Anti-Tax Tea Parties Held Across U.S.

[zooropop40]

haha...many of my canadian relatives say they would never want to live anywhere else

[AliEnvy]

Originally Posted by BVS

What campaign promises is Obama not living up to?

Seriously? Or are you just being contrary for the sake of being argumentative?

Virtually all politicians will say anything to get elected and backtrack big time once they're in office. Obama's no different. It's actually a bit startling how he's followed Bush positions on a number of policies.

[zooropop40]

Originally Posted by AliEnvy

Seriously? Or are you just being contrary for the sake of being argumentative?

Virtually all politicians will say anything to get elected and backtrack big time once they're in office. Obama's no different. It's actually a bit startling how he's followed Bush positions on a number of policies.

hmm...he's really not following much of Bush's positions at all. Obviously its impossible to follow all campaign promises, but given the amount of problems Obama is facing right now, he is doing well with trying his best to live up to what he has promised.

[AliEnvy]

Originally Posted by zooropop40

hmm...he's really not following much of Bush's positions at all.

Are you sure about that?

washingtonpost.com

Observers of all political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government. Victor Davis Hanson (National Review) offers a partial list: "The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e., slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e., the surge) -- and now Guantanamo."

Jack Goldsmith (The New Republic) adds: rendition -- turning over terrorists seized abroad to foreign countries; state secrets -- claiming them in court to quash legal proceedings on rendition and other erstwhile barbarisms; and the denial of habeas corpus -- to detainees in Afghanistan's Bagram prison, indistinguishable logically and morally from Guantanamo.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AliEnvy

Seriously? Or are you just being contrary for the sake of being argumentative?

Virtually all politicians will say anything to get elected and backtrack big time once they're in office. Obama's no different. It's actually a bit startling how he's followed Bush positions on a number of policies.

Well that's my point...

He made a promise of being bipartisan, and he's doing just that. He's being a realist.

[AliEnvy]

Originally Posted by BVS

He made a promise of being bipartisan, and he's doing just that. He's being a realist.

So following that logic, you believe Bush was being a realist (in hindsight naturally...)?

[zooropop40]

Originally Posted by AliEnvy

Are you sure about that?

washingtonpost.com

He has stated that he is against the patriot act, just because he hasnt gone through actually changing it yet doesnt mean that he supports it. The amount of things more important than the patriot act right now for Obama are huge. He has also set a time-table for withdrawl in Iraq (something bush was against) and he repeatedly stated during the campaign that he was for sending more troops to afghanistan.

The main changes from Bush foreign policy are:

Ending Iraq, more troops to afghanistan instead, more diplomacy (in a more active way than bush did), ending torture, and trying to close guantanamo. This alone is a complete turnaround from the "attitude" of Bush. Obama has clearly taken on a more global view rather than the america-centric view Bush seemed to follow. Just because he has not directly addressed all of Bush's policies doesnt mean that he supports them.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AliEnvy

So following that logic, you believe Bush was being a realist (in hindsight naturally...)?

Now you are being purpsosely obtuse...

Where has he taken Bush policies at full face value?

You ask a lot of questions, but you answer very few.

[A_Wanderer]

Yeah, AliEnvy is a republican!

[Salome]

if Obama has to change every Bush policy within half a year he won't have any time left to sleep
or to name his pets
etc

[zooropop40]

Originally Posted by AliEnvy

So following that logic, you believe Bush was being a realist (in hindsight naturally...)?

no. Obama is actually making an effort to try to include republicans (even if they dont want to reach out to him). Bush did pretty much the opposite, and even went to the lengths of demonizing the other side saying that we would be more at risk of a terrorist attack if a democrat was elected. That is fear mongering not being a "realist"

[zooropop40]

Originally Posted by Salome

if Obama has to change every Bush policy within half a year he won't have any time left to sleep
or to name his pets
etc

exactly. the amount that he has already overturned shows a new direction even this early. but just because he hasnt overturned a bush policy yet somehow means that he supports it is an argument that holds no ground.

[AliEnvy]

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

Yeah, AliEnvy is a republican!

Holding consistent anti-intervention positions can get me labeled a conservative republican, liberal democrat, anti-Semite or conspiracy theorist depending on the issue and time of day...especially among partisan hypocrites apologists.

[BVS]

But what does ignoring nuances get you?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by zooropop40

Obama has clearly taken on a more global view rather than the america-centric view Bush seemed to follow.

Gosh, don't we kinda want the President of the United States to be "America-centric"? You know, putting OUR interests FIRST.

[zooropop40]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Gosh, don't we kinda want the President of the United States to be "America-centric"? You know, putting OUR interests FIRST.

of course our interest comes first- but Bush's view was that it is ONLY our interests that matter. In other words, we could survive on our own and that we shouldnt care about any other countries. To have a global view means understanding that there is more to this world than america. Before bush was president, he barely left america. Without visiting other countries and understanding other culture's, how can we gain perspective and understand our own culture and society?

[AliEnvy]

Originally Posted by BVS

But what does ignoring nuances get you?

Nuances like? Apparently I'm obtuse so why don't you enlighten me.

I don't find the excuses that Obama supporters make for Bush-like national security policy to be nuanced at all.

[BonosSaint]

Personally, I think it's too early to judge his presidency one way or the other. He has a lot on his plate. But I think it's fair from day one to watch the direction. If he does end up keeping up the same policies many of us disdain (and I do, too), can we sleep better by calling it "nuanced"? I don't want a cover word like nuance giving any president a pass.

I'm pleased with much of his direction, less pleased with others. But I think if you are going to praise or excuse one president and criticize another for what might be essentially the same result, the analysis loses credibility. If he is backtracking or giving insufficient priority, hold his feet to the fire or give a better explanation than "nuance".
I think we should be all over our presidents, whether we supported them or not.

Bush is history. Obama has to clean up that history or he may have to cop to an ineffective presidency. He deserves a lot more time to judge him, but he really doesn't deserve any time to be free from criticism. He took on the job.

[AliEnvy]

Originally Posted by BonosSaint

I think we should be all over our presidents, whether we supported them or not.
...
he really doesn't deserve any time to be free from criticism. He took on the job.

[deep]

I know many of you just see Bush/Cheney as one constant

but the 'stay the course' Bush of 2004, 2005
did moderate quite a bit by 2008,

Around 2007, 2008 Bush seemed to listen less to Cheney
he was looking for a way out of Iraq and I believe he stated that GITMO should be closed when the trials were over

Obama ran as new kind of politician that would listen to other opinions and work with everybody.


I really do not want anymore "Stay the course'" Presidents
that are closed minded and married to a position stated at one point in time
based on the (limited) information available at that point in time.


I won't color it with words like 'nuanced", that seems to be a word crafted for people that still want a 'stay the course' president.

I'll take a flip-flopper any day. I won't let anyone manipulate me or a leader I support from the right to a different decision if it appears to be correct.
I do realize this should not happen very often, for credibility purposes.
And only when new information makes the 'so-called' reversal sensible.