Is it too early for President Obama's first job evaluation? He's been in office for less than a month, after all. But regardless, in this blogger's opinion, he is failing. Rapidly. And miserably.
I base this performance assessment upon three categories- only one of which I think it can be argued that he is somewhat succeeding in. They are:
Foreign Policy and the War on Terror
"Change" and Bi-partisanship
The Economy
So, starting with the positives: I think Obama's foreign policy is an improvement over Bush's. Apparently, through the sheer force of his personality, he is at least getting some of our traditional antagonists- like Iran- to want to talk things out. A word of caution, however: don't get too cozy with Ahmadinejad. Maybe he's only acting so he can continue his nuke programs. And don’t go too softly on these whack jobs.
Also, I think America's image among people around the world- be they Europeans, Arabs, Africans, or whatever- is improving. Again, though, this isn't really because of any skill of his. It's only because he's not George W.
And finally, Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay facility in the upcoming year represents a positive turning point in the War on Terror. If America is to win a war against a nonstate enemy who hides among civilians in desert hovels and caves, we need to occupy the moral high ground. Bush's old policy of "smoking them outta their holes" didn't work. On the other hand, Obama has continued Bush's policy of bombing suspected terrorist outposts in Waziristan. So we have to view this positive equivocally.
Before moving onto the negatives, I should point out that of these three positives, only one came about from a policy change instituted by Obama. The other two were not a direct result of anything he did. That's why these positives cannot drown out his several failures.
Onto the negatives- the F’s.
Change. The word got Obama elected. Unfortunately, the President seems to be learning the hard way that saying he'll bring change to America is a lot easier than actually doing it.
He said he would have no lobbyists in his government. But he's already purposefully and fully consciously made at least two special exceptions to this rule.
He said he would have a more open and transparent government. But, the Federal Reserve still refuses to release any information on its agenda, inner workings, and the previous bailout bill (TARP, passed under Bush). Several news networks, like Bloomberg News and Fox Business Channel, are actually suing the Feds under the Freedom of Information Act for access to such information.
And Obama is being a little disingenuous when it comes to government transparency. For instance, he promised the American people that the current stimulus bill would be posted online for all to examine. Hurray, right? Not exactly. Every bill passed in at least one house of Congress is already posted on the Library of Congress' website. Maybe Obama doesn't know that- or maybe he's being sneaky, pretending he's being extra open when in fact nothing has changed.
On the other hand, unpassed bills that are up for consideration are not normally accessible to the public. That would apply to the new version of the stimulus bill. So maybe Obama still wants to show us that. But- wait, the Dems have just announced that they will not release the revised stimulus bill. How open and transparent of them.
Probably one of the most important aspects of change is to bring bi-partisanship back to Washington. Let's see how he's doing in that area... his stimulus bill did not garner a single Republican vote in the House, and only three Republicans in the Senate were willing to vote for it. And on top of all this, his newest commerce secretary nominee (since the original one, Bill Richardson, dropped out) has just announced he's realized he cannot work with Obama. That commerce secretary nominee was Judd Gregg, a Republican.
Additionally, Congressional Republicans have frequently been excluded from debates and conferences on the stimulus bill. Bi-partisanship goes two ways, Mr. President. You don't seem willing to meet Republicans in the middle- you expect them to come to you, all the way on the left.
And finally, to top off all of Obama's other shortcomings is the granddaddy of all his failures so far- the stimulus bill.
I've already complained in my previous blog that the stimulus bill is anything but stimulus. So that is definitely a big failure. While on the campaign trail, Obama also promised a big tax break for middle class families. Turns out that when you do the math, Obama's tax breaks amount to about $13 a week. That'll save the middle class for sure. They'll be able to buy an extra couple cartons of orange juice every week. That's another big failure.
The speed with which Obama and the Democrats are trying to ram this bill through is also alarming. A professor told me recently that Obama was the right choice for president because he "thinks carefully about things," in contrast with Bush who just acted on his gut instincts. Well, looks like that professor was wrong. Obama is ensuring there is no time to think about this bill. You'd think that careful consideration would be important when trying to save the entire economy...
