Obama is a Douchebag Sellout

[prole]

Balls to the whole "let's wait and see what he does" argument and the "he needs smart and tough people that will be effective at what he tells them to do" line. Not only is the administration he's building more of the same (if not the same) assclowns that got us where we are now, they're guaranteed to be at each others throats 87% of the time. What a douche.

 

(Not that I'm at all surprised.)

[JayB]

Remember when I asked you to identify the (real, existing) nation that most closely approximated your ideal society, so that we could compare and contrast the specific merits and shortcomings of that country and the US?

 

If Obama had known that his task was to construct a utopia, rather than a cabinet, he may have been rather less keen on accepting the office.

[prole]

His task is to remain truthful to the claims he made to represent the people that elected him. I'm not seeing that in his decision making with regards to his cabinet picks or in the backtracking he's already doing from the claims he made to garner votes. While I understand that the idea of representative democracy is utterly foreign to you Jay, I think that you can grasp the concept.

[Fairweather]

Hey Prole! What do you think?

Edited December 2, 2008 by Fairweather

[Serenity]

The President Elect does not have the luxury of ignoring certain realities in the world, like some past presidential administrations have. The best person is the best person for the job regardless of party affiliation.

 

Moreover, inspired by JosephH's continual mantra of understanding the incoming President Elect I have now read all of President Elect Obama's books. If you understand his message, or if I understand it correctly, it was, and continues to be that we as a whole need to break down these walls of partisan politics while learning to work together for a common aim.

 

I don't think he is deviating from his stated aims at this point. Furthermore, as he begins to receive classified briefings that he was not previously read into, his understanding of a larger picture will grow. His, and his cabinets positions will evolve to suit the situation.

[Stefan]

Not only is the administration he's building more of the same (if not the same) assclowns that got us where we are now, they're guaranteed to be at each others throats 87% of the time. What a douche.

 

You mean he has hired all the people from the Bush administrations?

[Fairweather]

I agree. But if overcoming partisan divisions means sacrificing core principles, count me out. I can guarantee you that Obama's leftist base isn't interested in 'meeting in the middle' on many issues. That said, I think Obama has made some very pragmatic cabinet choices so far--Gates being, by far, the best. I'm still optimistic in that Obama seems to be moving toward the center.

[Serenity]

You incorrectly, and arrogantly, and perhaps even ignorantly assume that ALL people who were under the Bush administration were Neoconservative Republicans, or incompetent.

 

You've simply advanced your distrust of all things government in the process.

[Serenity]

I agree. But if overcoming partisan divisions means sacrificing core principles, count me out. I can guarantee you that Obama's leftist base isn't interested in 'meeting in the middle' on many issues. That said, I think Obama has made some very pragmatic cabinet choices so far--Gates being, by far, the best. I'm still optimistic in that Obama seems to be moving toward the center.

 

I believe his core values reflect the core values of most Americans.

 

1. Improve education through reform

a. More science and math

b. Early education

c. Longer school days

d. More rigorous testing

e. Improve teachers and the profession

 

2. Change our dependence on foreign oil

a. Detrimental to our security

b. Potential for supply disruption is too high

c. Go green. Petro is a significant factor in climate change

 

3. Invest in alternate energy

 

4. A workable long term health care solution

 

A lot of these things are like a running program. You'll never get it done until you approach it with honesty and realistic goals.

[Fairweather]

We'll see. I still don't quite understand the Hillary choice for S.

O.S. I don't think she's a bad choice, but it seems like a lose/lose for both of them politically. There must be an outstanding I.O.U. or a skeleton somewhere.

 

She voted for the war. How does that fit into Obama's playbook?

Edited December 2, 2008 by Fairweather

[Serenity]

Hillary is going to be my boss here shortly, so it would be imprudent of me to comment on her. She won't change her spots so to speak.

 

I would say your guess of a political I.O.U. is pretty close to the truth.

[Fairweather]

Obama plans on elevating the post of UN Ambassador to cabinet-level and appointing Susan Rice. My guess is that she and Hillary will be at each others throats in short order--and Obama will have a shit-eating grin on his face when he closes the door and leaves them together in the same room.

[Fairweather]

Remember when I asked you to identify the (real, existing) nation that most closely approximated your ideal society, so that we could compare and contrast the specific merits and shortcomings of that country and the US?

 

 

Did he ever answer the question?

[prole]

Ha! I love it how the right-wingers get all "post-partisan" 'n shit after they get bounced. If anything, the Bush Administration showed the world how to "get things done". What they were getting done was flushing the planet down the toilet, but hey... We need to jettison the failed conservative project, not "politics" as a whole. Given the critical period we're living in, it's time to make a significant break with the neoliberal economic policy and belligerent foreign policy that's brought us to the brink. That's what Obama was "hired" to do. Not doing so will accelerate the catastrophe, lead to greater disillusionment, and likely result in the emergence of less democratic movements and political figures. Pretty standard trajectory for liberal democracies in crisis.

