Obama has already broke Campaign promises

[CD]

Originally Posted by Krasch

I wasn't crying at all, but asking a valid question.

My own guess was it was a fairly even split among pro-Obama voters and anti-Biush voters that got Obama elected. What I'd really be interested to see is some empirical data on the subject.

Surely you're not naive enough to believe that an "anti-Bush" factor wasn't at least a statistically significant proportion of Obama voters. (which does not at infer that it was or even near the primary factor, jest statistically significant)

I'd be willing to bet that most Presidents in our history were chosen to counteract the previous 4-8 years. Not saying the previous 4-8 were bad, but we have evolved as a country and will do so after every new President takes office. Bush took office after Clinton because people wanted a more moral and Christian President? Clinton took office because people wanted a President who didn't use trickle down economics? I'm not saying it wasn't a factor... I'm saying that most Obama voters that you think were voting for him because he's not Bush, were voting for him because he IS liberal.

Seriously dude, the people who are more likely to vote for a certain party are more likely to listen to that sides argument. So you can try to make a point by saying you'd like to hear more empirical evidence supporting your claim, but I doubt it's out there in a nice anti-liberal table or chart.

Oh, and thanks for the negative rep.

[Krasch]

Originally Posted by CD

I'd be willing to bet that most Presidents in our history were chosen to counteract the previous 4-8 years. Not saying the previous 4-8 were bad, but we have evolved as a country and will do so after every new President takes office. Bush took office after Clinton because people wanted a more moral and Christian President? Clinton took office because people wanted a President who didn't use trickle down economics? I'm not saying it wasn't a factor... I'm saying that most Obama voters that you think were voting for him because he's not Bush, were voting for him because he IS liberal.

Seriously dude, the people who are more likely to vote for a certain party are more likely to listen to that sides argument. So you can try to make a point by saying you'd like to hear more empirical evidence supporting your claim, but I doubt it's out there in a nice anti-liberal table or chart.

Oh, and thanks for the negative rep.

Hate to have to correct you on this, but Bush Sr. didn't use trickle down Reaganomics, nor was he turfed for that reason.

Bush Sr. got fired for pledging those immortal words "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES" then implementing and backing a Democrat designed budget that was one of the largest tax increases ever at that time.

Bush Sr. split from Reagan economically in order to try and reduce political gridlock and get some Democrat support for his policies, something the Dems didn't follow through on, leaving Bush high and dry with large Grade A yolks on his mug.

As for people voting for Obama BECAUSE he's liberal, I will admit it's POSSIBLE but somehow I sincerely doubt it's as high as you'd like to think. According to the most recent polls on the stimulus plan originated by Obama and heavily pushed by him, a bare majority of Americans think the plan is a good one with over a third concluding it's too much money, and it's the liberal Democrats in the house trying to push those numbers higher.

If the populace suddenly turned pro-liberal like you suggest, wouldn't they tend to support the increased spending in the stimulus plan in greater numbers? Numbers that aren't trending downwards? (BTW the numbers of those opposed are growing with undecided shrinking)

By comparison Obama himself enjoys around a 75% approval rating.

Maybe it's misleading, but the evidence we have would SEEM to indicate more love for Obama the man rather than the liberal Democrats at large. Personality as opposed to policy. But who knows you could be right.

[CD]

Originally Posted by Krasch

Hate to have to correct you on this, but Bush Sr. didn't use trickle down Reaganomics, nor was he turfed for that reason.

Bush Sr. got fired for pledging those immortal words "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES" then implementing and backing a Democrat designed budget that was one of the largest tax increases ever at that time.

Bush Sr. split from Reagan economically in order to try and reduce political gridlock and get some Democrat support for his policies, something the Dems didn't follow through on, leaving Bush high and dry with large Grade A yolks on his mug.

Sorry about the trickle down... I was extremely tired when I wrote that. But hopefully the idea behind it was ok. I just think the country goes in a certain direction, and the people try to make slight corrections every 4 or 8 years (every 2 if you count Congress).

Originally Posted by Krasch

As for people voting for Obama BECAUSE he's liberal, I will admit it's POSSIBLE but somehow I sincerely doubt it's as high as you'd like to think. According to the most recent polls on the stimulus plan originated by Obama and heavily pushed by him, a bare majority of Americans think the plan is a good one with over a third concluding it's too much money, and it's the liberal Democrats in the house trying to push those numbers higher.

