[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2009, 02:32 PM, said:

In my opinion, Geithner = Paulson.  Gates = Gates.  Clinton = Rice.
And in his first decision, Holder = Mukasey.

Makes me think, "So much for promises of real change."

Why does your conclusion lead you to your evidence, instead of the other way around?

Edit: I guess in fairness either of those statements could be looked at as evidence to support the other.

Still somehow it seems to me that no matter what he does, your opinion will not change as long as you can find someone who disagrees with his actions. I get similar feelings on the inside reading your thoughts in the political threads and the thoughts of a nameless other poster in the religion threads.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2009, 02:32 PM, said:

Quote

I think he gets it

I really hope he does. I believe there is a strong chance he could end up a 1-term President, though, if he holds too closely to past policy decisions.

I hope that he cares a lot more about doing what's best for the country than he does about getting re-elected.

"Change" doesn't imply that everything will be different; it implies that some (many?) things will be. If the economy, the environment, and health care, but foreign policy stays largely the same, that doesn't mean there wasn't change; it means the particular change that you most wanted in your particular area of concern wasn't effectuated.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Feb 10 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

"Change" doesn't imply that everything will be different; it implies that some (many?) things will be.  If the economy, the environment, and health care, but foreign policy stays largely the same, that doesn't mean there wasn't change; it means the particular change that you most wanted in your particular area of concern wasn't effectuated.

Change could also represent arriving at a similar (or even identical) conclusion or policy to one of Bush by way of careful consideration and appropriate preparation, rather than by knee-jerk reaction.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Change could also represent arriving at a similar (or even identical) conclusion or policy to one of Bush by way of careful consideration and appropriate preparation, rather than by knee-jerk reaction.

I have admitted to my cynasism - and understand it colors my views. I tend to be pessimistic, also. I understand that, as well.

You and Lobo make some reasonable points - but at the same time I am of the opinion that many (the majority?) of Obama supporters expect a vast break from past policies and politics - not just Bush but the all the way back to Nixon, including Democrats and Republicans. I think a majority of Obama's supporters believed he would bring radical change from Washington business as ususal politics - not imperceptable change of method used to support the status quo.

I believe President Obama underestimates the support that is his to attempt sweeping changes (optimistic hope) - or maybe he understands if he tries sweeping changes he will end up in Dealey Plaza in an open top limosine (cynical thought).

[PassedOut]

Lobowolf, on Feb 10 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

I hope that he cares a lot more about doing what's best for the country than he does about getting re-elected.

Me too. Of course he wants to be reelected, but if he consistently does what's best he should have a good shot at it.

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Feb 10 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Feb 10 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

I hope that he cares a lot more about doing what's best for the country than he does about getting re-elected.

Me too. Of course he wants to be reelected, but if he consistently does what's best he should have a good shot at it.

I think this is the most optimistic hope of all.

With respect to Winston's two possibilities, I think the truth is in the middle, and simpler -- that Obama believes that not all of the things people (even his supporters) would like to see are in the best interests of the country.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2009, 03:05 PM, said:

I think a majority of Obama's supporters believed he would bring radical change from Washington business as ususal politics - not imperceptable change of method used to support the status quo.

I find several flaws in this statement. But I agree people will be disappointed if they expected Obama to take the 100% opposite viewpoint on 100% of the policies of George Bush. Wouldn't that be completely contradictory to the careful study and consideration of difficult decisions that so many of his supporters (clearly) like about him? I mean he wouldn't have to consider anything at all, he could just do the opposite of everything Bush did!

Personally I am glad our president is Barack Obama rather than Bizarro Bush. Although your thoughts do remind me of one of my favorite Seinfeld episodes.

[Lobowolf]

He shouldn't be second-guessed by people who thought he was the best choice for the job. Presumably the implication was that he's not only more qualified than McCain; he's more qualified than his supporters.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2009, 03:05 PM, said:

Quote

Change could also represent arriving at a similar (or even identical) conclusion or policy to one of Bush by way of careful consideration and appropriate preparation, rather than by knee-jerk reaction.

I have admitted to my cynasism - and understand it colors my views. I tend to be pessimistic, also. I understand that, as well.

