Reply With QuoteEpic.
Saw this a day or two ago and meant to post it then. Watch this clip about Obama's failures and outright reversals on civil rights. Hilarious and disgusting to hear his own words thrown back in his face like that. Starts a bit slow, but gets savage by the end.
Epic.
Yeah, that was great. Though I noticed that all the clips they used seemed to be from the Rachael Maddow show. I don't watch that show, but the people on that show must be the ones who are digging for clips of campaign promises that Obama renegged upon. So kudos to both the Daily Show team and the Rachael Maddow show.
He did a great job with that. It's unfortunate the material he's working with isn't funny at all, and he's clearly struggling to find humor in it.
Or maybe I'm just bitter I voted for the guy. :(
I'm not bitter, he still has been doing way better than if Mccain were president.
Too many people thought that Obama was going to be the magical Morgan Freeman character who would swoop in and fix everything.
Only because he said he would.
Great delivery as usual.
"Mr. President, you're Frodo!!!"
Yes, believing a constitutional lawyer would actually uphold the law instead of seeking to subvert it is very much akin to expecting a pony.
I didn't expect everything. I did expect that we'd be out of Iraq within 2 years, that Gitmo would be closed almost immediately, and that the civil rights abuses of the Bush administration would come to an immediate halt. None of this has happened, all of it was and is within his power, and I am VERY upset. Obama doesn't get a free pass simply because he's not Bush.Originally Posted by Athryn
I didnt expect everything, I didnt vote for the man, but it is sad that all the things that I did agree with him on are the things he wont do a damn thing about now that he has the power of the presidency.
Stewart is spot on, but to be fair ...
... no he didn't, although that's an angle a lot of talking heads have taken with him. He said he was going to make unpopular decisions, that he was going to take longer than many would like. Of course, he ALSO said he was going to do a lot more than what he's actually done, and has sometimes taken actions in a contradictory manner to his stated promises and professed beliefs. There may have been good cause for some of it, but I doubt I'll ever be convinced of it in several circumstances.
Anyway, If you're going to damn the man then do it for the right reasons. ;)
Did you watch the video? Cut to 1:19. He has done the exact opposite of some many things he promised. He didn't break campaign promises by not doing them, he actually went and did the things he was criticizing. That's not making hard decisions, that's being WORSE than Bush.
The clips of obama (around 1:19, but the later ones too) are good, and get right at why I'm done with Obama. Had he done those things, even attempted to do them, he'd be great. Those were many of the things I couldn't stand about Bush.
As it stands now though, I'm having a hard time distinguishing him from Bush, other than that he is arguably more competent -- but since he doesn't do the things I voted him in to do, is that really a good thing? At least I expected no better from Bush, didn't vote for Bush, and could reasonably expect Bush to screw up.
[Edit]*Laugh* Nice Sarah Palin dig at the end.
Last edited by Jasper Phillips; 06-18-2010 at 04:14 PM.
Right, because Bush totally would have pushed health care reform through, and would be pushing the military to get rid of DADT. And what about this NY Times: "Feds plan suit against Arizona immigration law" would that happen under a Bush administration?
Honestly Obama has been a bit of a disappointment, but so was Clinton. In fact the only modern President I can recall that hasn't disappointed me was George HW Bush, and that was partly because I wasn't expecting much from him (plus he mostly was right on Iraq and he was right getting tax increases through setting up Clinton for success). Clinton = disappointment. Carter = disappointment. George W = disaster. Reagan = did not like, getting senile by end of term. Am I forgetting anyone?
We live in the real world. Obama has had some important successes. No, he hasn't done everything we wanted him to. Let's not go running around talking about Republocrats though. That's how we ended up with George W instead of Gore.
Cannot be stressed enough.
Is there a difference at this point? Does it matter if Republicans or Democrats win? I'd rather the Republicans get in and dismantle government rather than have Democrats empty posturing because of all the loopholes in their legislation.
They are both corporate stooges.