And I somehow doubt your opinion that most registered Democrats actually considered McCain at all. It's probably more likely that some Republicans got a little ticked at the way things were going and considered Obama. Remember, the Iraq War was unpopular on both sides so Obama was a solution more then McCain was a clone.

Neither stimulus plan was worth a shit. The first one was mismanaged and porked too. I honestly don't think either is gonna work, but I'd love to be wrong.

Originally Posted by Krasch

If the populace suddenly turned pro-liberal like you suggest, wouldn't they tend to support the increased spending in the stimulus plan in greater numbers? Numbers that aren't trending downwards? (BTW the numbers of those opposed are growing with undecided shrinking)

By comparison Obama himself enjoys around a 75% approval rating.

Maybe it's misleading, but the evidence we have would SEEM to indicate more love for Obama the man rather than the liberal Democrats at large. Personality as opposed to policy. But who knows you could be right.

Not all liberals are fans of wasting money. Why would you think they are? I lean towards liberal, but even I know that wasting money is a bad idea in today's economy. You're just trying to generalize a tad too much.

[Krasch]

Originally Posted by CD

Sorry about the trickle down... I was extremely tired when I wrote that. But hopefully the idea behind it was ok. I just think the country goes in a certain direction, and the people try to make slight corrections every 4 or 8 years (every 2 if you count Congress).


And I somehow doubt your opinion that most registered Democrats actually considered McCain at all. It's probably more likely that some Republicans got a little ticked at the way things were going and considered Obama. Remember, the Iraq War was unpopular on both sides so Obama was a solution more then McCain was a clone.

Neither stimulus plan was worth a shit. The first one was mismanaged and porked too. I honestly don't think either is gonna work, but I'd love to be wrong.


Not all liberals are fans of wasting money. Why would you think they are? I lean towards liberal, but even I know that wasting money is a bad idea in today's economy. You're just trying to generalize a tad too much.

I didn't say Democrats avoided voting for McCain though, I said "Obama voters" which is a totally different thing. Of course there's a significant number of Democrats that wouldn't vote for McCain. Those same people wouldn't likely vote for Mother Theresa if she was on the Republican ticket. And there are their counterparts among Republicans that didn't vote for Obama and wouldn't do so if their own candidate was Hitler.

That;s maybe 20% for each side for the hardcore voters, it's the 60% in the middle that really decide things, the ones who go largely undecided until voting day.And I might suggest that since the Iraq War is so unpopular that no Republican (save MAYBE Arnold Schwarzenegger who's largely centrist and illegible anyway) would have had a solid chance of winning, regardless of the Democrat candidate. I will admit that Obama's cult of personality and campaign of "change" (whatever that means) helped him get more votes than say Hilary or any other Dem would ever have gotten. But I do still doubt it got him all the way there.

I also didn't say liberals are all about WASTING money, but it is a standard of liberal policy to go for more spending, higher taxes, and more government as a solution to problems, as if the government is really good at running anything which for the MOST part they aren't. They may not be entirely about that, but it is their knee-jerk reaction to issues before anything else gets considered, certainly so for those IN government.

There's a real fallacy of reading too much into what appear to be idealogical shifts in elections. Most people are somewhat fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which is why they're more flexible in voting loyalty. If the '92 turfing of Bush Sr. were REALLY because of a liberal shift, then the '94 mid-term election that butchered the Dems in both the House and Senate would never have occurred. So thinking that Obama's victory means that liberalism is breaking out all over is a real mistake and counting your chickens before they hatch. It's WAY too early to make such a conclusion.

[CD]

Originally Posted by Krasch

I didn't say Democrats avoided voting for McCain though, I said "Obama voters" which is a totally different thing. Of course there's a significant number of Democrats that wouldn't vote for McCain. Those same people wouldn't likely vote for Mother Theresa if she was on the Republican ticket. And there are their counterparts among Republicans that didn't vote for Obama and wouldn't do so if their own candidate was Hitler.

