Political favor appointments in the Obama selections ...

[szh]

No surprise, I suppose.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27728496/

Z

[audtatious]

Like you expected anything else? I didn't.

[themadscientist]

It going to be fun being able to blame the democrats for EVERYTHING for the next four years. Payback is a *****.

[audtatious]

I've said that a couple times recently as well

[sensibleS13driver]

Yes. No surprise that people who have worked in the respective industries would have the expertise needed for "transitional supervisory" roles.

You're giving these guys and their pull way too much credit.

[audtatious]

Obama is wishy-washy. Pulls in many of the Clinton players while putting these guys in other positions. Same'ole on one hand and possible extremism on the other.

But, that's OK if it give you happy pants.

[szh]

Yes. No surprise that people who have worked in the respective industries would have the expertise needed for "transitional supervisory" roles.

You're giving these guys and their pull way too much credit.

The point I was making was that Obama was saying before the elections that he would not have the kind of typical political appointment favoritism that other politicians are prone to do.

How did it go again? Oh, yeah "Change" ...!

Well, this was among the first campaign promise to be bent, if not broken fully yet. That was the reason for my "no surprise" comment - he is no different from any other politician we have elected to office.

Z

[ishkabibble]

It going to be fun being able to blame the democrats for EVERYTHING for the next four years. Payback is a *****.

I don't see any difference. The right has been blaming the Dems for everything for the past 20 years regardless of who is in power in the Presidency or in Congress. Meanwhile, Bush supposedly was a great President.

[heliochrome85]

thanks. can you stick around here more often? it seems like im the only one in favor of obama.

[szh]

thanks. can you stick around here more often? it seems like im the only one in favor of obama.

Umm ... no, you are not the only one.

And, as I have always said, once the elections are over, I do believe in supporting the Prez whoever gets elected. However, I also have the right to criticize when I think he or she (whether I supported them or not during the election is not relevant) is screwing up.

I voted, so I earned the right to do so.

Z

[heliochrome85]

take a look at the main politics forum page and tell me it isnt strongly biased against Obama. I have yet to hear you come to the support of him or any of his policies. im not saying you have to, im just saying if you go thread my thread, i can name on one hand the contributors who are willing to give the guy a chance. don't get me wrong, i voted to, and therefore im allowed to participate in the critcism as are you. im just sayin we have had to ENDURE for the last 8 years of the worst president in our history, yet somehow, it wasnt enough for a party change in most of this forum's minds. i cant change everyone's viewpoint, but id like to see things a bit more even keeled so to speak. otherwise, its just like reading the comments on a fox news article about obama. sheer ridiculousness and openfaced animosity.

[szh]

take a look at the main politics forum page and tell me it isnt strongly biased against Obama.

That is true, but not completely one-side to the point where we need to be rabid in defending either Obama or McCain ... or whoever.

(NOTE: I am not saying you are over the top in your comments, but we had some ... shall we say "interesting" positions taken in the past).

I have yet to hear you come to the support of him or any of his policies.

Simple reason for that. I have not yet heard a policy from him (that I agree with, of course) that I believe he will support beyond campaign promises. When he does do so, for a policy that I also support, then I will say so here.

So far ... no luck, unfortunately.

I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt till I see otherwise on any given issue. Then, I will speak up too.

FWIW, I did not expect McCain to support his campaign promises either - no politician does - but, he did not make any extravagant naive promises.

Z

[ishkabibble]

Not even his bailout of homeowners?

[audtatious]

Thus far he is still sticking by his "get Osama" direction and stopping Al Quada which gets two thumbs-up from me.

[themadscientist]

I don't see any difference. The right has been blaming the Dems for everything for the past 20 years regardless of who is in power in the Presidency or in Congress. Meanwhile, Bush supposedly was a great President.

That is the point, there is no difference! That is why I will do what I can to enjoy the reign of the one, the same stuff the libbies did with dubya; blame him for absolutely everything.

I have never said Bush was a great president, he is not even a competent president. Even knowing what I do now I would take him over the best estimate of an Al Gore administration.

At least Al Gore is recyleable; he's made of wood.

[heliochrome85]

i totally understand, i just wanted to be clear. I dont really see the point in predicting a president elects policies and positions as written in stone before he takes office. who could see what clinton or bush would turn into 8 years later, when they were president-elects?

[szh]

I dont really see the point in predicting a president elects policies and positions as written in stone before he takes office.

No, but since it seemed that Obama walked on water before the election according to the Democrats posting here, I figured that maybe they knew something I did not ... that he might be the exception to the usual politician rule of "say anything to get elected".

Unfortunately ... not!

Z

[HashiriyaS14]

it seems like im the only one in favor of obama.

Nope, you're not the only one.

That said, I'm not happy to see this happen. I mean, on the list of Obama campaign promises, I figured this particular one stood a HIGH chance of being broken, as most campaign promises are, but that doesn't mean I welcome it with relish.

He needs to be very careful. I'd like to think he and his team are making these appointments based on competence, and that occasionally campaign promises must be compromised to get the most competent person in the seat. Almost everyone in DC in the political sphere has lobbied or intends to, so it's *really* tough to totally strike those people from the roster. It's like being an announcer after you retire from football...it's just what people do.

That said, Obama needs to watch it. People will forgive him a few times for breaking promises if they think he's got the best interests of the country at heart, but he needs to clearly articulate his reasons when he does something like this. Public financing is a great example. He said he'd accept it, then went back on his word. He needed to do that to get into office and I think most of his supporters are ultimately happy with the decision (I am), but he needed to explain it. In that case, he did NOT explain it, at least not adequately. He should have said "our campaign is different because it's funded by small donors, buy the everyman, and thus it isn't really so far off from public financing, it's just voluntary public financing".

I still think he's going to be a great President, and one of the reasons I like him is because he seems more wedded to the idea of getting things done than to appeasing any particular group, his supporters included, but he'll need to articulate his reasons if he wants to get re-elected.

[szh]

Yet more reporting on Washington insider appointments by Obama: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27816818/.

Z

[Offshore1]

All you lemmings that voted this clown in on his PROMISE on change; you were duped!!!! It is Washington politics as usual.

He is not even Prez yet, and promises he made to YOU, are broken. Wait till this azz hat gets in office.

Pull your head out of the sand - Impeach this azz!!!