Like I said in my last post:
Do those things matter to you? They matter to me, and they definitely would not have happened under a Republican President. So yes, they do both tend to be stooges to special interests, but there are key differences in their behavior.Right, because Bush totally would have pushed health care reform through, and would be pushing the military to get rid of DADT. And what about this NY Times: "Feds plan suit against Arizona immigration law" would that happen under a Bush administration?
Obama has a worse record on civil liberties than George W. Bush. That's not exactly the same as "hasn't done everything I wanted.". It's more like "has actively done exactly what I didn't want".
I seriously wonder if we wouldn't be better off now with McCain, Palin and all. With him, at least we wouldn't have Democrats falling over each other to build excuses for doubling down on the worst of the Bush-era civil liberties violations.
Do you seriously think Republicans would do that? After two terms of runaway growth in spending and governmental power under Bush while they controlled both houses of Congress? HA! Both parties are committed to spending like crazy, they just emphasize different priorities. Neither party wants to limit governmental power at all--witness Obama's blatant hypocrisy now that he's in office. I loathe them both.
We'll see how that pans out in 10 years.
We ran that experiment when people back in 2000 were claiming that there was no real difference between Gore and Bush and we should all protest and vote for Nader instead. How did that experiment turn out? How many times do we have to run this experiment?
Yup. And since civil liberties + Iraq constitute a supermajority percentage of why I voted for Obama, I currently view him as an almost total failure. He earns a few points for taking some tenative steps on DADT. Aside from that, he's accomplished none of the things that motivated me to vote for him.
The Clinton administration actively worked for the deregulation of the financial industry that eventually led to the current financial crisis. Would have Gore's administration caught 9/11 before it happened? Would it have not gone into Iraq?
I'd like to think so, but I'm not as sure as you.
Unlikely, and yes. I don't think either administration would have prevented 9/11, but of course we'll never know for sure. Afterwards, Gore would have attacked Afghanistan, and deservedly so. He would not have trumped up spurious WMD evidence to invade Iraq.
What this is showing more then anything is where american politics is today. Each party is overrun by people who will make any excuse they can when their guy breaks a promise or does something wrong. Its a major reason why I cant stand either party or the current political climate in the country these days.
I'm very doubtful that we would have gone into Iraq. From what I can tell Iraq came from a combination of influences. The Neocons wanted to go into Iraq in part to protect Israel. Bush personally wanted to do it because of his dad's relationship with Iraq including (1) they tried to kill his dad with an assassination attempt and (2) he felt that his dad's record was besmirched by not finishing the job in Iraq. Also the Republicans appear to be more beholden to the Military Industrial complex as one of their special interests (yes, both party's have special interests they support, but they are not the same special interests). In addition the Republicans do tend to be more warmongers than Democrats.
That tax cut to the wealthy that Bush ran through would not have happened under a Gore administration. I strongly expect that Gore would have continued the Clinton debt reduction plan. Even if the financial crisis occurred (which it very well might have), having reduced or eliminated the deficit, we would be in much stronger shape now. And regardless, if the Bush tax cut hadn't gone through, we would have more equality in our society and be heading less towards an aristocracy.
That's my view as well. Although as far as 9/11 goes, the standard disruption to the intelligence agencies when a new administration enters and changes priorities would likely have been less when going from a President to a new administration headed the former Vice President.
Out of curiosity, do you read entire posts before responding to them, or do you limit your perusal to a sentance or two? Cause you know, if you'd kept on reading mine .... THAT'S WHAT I SAID (except I didn't reference Bush).
However, your premise (unless I misread, which is always possible) was that he said he would fix everything. He didn't ever say that.
Fair enough on the Bush Tax Cuts, which is a significant issue. But I'd rather see things go to shit at a faster rate so we can get some real change then pile up less stinky turds until we eventually get to same place anyway.
This is truth. If "your" guy does something wrong, fire up the spin machine! When the opposition does the exact same thing, it's a moral outrage! The hypocrisy and "win at any costs" attitude embodied by this approach makes the moderate middle more cynical and disenchanted even as the party faithful get more extreme and unprinicpled.
Posting Permissions