The problem with Obama is that he was greatly hyped up during the election season, but it may turn out that he's all smoke and no fire.
As a disclaimer, I should clarify that no, I did not vote for Obama. But that doesn't mean by any stretch of the mind I wish failure upon him (like Rush Limbaugh has, a man who greatly annoys me). I want the President to succeed. We need him to.
When asked shortly after the election if I thought Obama would do a good job, I said I would wait before judging him- give him the benefit of the doubt for a couple months. Well, it's been less than one month, and yet I'm already prepared to pass my judgment. Let's be realistic- the President receives an "F" on his first report card. I’m a bit worried that John McCain was right- maybe Obama isn’t experienced enough for this job…
Fortunately, he still has at least 47 months to get something good going (not that I'm counting, mind you...). I hope he can. We can't afford another flunking president.
The only thing I agree with so far in your blog is the opening: It IS too early for a report card, dude.
I understand and can identify some of your ways of faulting him as truths, but change doesn't happen over night. Just read about FDR's time in office.
Just a liiiitle harsh.
Ok, maybe too early, and maybe too harsh. "Failure" doesn't really apply to Obama yet. But he is starting to head in a negative direction, and if he keeps going in that direction, things will be not good. Obviously he has plenty of time to change things around, so hopefully he does. And in my opinion, hopefully he doesn't end up like FDR. It's still debatable whether his time in office was good or bad for America. I'm in the "bad" camp.
A major reason for my giving Obama an "F" is the state of the economy. I know it's not his fault we're in a recession (and contrary to popular belief, probably not Bush's either). But, like Bush, his response to the weakened economy has been laughably pathetic- laughably until you suddenly realize how serious things are being screwed up, and then you get oh so depressed. I have major problems with the stimulus, they're outlined in my last blog which is linked to (through "stimulus bill"). As I was checking the news today, I came across yet another news report that backs me up on Obama and the Democrats' failure on this issue.
Any blog with a title regarding a grade on Obama's performcance I'd almost dismiss immediately at this point. Yeeash!
I'm perplexed as to why you think talking to one of the top leaders of the Islamo-fascism world is better than just giving them what they want - a nuclear bomb. Obama should just tell Mahmoud whatever-the-hell-his-name-is that we'll deliver a nuke to his front doorstep if he does anything wrong and mean it. Of course the first bomb would have blow Tehran off the face of the earth just to let the Iranian terrorists know that they really do work. Obama's bipartisanship and change were nothing more than words from his mouth. Anybody who couldn't see that he was completely bullshitting Americans into thinking that he wasn't a sleazy politician that is an extreme leftist may lack a brain. Americans are so stupid you know? But ignorance is bliss, and that was perfectly demonstrated when all those buffoons around the nation had jubilant celebrations in the street when Obama bin Biden won the election.
well first of all, un checked and there's no proof that iran is building nukes. (let's all remember what happened last time we decided un was wrong.) but assuming that tehran is actually even trying to build a nuclear bomb, what are we scared of? we're america. we've put multiple people on the moon, we've launched probes that are millions of miles outside solar system yet can still communicate with us, we've launched probes that have explored the planets of the solar system. and our nuclear arsenal could glass the earth over several times and still have plenty left over. even though iran recently put a satellite in orbit, have we forgotten what mutually assured destruction means? i highly doubt they're stupid enough to launch a rocket our way.
In less than a month, President Obama has managed to set the course for expanding our national debt by 30% in one year.
The debt that has grown more or less steadily over 40+ years since President Johnson was sitting at about $10 trillion will be at $13 trillion by the end of Obama's first year. President Bush and the last Democratic Congress are responsible for a good portion of that extraordinary growth. Barack Obama and the current Democratic Congress will be responsible for the rest. Never in history has one man spent so much money that we as a people don't have in such a short period of time.
As a fiscal conservative and a small government libertarian I have no problem with giving Obama an "F".
While I agree that all the people in the government are currently spending too much money, you have to keep in mind that Obama inherited a bunch of crap from the previous administration. Regardless of what he (or the rest of the administration, for that matter) does, especially in regards to the economy, he's going to catch a lot of crap.