[Fairweather]

Ha! I love it how the right-wingers get all "post-partisan" 'n shit after they get bounced. If anything, the Bush Administration showed the world how to "get things done". What they were getting done was flushing the planet down the toilet, but hey... We need to jettison the failed conservative project, not "politics" as a whole. Given the critical period we're living in, it's time to make a significant break with the neoliberal economic policy and belligerent foreign policy that's brought us to the brink. That's what Obama was "hired" to do. Not doing so will accelerate the catastrophe, lead to greater disillusionment, and likely result in the emergence of less democratic movements and political figures. Pretty standard trajectory for liberal democracies in crisis.

 

That might be what your vote was for, but the man ran, basically, as a tax-cutter. Remember that whole lowering the taxes for 95% of you thing? Do you think he would have won office while loudly proclaiming he was going to raise taxes and increase social spending? I am curious, though, which country you picked as most closely representative of your ideals.

[JayB]

His task is to remain truthful to the claims he made to represent the people that elected him. I'm not seeing that in his decision making with regards to his cabinet picks or in the backtracking he's already doing from the claims he made to garner votes. While I understand that the idea of representative democracy is utterly foreign to you Jay, I think that you can grasp the concept.

 

Representative democracy is one thing, mob rule is quite another. I'll refer you to The Federalist Papers for a primer on the distinction between the two.

 

Now, be a sport and name your country (might also be useful to explain why you haven't moved there)....

[Serenity]

Prole,

 

My stance doesn't change regardless of who's in office. I've served under Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and soon Obama. I serve regardless of partisan politics, and special interest group voodoo.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I'd be interested in seeing who Prole's ideal cabinet picks would be.

[Serenity]

That might be what your vote was for, but the man ran, basically, as a tax-cutter. Remember that whole lowering the taxes for 95% of you thing? Do you think he would have won office while loudly proclaiming he was going to raise taxes and increase social spending? I am curious, though, which country you picked as most closely representative of your ideals.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am of the understanding the President Elect Obama's tax plan is to lower taxes for middle income, and lower income families, while reinstating tax policies that raise taxes on the wealthy? I'll have to study up a bit when I get the chance.

 

I do know this. Under President Bush, the biggest beneficiary of tax benefits was to those who earn 1.6 million or more a year. Which comprises something like less than .001% of the population. I don't think the trickle down theory has worked very well up to now. I say this coming from a bracket that received tax benefits, with the knowledge that I will see some if not all of these programs rescinded at some point.

[Serenity]

I'd be interested in seeing who Prole's ideal cabinet picks would be.

 

My guess for most positions would be:

 

[img:center]http://www.billhicks.com/Michael%20Gibney%20sketch%20of%20Bill%20Hicks.jpg[/img]

[prole]

I am curious, though, which country you picked as most closely representative of your ideals.

 

That's easy: 1930's revolutionary Spain. I'm not sure why this is a big deal. Trying to play "gotcha" again? To make it easier, I'd say I could think of a number of western European democracies and others around the world during different periods of the 20th century that I'd find more appealing than what this country has turned into. Namely, those that focused more attention and resources on fostering and institutionalizing enlightenment values and republican participation in the political process, those dealing more effectively with the stark inequalities in opportunities and living standards for regular folks, those that took the lessons from two world wars to heart and rejected chauvinist nationalism and belligerent "know-nothingism". Those that decided that education and culture and leisure and honest work and individual growth and preserving the integrity of the land require something more than "don't worry, lavishly rewarding humanity's worst impulses and basest desires will lead us to the promised land".

 

Yep, pretty few and far between, fleeting glimpses really. Dumb thugs, aristocratic leftovers, fascists, economic kooks, shortsighted union bosses, IMF technocrats, and American firepower and skullduggery have done their job well. So good in fact that when all their bubbles stop popping they may find they've taken democracy with it.

[tvashtarkatena]

Obama's tax plan had a break even point of about 250K - above that you pay more, below you pay less.

 

I voted for him fully believing that he would not be able to cut mine nor anyone else's taxes, given the current situation. I never vote for anyone based on tax policy alone, or even tax policy as a primary reason. That's voting your pocket book, and that's bullshit.

 

I voted for him because I believed he'd be an asset to this country in that job, given the challenges we face, and his rival would have been a liability.

[prole]

"special interest group voodoo".

 

I'll keep the phrase in mind when the VA comes around with the begging bowl.

[prole]

Representative democracy is one thing, mob rule is quite another. I'll refer you to The Federalist Papers for a primer on the distinction between the two.

 

Now, be a sport and name your country (might also be useful to explain why you haven't moved there)....

 

I'm pretty familiar with the roots of the notion of "mob rule". You'd do better to look towards the absolute monarchy's use of the term to encourage fear of parliamentary systems, voting, individual rights, etc. among the aristocracy, merchant and landed gentry to get a real flavor for the phrase, though. Here's some help.

 

Anyway, isn't the balance of powers enshrined in the Constitution is designed to inhibit imbalances? You'd seem to argue that there is some greater authority than "the people" that elected representatives are beholden to once they gain office.

Edited December 2, 2008 by prole

[Serenity]

"special interest group voodoo".

 

I'll keep the phrase in mind when the VA comes around with the begging bowl.

 

Clearly you are a total nut job.