You and Lobo make some reasonable points - but at the same time I am of the opinion that many (the majority?) of Obama supporters expect a vast break from past policies and politics - not just Bush but the all the way back to Nixon, including Democrats and Republicans. I think a majority of Obama's supporters believed he would bring radical change from Washington business as ususal politics - not imperceptable change of method used to support the status quo.

I believe President Obama underestimates the support that is his to attempt sweeping changes (optimistic hope) - or maybe he understands if he tries sweeping changes he will end up in Dealey Plaza in an open top limosine (cynical thought).

winston, can you (and i ask because i'm truly interested) name some things he's done that you see as "business as usual" and what you'd have preferred him to do? if you can be specific, all the better... thanks

something josh said doesn't make a lot of sense to me

Quote

Change could also represent arriving at a similar (or even identical) conclusion or policy to one of Bush by way of careful consideration and appropriate preparation, rather than by knee-jerk reaction.

if the same conclusion, and policy decisions, are reached, what makes you think obamba's are well thought out and bush's were knee-jerk?

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Feb 10 2009, 06:14 PM, said:

something josh said doesn't make a lot of sense to me

Quote

Change could also represent arriving at a similar (or even identical) conclusion or policy to one of Bush by way of careful consideration and appropriate preparation, rather than by knee-jerk reaction.

if the same conclusion, and policy decisions, are reached, what makes you think obamba's are well thought out and bush's were knee-jerk?

Apparently it's something I didn't say that doesn't make a lot of sense to you.

Focus on the word "could".

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Feb 10 2009, 06:28 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 10 2009, 06:14 PM, said:

something josh said doesn't make a lot of sense to me

Quote

Change could also represent arriving at a similar (or even identical) conclusion or policy to one of Bush by way of careful consideration and appropriate preparation, rather than by knee-jerk reaction.

if the same conclusion, and policy decisions, are reached, what makes you think obamba's are well thought out and bush's were knee-jerk?

Apparently it's something I didn't say that doesn't make a lot of sense to you.

Focus on the word "could".

aha... ok, i get it now... either could be well thought out or either could be knee-jerk reactions

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Feb 10 2009, 06:51 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 10 2009, 06:28 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 10 2009, 06:14 PM, said:

something josh said doesn't make a lot of sense to me

Quote

Change could also represent arriving at a similar (or even identical) conclusion or policy to one of Bush by way of careful consideration and appropriate preparation, rather than by knee-jerk reaction.

if the same conclusion, and policy decisions, are reached, what makes you think obamba's are well thought out and bush's were knee-jerk?

Apparently it's something I didn't say that doesn't make a lot of sense to you.

Focus on the word "could".

aha... ok, i get it now... either could be well thought out or either could be knee-jerk reactions

That's twice in a row you have managed to effortlessly put words in my mouth in order to attempt to make a point.

If you believe something then it would be easier to have a discussion if you would simply say it outright. Alternatively, if you are not interested in having a discussion then I wonder what you are doing here.

[jdonn]

By the way Winston, if you want an example of a lack of change, or more of the same old politics, or whatever you feel like calling it, then look no further.

Predictable Republican behavior

Quote

An influential conservative political action committee is pledging to support primary challenges to any Republican senator who backs the economic stimulus package.

...

"Republican senators are on notice," [Scott Wheeler, the executive director of The National Republican Trust PAC] said. "If they support the stimulus package, we will make sure every voter in their state knows how they tried to further bankrupt voters in an already bad economy."

You mean there are actually a few Rebublican senators attempting to engage in bipartison behavior?? A little coersion should set them straight!

But in case you think that won't do the trick then don't you worry, all you patriots out there. Reinforcements are on the way!

Quote

The PAC's pledge came the same day another conservative group launched a series of robo-calls in Pennsylvania and Maine, urging constituents to call their Republican senators and demand they stop supporting Obama's stimulus package.

Delaware-based Let Freedom Ring on Tuesday began making 100,000 robo-calls in Pennsylvania and 50,000 in Maine, according to Colin Hanna, the group's president.

"Would you be willing to contact your senator, Arlen Specter, today and tell him to vote no on the Obama tax and spend plan?" the Pennsylvania call asks, before providing a phone number for Specter's Washington office.

That should set him straight. Job well done.