He essentially has two options -- a) not do anything and let companies fail, letting free market run its course, but putting a large number of people out of jobs in the process (especially as the largest of the companies go under) and run a very high risk of going down in history as our generation's Hoover. Or, b) spend a ton of money (regardless of how much or how little pork there is/could be in a stimulus bill, it's going to be expensive as hell) and work to get us out of economic slump and be seen as more of this generation's FDR -- liked by some, hated by others for his economic choices.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
This whole "stimulus" bill is totally and completely stupid. I want our economy to prosper just as much as the next guy, but this bill is NOT the way. As Laura Ingrahm (or however you spell her last name) said, "Not a whole lot of good can come from a bill that's 750 pages long!" Especially when no one knows what it really says because the Dems aren't releasing all of it.
In addition, I think that Limbaugh's comment "I hope he fails" is being ridiculously exploited when he meant more along the lines of he thinks Obama will fail because Obama's not giving America what America needs. (and as a disclaimer, Rush drives me crazy, too...give me Michael Savage or Laura Ingrham any day!)
RESPECT LIFE
SMILE EVERY DAY
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
This post is nothing but a joke. How can you judge him after being in office for less than a month. He promised change however he didn't claim that it was going to come immediately. People need to open their eyes and realize what a mess the Bush administration left our country in. And as far as breaking party lines, do you really expect him to fix that in two or three weeks over the stimulus package where both parties have fundamentally different views on the economy. Give me a freaking break I can't believe you would even think about judging him when he hasn't even been in office for over a month.
I feel that I can judge him because I gave explicit reasons for my line of thinking- I'm not randomly deciding that he's awful.
As for giving him a break, I'm a little wary of that. You should never give politicians room to breathe. Look what happened when we let Bush do that (especially after 9/11 when he started rolling back civil liberties for "security"). I find it especially weasely of Obama that he championed change all through the election season and only after he was elected began saying that things will take time- as in years- to change. He's not unlike Bush in that a politician is a politician.
Barack Obama became the president on Day One. That's the day we need to start keeping him (and everyone else- Democrat and Republican) honest.
...before their first report card. Calling every single program that has been proposed by the new adminstration a "failure" after barely three weeks is a just a wee bit rediculous.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
You're not the first person to point this out, and I admit, maybe it's too early. Call it more of a midterm or progress report than a report card. But on the other hand, I'm certainly not the only (or most qualified) person who has been saying so...
PS Thanks to columnist Martin Wolf from the Financial Times for inspiring this post.
No one listens....you are right saying and doing are 2 different things and often times many presidents that go up for election say and do two different things. I think he is going to screw everything up even more and I have always thought that...well just have to see how it goes from here....
Come to the darkside....we have cookies ;)
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/50086-%E2%80%9Ctaxi-darkside%E2%80%9D-u...
i definitely say that a month is not sufficient to judge the work of ONE PERSON who has A TON of work on his plate. who are we to judge, especially if none of US have volunteered to be president? under the circumstances and the pressure of an entire country waiting to see how HE will bring about change is difficult. I may also point out that one person is not completely capable of change that is needed. In order to change things, we cant just hand everyhting to one person. we have to help and do our part to change, too, and be supportive..so, come back when obama's term has ended, and THEN go over how much you think he has failed or done well in a position few would take.
who are we to judge, especially if none of US have volunteered to be president?
Um, we are the people. This is supposed to be the Government of the people, for the people, and by the people. The president is supposed to be a representative of the will of the people. The president is supposed to be a servant leader of the people.
We must be responsible citizens. We must hold the government accountable. We must hold Obama accountable.
It may be to early to give him an F but it is not too early to look at what he is doing and say, "I disagree with this, so far," or "I agree with this, so far."
Regardless, Obama is a history making president. As the first bi-racial president, history is watching him and is going to record his actions. His actions will pave the way for the future and for future presidents. Maybe the next president will be Hispanic, Native American, or a female.
S1701
Let’s stop for a moment and realize that we a trying to judge the job the President of the United States is doing based on less than the first month in office. Let’s be clear about that. Cosmic feels the need to grade or judge President Obama, less than a month into the new administration. Cosmic says “he’s failing”.