That;s maybe 20% for each side for the hardcore voters, it's the 60% in the middle that really decide things, the ones who go largely undecided until voting day.And I might suggest that since the Iraq War is so unpopular that no Republican (save MAYBE Arnold Schwarzenegger who's largely centrist and illegible anyway) would have had a solid chance of winning, regardless of the Democrat candidate. I will admit that Obama's cult of personality and campaign of "change" (whatever that means) helped him get more votes than say Hilary or any other Dem would ever have gotten. But I do still doubt it got him all the way there.

78.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot. (aka do you just randomly guess %'s?)

Originally Posted by Krasch

I also didn't say liberals are all about WASTING money, but it is a standard of liberal policy to go for more spending, higher taxes, and more government as a solution to problems, as if the government is really good at running anything which for the MOST part they aren't. They may not be entirely about that, but it is their knee-jerk reaction to issues before anything else gets considered, certainly so for those IN government.

Bush Jr signed the first bailout giving banks and CEO's large amounts of money; and over the last 30 years, Republicans have created more government then Democrats. But other then that, I'd say your assessment of liberals was accurate.

Originally Posted by Krasch

There's a real fallacy of reading too much into what appear to be idealogical shifts in elections. Most people are somewhat fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which is why they're more flexible in voting loyalty. If the '92 turfing of Bush Sr. were REALLY because of a liberal shift, then the '94 mid-term election that butchered the Dems in both the House and Senate would never have occurred. So thinking that Obama's victory means that liberalism is breaking out all over is a real mistake and counting your chickens before they hatch. It's WAY too early to make such a conclusion.

Dude... seriously man. If I said Obama was a slight correction, do you honestly think I don't realize that someone less liberal will follow him? For the love of God, I'm saying that we are pointing to the future, and any deviation to the right OR LEFT will be remedied soon.

[CD]

On a side note, I just realized that this thread has gone too far off topic, so all responses from now on will be on campaign promises, or the thread will be locked.

[ddoubleez]

Originally Posted by CD

So you know what's the biggest thing I picked up from this post? More then half of these lobbyists they found were "registered" to lobby. So does that mean they did lobby, or they were certified to lobby until that time? Even still, a few of those that don't say registered, are more then 2 years ago. Just saying... you go to the trouble of picking apart Obama's picks, but go ahead and look up Bush's picks. I will practically guarantee you that he had a lot more... in fact, my guess would be 800+ % more lobbyists.

This maybe one of the few times you and I disagree, but many of the appointments by obama are not good... Tom Vilsack is a pro-ethanol corn husker who will make some good changes, but he is in bed with corn farmers and has been for awhile... This will make it difficult to get off ethanol, which is increasing food prices, and alcohol prices... Ethanol is doing nothing for the environment, our national security and is soaking up 20 billion of taxpayers money annually.....

William Lynn is an ex-lobbiest for a military contractor and will, undoubtably favor spending for Raytheon and other unnecessary military spending while in his position for the pentagon... This will further waste tax payers money....

Obama is a better choice than bush was, but he is still in the wrong here... Instead of defending him, we should challenging him on his word....

Despite Pledge to Limit Role, Lobbyists Still a Presence in Obama White House

Despite President Obama’s pledge to restrict former lobbyists in the White House, several are set to play key roles in his administration. The National Journal is reporting fourteen of the 112 White House staffers that Obama has named had been registered as lobbyists at some point since 2005.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/3...role_lobbyists

[CD]

Originally Posted by ddoubleez

This maybe one of the few times you and I disagree, but many of the appointments by obama are not good... Tom Vilsack is a pro-ethanol corn husker who will make some good changes, but he is in bed with corn farmers and has been for awhile... This will make it difficult to get off ethanol, which is increasing food prices, and alcohol prices... Ethanol is doing nothing for the environment, our national security and is soaking up 20 billion of taxpayers money annually.....

William Lynn is an ex-lobbiest for a military contractor and will, undoubtably favor spending for Raytheon and other unnecessary military spending while in his position for the pentagon... This will further waste tax payers money....

Obama is a better choice than bush was, but he is still in the wrong here... Instead of defending him, we should challenging him on his word....

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/3...role_lobbyists

Actually I don't disagree with you on the Tom Vilsack issue. Corn Ethanol is not a good thing. It's very inefficient compared to rice ethanol, and it's very bad on global food pricing. I just didn't know thats the area that Tom was associated with.

