is spouted as if to also say that Democrats in Congress never hampered a Republican president's ambition. What about the first two years where Obama's party had control of both houses of Congress? Yes, I know that the Democrats didn't have the requisite 60 votes in the Senate to prevent filibuster, but they rammed through the Affordable Health Care Act right? Why not anything else? Why not troops home, that didn't require action by the Congress? Obama's last budget proposal got rejected 99-0 in the Senate. This hardly smacks of pure Republican obstruction.
Your reply regarding McCain is simply a rationalization. McCain being part of the discussion is nothing more than a non-sequitor. McCain has never been president; therefore, any conclusion made on the premise 'if he was' is meaningless.
I will assume that we don't see things much differently politically; however, I use effectiveness as a measure of success from our President; whereas you are ok with the unrealized ideal. Reagan and Clinton were both very effective Presidents, both for most of their tenures worked with political opposition majorities in the Congress.