[Winstonm]

Quote

winston, can you (and i ask because i'm truly interested) name some things he's done that you see as "business as usual" and what you'd have preferred him to do? if you can be specific, all the better... thanks

I mentioned some of these names earlier. So far it is in cabinet picks. But as I see it keeping Gates as Sec of Def. is business as usual; Timothy Gaithner is simply a young Henry Paulson; Hilllary Clinton is as much a hawk as Condaleeza Rice.

And Holder's very first move as AG was to keep the same argument as the Bush administration used to claim government secrecy justified.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Feb 10 2009, 08:49 PM, said:

By the way Winston, if you want an example of a lack of change, or more of the same old politics, or whatever you feel like calling it, then look no further.

Predictable Republican behavior

Quote

An influential conservative political action committee is pledging to support primary challenges to any Republican senator who backs the economic stimulus package.

...

"Republican senators are on notice," [Scott Wheeler, the executive director of The National Republican Trust PAC] said. "If they support the stimulus package, we will make sure every voter in their state knows how they tried to further bankrupt voters in an already bad economy."

You mean there are actually a few Rebublican senators attempting to engage in bipartison behavior?? A little coersion should set them straight!

But in case you think that won't do the trick then don't you worry, all you patriots out there. Reinforcements are on the way!

Quote

The PAC's pledge came the same day another conservative group launched a series of robo-calls in Pennsylvania and Maine, urging constituents to call their Republican senators and demand they stop supporting Obama's stimulus package.

Delaware-based Let Freedom Ring on Tuesday began making 100,000 robo-calls in Pennsylvania and 50,000 in Maine, according to Colin Hanna, the group's president.

"Would you be willing to contact your senator, Arlen Specter, today and tell him to vote no on the Obama tax and spend plan?" the Pennsylvania call asks, before providing a phone number for Specter's Washington office.

That should set him straight. Job well done.

Josh,

I don't place moronic clones in the category of being able to disappoint or to grasp status quo. They are lucky if they can find the pull tab and their turnoff at the same time and without a spill.

[Winstonm]

Jimmy,

This specifically is a huge disappointment and a direct 180 degree change from what Obama had on his website during the presidential race.

Quote

What was abusive and dangerous about the Bush administration's version of the States Secret privilege -- just as the Obama/Biden campaign pointed out -- was that it was used not (as originally intended) to argue that specific pieces of evidence or documents were secret and therefore shouldn't be allowed in a court case, but instead, to compel dismissal of entire lawsuits in advance based on the claim that any judicial adjudication of even the most illegal secret government programs would harm national security.  That is the theory that caused the bulk of the controversy when used by the Bush DOJ -- because it shields entire government programs from any judicial scrutiny -- and it is that exact version of the privilege that the Obama DOJ yesterday expressly advocated (and, by implication, sought to preserve for all Presidents, including Obama). 

And before anyone scans this a makes an absurd strawman claim about how state secrets are necessary - no one is claiming they are not. It is the Bush version of state secrets - having entire lawsuits tossed out without being heard, even when it the the government wrongdoing that is in question - that alters the very foundation of the checks and balances of our constitutional form of government.

It is this Bush version that the Obama DoJ is supporting.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Both Holder and Kagan have now taken such a vow with Senators in order to secure their confirmations. The message appears to be a uniquely English approach to government. We will continue policies and laws that can do great harm to civil liberties, but we will use them in a beneficent way. Your “change” is not that we will get rid of the policies. Your change is that you get us. This “trust us we’re the government” approach to civil liberties was precisely what Madison and other framers rejected.

Change is what you have left after you've spent all your money.

[jdonn]

Um, who are you talking to now lol. Or are you preparing a collage of cynical-to-the-point-of-despression editorials and you just need a place to store them in the mean time?

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Feb 12 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

Um, who are you talking to now lol. Or are you preparing a collage of cynical-to-the-point-of-despression editorials and you just need a place to store them in the mean time?

You mean you don't see them????

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Feb 12 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

Quote

[/b] This “trust us we’re the government” approach to civil liberties was precisely what Madison and other framers rejected.

We probably have more such civil liberties oversight now than then. We have exactly the first sort of protection they didn't "reject," but specifically provided for - relatively short, temporary terms subjecting them to political unemployment if their constituents disapproved. We also have further oversight in the post-Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court power-grab: strong judicial review of laws for constitutionality.