[fmb]

I think many folks are pissed about the lobbyists because Obama was VERY clear about lobbyists (and their influence) in government. I believe many people took his banning or lobbyists to be a total ban on lobbyists being in his cabinet or other appointed positions.

What I think most people missed is that for all the "change" he proposes, Obama still picks policy and decision makers from within the beltway or from persons working for previous administrations. Personally, I don't think this will "change" how anything in Washington works.

Maybe Obama wouldn't be stuck with these types of questions if he looked outside the beltway for cabinet/decision makers. Maybe using "experts" with significant understanding and background in the areas he/she would oversee would actually lead to some type of change.

Unfortunately, these changes wouldn't be politically good changes for Obama

[Krasch]

Originally Posted by fmb

I think many folks are pissed about the lobbyists because Obama was VERY clear about lobbyists (and their influence) in government. I believe many people took his banning or lobbyists to be a total ban on lobbyists being in his cabinet or other appointed positions.

What I think most people missed is that for all the "change" he proposes, Obama still picks policy and decision makers from within the beltway or from persons working for previous administrations. Personally, I don't think this will "change" how anything in Washington works.

Maybe Obama wouldn't be stuck with these types of questions if he looked outside the beltway for cabinet/decision makers. Maybe using "experts" with significant understanding and background in the areas he/she would oversee would actually lead to some type of change.

Unfortunately, these changes wouldn't be politically good changes for Obama

That's basically what I suggested.

But while I agree such a change would be politically bad with the Beltway crowd and Democrat bigwigs, it would do wonders for the great unwashed Democrats out there.

A real sword of Damocles as it were.

[fmb]

Originally Posted by Krasch

But while I agree such a change would be politically bad with the Beltway crowd and Democrat bigwigs, it would do wonders for the great unwashed Democrats out there.

A real sword of Damocles as it were.

Very true. However, could you imagine the changes which could be made if he were to take that chance? To call out Dems and Republicans which weren't doing the best thing for the country? Encourage those angry voters to write those representatives and get them to do the right thing... Or those bastards be voted out during the next election cycle.

It would be taking a hell of a CHANCE; but that's not too many letters away from CHANGE. Leadership and courage are the two main words!

[kgilly]

NBC News and news services
updated 5:27 p.m. CT, Tues., Nov. 11, 2008
WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama, who said lobbyists would not run his White House, signaled Tuesday that lobbyists could serve in his transition so long as their activities do not involve areas of policy they have tried to influence in the past year.

John Podesta, a top transition aide to Obama, said federal lobbyists will be prohibited from any lobbying while they are at work on the transition.

The transition office said in a statement, "if someone has lobbied in the last 12 months, they are prohibited from working in the fields of policy on which they lobbied."

Curb influence
"President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to change the way Washington works and curb the influence of lobbyists," said Podesta in the transition team statement.

"During the campaign, federal lobbyists could not contribute to or raise money for the campaign...the president-elect is taking those commitments even further by announcing the strictest, and most far reaching ethics rules of any transition team in history."

The new rules also call for "a gift ban that is aggressive in reducing the influence of special interests" and an end to transition contributions from federal lobbyists.

In an off-camera briefing Tuesday, Podesta was asked whether potential staff expertise may be lost as the team adheres to these new rules.

He replied, "So be it," reiterating Obama's commitment have the "toughest" rules to "stop the revolving door" in Washington politics

[joerockhead]

He promised no Earmarks in the bills.

The biggest bill he approved has $7 Billion in over 8,000 earmarks.

And both parties created them almost equally!

So, they are all to blame as well.

[Krasch]

Originally Posted by joerockhead

He promised no Earmarks in the bills.

The biggest bill he approved has $7 Billion in over 8,000 earmarks.

And both parties created them almost equally!

So, they are all to blame as well.

Yep, it's starting to look like the only "change" he's bringing is a complete disregard for all the things he held to during the campaign.

Or as Rush put it referring to Clinton, "A New Democrat is the same old Democrat with a new label attached." Obama at this point is shaping up to be just another lying politician.

At least we expected it from the rest of them.

[Freemason]

It was only a matter of time, they all do to some degree, but the current president seems to be a run away train who only wants to act like the president instead of being the president.