After 8 years of the Bush administration, somehow Persident Obama did not do enough, in a month, to make Cosmic believe he not failing! It would appear that some believed, in a month, Obama could undo the things Bush did to our country for 8 years. Is President Obama failing or are some of us failing to take a realistic view of politics in America?
Change does not happen over night or in a month. There is a system in place of doing business in Washington D.C., that system has been in place long before Barack Obama was in politics. No one person has the power to change Washington over night, but they must try, and he will try.
Real change is seldom quick, just ask anyone who has fought for women’s rights, worker’s rights, gay rights, voting rights, any type of civil rights. If we seek real change, real change often takes time and always takes effort. If it was easy to do someone would have done it before now.
The last administration had 8 years and brought no change to the way business is done in Washington D.C., ….I think we can give President Obama more time than a month before we judge and declare “he’s failing”.
***HTML Tags removed on 02/12/2009 by Blackout.***
If the criteria is change, then I give him an A. In his first month he has managed to radically transform and greatly expand the role of government in our lives. That is a huge change.
But not all change is good. I think from time to time I have seen you express a libertarian political philosophy and from the perspective of a libertarian, the expansion of government and interference in the free-market is anything but good. Beyond that, ff the criteria is good governance then there is little about which to be impressed. When George Bush took office the National Debt was around 5 trillion and it is now over 10 trillion. He expanded it by less than a trillion per year. In Obama's fist month he has committed us to expanding the National Debt by nearly 3 trillion dollars with no end to the fiscal hemorrhaging in site. For that he deserve an F.
I do have to agree with you. I would like if the guy could bring about some change, but actually changing things is a lot more complex than Obama first seemed to think. For example, closing Gitmo is simply not going to happen any time soon. Sure, we don't have a perfect system, and I'm sure we have some innocent prisoners there, but there ARE real terrorists there! Their home countries refuse to take any of them back, so if we let them go, we have to let them go in America with every right of a US citizen, even the terrorists. And that would only be chaos.
Furthermore, the "stimulus bill" which does nothing to stimulate the economy. The last bill did absolutely nothing at all, and no one wants another one because of it. It's OUR wasted tax dollars, and that's the thing, the Feds don't give a shit because the money isn't theirs.
And I'm surprised no one's bitching about this, either. Obama slipped something into the stimulus bill that will affect the health care of every American citizen by putting all our medical information on file for the Feds to see at any time, AND making all doctors follow uniform methods. Uniform methods! If doctors are all uniform, what's the point of having an insurer that lets you pick your own physician! The worst part, if you need an experimental treatment, your fate will be decided by a federal council who's never fucking met you and will probably get everything wrong. This scares me, really. I think I'll go blog about that now, actually.
Try Toilet! Hah, I love this.
I'm Libertarian.
Yeah, Obama's heath care plan has me scared and really, really ticked off. Socialized health care is SO not what we need. Other countries with socialized health care have led to the widespread use of euthanasia. If the person isn't useful anymore, you kill them (or maybe in this case, let them die). Uh, I don't know about anyone else, but a future where I work til I break and then they kill me because I'm not USEFUL is not in the least appealing. That's what happens with (some) animals. Are we just animals or are we human beings with reason and purpose and sanctity of life?
RESPECT LIFE
SMILE EVERY DAY
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Exactly! And the fact that it's been slipped in on the "stimulus bill" is 100% intentional-- so it slips in under the noses of most Americans, most of whom I'm sure would oppose this if they actually knew what was being voted upon.
Obama promised no earmarks in the economic bills. This is worse than an earmark: this is creating an entire new Bureau just for so-called "health care." It's not just an earmark, it's a whole project!
Try Toilet! Hah, I love this.
I'm Libertarian.
I 100% agree. This is downright scary. I believe that the stimulus bill was totally unconstitutional, as it was not read by Congress, not read by the PEOPLE whom it is greatly effecting, and promoting things of a socialist nature that totally and completely oppose what we stand for as Americans.
*sarcasm* Well, at least he didn't lie. *rolls eyes*
RESPECT LIFE
SMILE EVERY DAY
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
...because I think its WAY too big, and possibly counter-productive in the long-run. But what leads you to allege that it is "unconstitutional?"
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Ditto the size and counterproductiveness...
Because I said so. :P But if you look at the reasons why our founding fathers put together this country and why they put together this constitution, it was to secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for themselves and future generations. Then a handful of people push this stupid bill that leads us to a socialist country and thus threatens those rights.
The 14th Amendment sates that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Don't the elderly have just as much right to antibiotics that a working 30yo has? Thus, the stimulus bill could easily deny someone life and deny them equal protection. In addition, considering that many of those who voted on the bill didn't even read it (which isn't surprising considering that the darn thing is over 1000 pages long), I do not believe that the process of the law was done properly.
Finally, it's just not right. Really, it just kills me to be reading though the reasons our country was founded and the mentalities of those at the time and then look at what America has turned into.
RESPECT LIFE
SMILE EVERY DAY
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
But if you look at the reasons why our founding fathers put together this country and why they put together this constitution, it was to secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for themselves and future generations. Then a handful of people push this stupid bill that leads us to a socialist country and thus threatens those rights.
Indeed...our founding fathers DID form the Constitution (in part) for the reasons you say. But your interpretation of their intent seems to ignore that one of the specific provisions that they provided in support of that purpose was this...
We may not like the scope of this bill, and we may not like its financial implications on our long-term economy, but there's nothing "unconstitutional" about it. The simple fact is that our Supreme Court has consistently held that healthcare falls clearly within the bounds of the General Welfare/Taxing and Spending Clause.
The 14th Amendment sates that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Don't the elderly have just as much right to antibiotics that a working 30yo has? Thus, the stimulus bill could easily deny someone life and deny them equal protection.
This is a spurious charge. There is nothing in these proposals that would reasonably suggest that ANY citizen would be refused ANY treatment deemed medically necessary simply because the patient's age.
In addition, considering that many of those who voted on the bill didn't even read it (which isn't surprising considering that the darn thing is over 1000 pages long), I do not believe that the process of the law was done properly.
This may come as a shock to you, but one of the unfortunate realities of our political system is that very few bills are thoroughly read by all (or even most) of our Representatives. There are just too many bills that are too long (and often too technical) to make that a practical expectation. That's why our Congress relies so heavily on the Committee System. Both of the main two parties have representatives on the committees that DO read (and are often integral in drafting) those bills that fall within their jurisdiction, and then they inform their respective caucuses of the general terms and scope of those bills.
Finally, it's just not right. Really, it just kills me to be reading though the reasons our country was founded and the mentalities of those at the time and then look at what America has turned into.
Frankly, our previous discussions have led me to believe that you are not very well infomred about the political history of our country and the motivations that were dominant among our forefathers during the founding period.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Here's the bill, as passed by both houses of Congress. Can you please show me where it says that an elderly person will no longer be able to get prescriptions?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Here's a few links explaining the unconstitutionality.
http://starmaker.today.com/2009/02/01/stimulus-package-unconstitutional/
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/19/gop-govs-stimulus-strings-and-the-l...
http://www.reclinercommentaries.com/2009/02/unconstitutional-stimulus.ht... <-- About how it infringes Freedom of Religion, which I found really interesting.
The only Constitutional provision for tax money is that it's used for "public purposes only." Sure, that's what it seems like, but 1) It's not working to that purpose, and 2) most of it is NOT going to public purposes. It's all pork money for stupid groups, including the American Endowment for the Arts and ACORN. That's not stimulating the economy in the slightest, let alone going towards "public purposes."
Try Toilet! Hah, I love this.
I'm Libertarian.
None of the links you've provided in this comment show where exactly in the bill said accusations are. So again, I reiterate that if you want to go spreading such information, make sure you can point back to the original source, either directly or indirectly. In this case, it's really easy -- find it in the bill in question.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Your first source says...
This is false. I searched the bill thoroughly, and could find no reference to Mr. Blagojevich.
Your second source only says this...
I was unable to locate any report from the Congressional Research Service that agreed with Mr. Boehner's question. Would you be so kind and to provide a link to it?
Your final source actually references the infamous ex-judge Roy Moore (who was removed from his position by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary for ethics violations). I would suggest that this is not a very reliable sorce for evaluating the constitutionality of the measure, but here's his comment...
Now, this certainly shouldn't be an arcane concept to Mr. Moore--especailly considering the debacle over his desire to place the 10 commandments so prominently in his former court room--but this seems pretty consistent with way that The Establishment Clause has been consistently interpreted by our Supreme Court. There's nothing unusual, and certainly nothing unconstitutional about this provision.
So basically, your accusations are simply not true. I would suggest that if you're going to mount a campaign against policies of this bill, you need to at least take the time to read it yourself, so that your criticisms won't seem quite so...uninformed.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
...then how did YOU hear about it?
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
There are people who read through these whole bills to find things that make no sense and put them in news articles. The news articles tend not to be discussed much, but we talk a lot about this stuff in my government class nonetheless.
Try Toilet! Hah, I love this.
I'm Libertarian.
Based on the links you provided above, I would suggest that the "people" you are sourcing from are not particularly credible. But back to the point, if the information is being made publicly available for your "people" to examine, where's the deception implied by your "slipped in" comment?
TTFN,
Blockquote
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
The health care provision seems minor at first glance, but it is terrifying. Sure, it's not exactly socialism or Big Brother yet- but that's just it- not yet.
All the racist jackasses out there (I'm not implying the author of this article is one of them,) will blame him for all the mistakes Bush made in office, which he is scrambling to clean up. I can't help but think that giving the presidency to Obama after Bush was in office is some type of sick, racist joke (no, I don't believe we actually elect our president., so no, I don't think he was chosen "by the people," as people like to claim.)
Hell, it takes me longer then a month to clean my room; I don't expect Obama to singlehandedly save the world in a month!
I do agree he's doing a terrible job overseas; I think the last thing Afghanistan needs is more American troops there, killing people. Afghanistan has been occupied continuously for nearly thirty years; if we ever want to be known as humane and decent, we need to LEAVE THEM THE FUCK ALONE! I thought it was strange that during the debates Obama was staged as a man of peace, when in reality, he just said he wanted to move to war around, like pieces on a chessboard.
The economy is another matter; I think he is doing an admirable job with what he was handed. Given the current state of events, the man is holding up admirably; the fact that he hasn't suffered a major nervous breakdown is enough to impress me.
Love ya,
Carrot
To clarify: I don't think Obama (and let's not forget our lovable Congress) is creating these problems. I think he's butchering the solutions to them. Bush did no better, what with the TARP bill and whatnot. Seeing as this is the market we're talking about, perhaps we don't- can't- have control over the situation at all. Obama still deserves some flak in that case too, since he's pretending there is something we can do about it.
Wars, wars, wars... a slightly different topic. We are spending billions of dollars over there, too, though. I do find it slightly ironic that many of the people who predicted the surge in Iraq would fail are now saying the same for Afghanistan. However, I slightly agree these people: I thought the surge in Iraq would work, while I'm not so sure about Afghanistan. Iraq is an urban country; its people (and terrorists) are easy to control through occupation. Afghanistan is a mountainous, rural country. The effect of concentrating more soldiers in the country will be "cancelled out" by the thin population density. What else are we to do, though? I disagree that simply leaving is the better option (since this is a very current event and not so connected to the stimulus bill, maybe it merits its own blog).
It's been less than a month in office for President Obama, Get a Grip, seriously!!!
True. But certain issues are not related to how long he's been in office- such as his promise to not appoint lobbyists to his Whitehouse staff (remember, he gave two lobbyists jobs so far). You don't need several months' contemplation to realize that he lied- plain and simple. What happened to the change we voted for?
You know, everyone, I think cosmic is judging more of what Obama already has done (which is break a number of promises and thus expose himself as a pathetic liar and not the messiah everyone claimed he would be) than what he hasn't done.
The stimulus bill, his choices for appointed officials (a lot of which are from the Clinton administration...change? BS), etc.
RESPECT LIFE
SMILE EVERY DAY
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
He has been trying. He has been including Republicans in the discussion on the stimulus bill from the beginning, and he did nominate several Republicans for his cabinet. It isn't his fault that when it comes time to put their feet to the fire and stick to it, the Republicans all wash out because they won't work with the Democrats.
The guy who withdrew from the cabinet appointment just makes me angry. I mean, Obama is really trying to instate Republicans in his cabinet like he promised he would do in the election, and the one Republican he tried to put in an important cabinet position gets cold feet? Because he "can't work with the president?" Newsflash, dude, Obama's going to be here for four years, and as a politician you will have to work with him at some point.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Always know where your towel is.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/Farasha
Judd Greg was the Republican who withdrew. He was nominated as Secretary of Commerce which is not a very important cabinet position even though it sounds like it should be. The important aspects of the economy fall under the Secretary of the Treasury.
But one of the few important things that the Secretary Congress does is the Census which happens once per decade.
Obama gave Judd Greg the job and then proceeded to say that the Census would no longer be under the Secretary of Treasury but rather would report directly to the Whitehouse.
So, he would have been a Cabinet Member with just a figure head job. He would have been window dressing that made Obama look like he was bi-partisan but in fact he would have had no real role in Obama's government. I don't blame him for telling Obama to "take this job and shove it".
As far as the rest of the so-called bipartisanship, Obama let Nancy Pelosi in the House write the recent stimulus bill. Nancy has re-written the rules of procedure in the House in a manner where the minority Party has no role in the debate. Actually these rule changes are a return to the rules that were in place back in the early 1990s which was the last time Democrats controlled the House. They reversed the reforms that Newt Gingrich put in place in 1994 that gave the minority party a role in shaping policy. Effectively everybody who voted for a Republican has been completely been denied ANY representation. You may have noticed that "Tea Parties" are now starting to pop up all over the country. They are a protest of the lack of represenation.
Just saying you want to be bi-partisan does not make you bi-partisan. To be bi-partisan you actually have to allow the minority party to at LEAST participate in the debate and even better you actually have to LISTEN and INCORPORATE some of their ideas, Bi-partisanship involves compromise. Bi-partisanship is not shoving a bunch of one-sided ideas out and expecting people who disagree with them to vote for them.
reading all this and the comments about the Stimulus Bill made me think of one of the first things I learned in an elementary school social studies class:
Remember how we learned (or should have been taught) that one of the biggest breakthroughs in government was a solution to the unwritten "common law" which could be blamed for inconsistent enforcements and unfair trials?
They taught us that we came up with a less corrupt and more civil solution when society started writing the laws and making them available to the public...
But what is the difference between unwritten law, and law so long,confusing and cryptic, average citizens cannot comprehend it, or make time to learn it? They are merely two paths to the same outcome: keeping people uninformed.
The more uninformed people are, the more easily manipulated they will be.
Maybe I am off topic, but what if they made a law (or rather amendment) for only including relevant material in any single bill (of course "relevant" would need to be specifically defined), to make it more difficult for politicians to cheat the American people, or at least make it more difficult for politicians to cheat each other! So that any bill not complying with this would be constitutionally invalid.
Our laws only keep getting more and more cryptic and impossibly long.
I'm glad i took the time to read this post/comments, as I learned something, but I really don't have time to sort out and interpret a carefully and trickily crafted 900 page bill that Obama/democrats are pushing! Top it off with word that many parts of it are still being hidden from the public. I only have time to read people blogging about it, or read small exerts (probably out of context). I would have to agree with whoever said that bills over 500 pages cannot be good, as this usually signifies something slimy is trying to sneak through the legal system. Government has the greatest monopoly of all.
In engineering, general consensus is that a solution to a problem that keeps getting longer almost always means you are headed on the wrong path and set for a serious error.
Engineers should be politicians ; )
(or rather politicians should adopt this principle)
apparently this stimulus bill is now over 1500 pages long...definitely don't have time to read it. I don't know anyone who does.
http://www.readthestimulus.org/