Lamar!: Obama's Election Win Was For "A Change In Management," Not Policies
In an interview with the New York Times, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) gave the sort of language we should expect to hear from Republicans over the next four to eight years, denying that Barack Obama has a mandate for genuine policy changes.
"The change that people voted for was a change in management," said Alexander. "If they think the change the country elected them to provide was a lurch to the left, they're in for a big surprise."
The thing is...this just isn't true. There is a mountain of poll data showing that people favor Barack Obama on policy:
• The latest ABC/Washington Post poll finds that 65% of adults support spending $700 billion to stimulate the economy through construction projects, in line with what Obama has proposed. Also, 51% of adults want Obama to make major changes to the health care system soon after taking office, compared to 26% who say he should wait and only 20% who say he shouldn't do it at all.
• A Democracy Corps (D) poll from two and a half weeks ago finds 66% of likely voters saying they support Obama's policies, including 45% strong support.
• A Gallup poll from three weeks ago found 58% saying they supported Obama's infrastructure-based stimulus package.
Expect to hear this line a lot from the GOP over the next four to eight years, that Americans didn't actually support Obama's policies when they voted for him -- no matter how much it gets debunked.















Sounds like sour grapes from a bitter Rethug.
December 22, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you know, reality has a known liberal bias. . .
December 22, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
let it age and it could make a fine whine.
December 22, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Lamar! Alexander! is just saying what we all know. Real America only voted for Obama out of fear that McSlime would croak and Airhead Bimbo there would end up being preznit in that White House thingy there.
December 22, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, as well.
December 22, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go look in Airhead Bimbo's backyard and you'll see the Real America she was always talking about.
December 22, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You betcha!
December 22, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good. The longer they delude themselves about the complete rejection of their bankrupt ideology, and their dogmatic belief that any policy result that results from the implementation of their ideology is inherently good and desirable, the longer it will be before they're a viable threat to our majority.
December 22, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely.
Let them revel in their delusions, while the country moves forward.
And to think Lamar Alexander is considered a moderate Republican these days.
December 22, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded. Whether it politicians or radio hosts, let them keep blowing this kind of nonsense.
December 22, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't bother me hearing it from Republicans, I just wish I'd quit hearing it from Democrats.
December 22, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Challenge: Name 5 Democrats who have said they don't want a change from the Bush policies, that we only elected Obama to be a better manager of the same policy on healthcare, the economy, the Iraq war, energy, the environment.
And I don't mean the imaginary voices you hear in your head. Just Five Democrats who say "don't change the Bush policy. Manage it better."
December 22, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Run down the blue dog caucus starting with Joe Lieberman.
December 22, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't start with the bullshit. I'm not running down anything. You're the one who said you're tired of hearing Dems say "keep the Bush policies but manage them better" but you can't name a single person who said that? Why? Because you're lying. Even Traitor Joe hasn't said anything so patently stupid.
Every post of yours is some aggrieved rant of how you've been betrayed by a president who hasn't even taken office. You love to wallow is your imaginary victimhood.
Again, cite chapter and verse of even 3 Democrats who have said this or STFU. I have no doubt you'll do either.
December 22, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any Bush policy that the Blue Dogs want changed? Most of them think the war in Iraq was a swell idea but simply managed badly. We still have Bush's Secretary of Defense and we've got Hillary the Hawk at State. I see little change coming. If change comes, it will be driven by the economic crisis. In 2012 we will still be in Iraq and we will not have universal health care (though we might get some DLC blue dog plan for welfare for insurance companies).
December 22, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously lie better than you read.
Again, you said Democrats have been *saying* they want to continue Bush's policies. I said "name 5 who've said this." You don't. You can't.
I say name 3. You don't. You can't. So, you try to obscure the lie with a bunch of frothy, circular bullshit reasoning about how *you* don't see change coming. As if what you see = reality.
One more time: name just 2 Democrats who have said "keep the Bush policy but mange them better."
Yep. That's what I thought.
December 22, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are in denial. What do you think keeping Bush's Secretary of Defense is about? What Democrats are going to change FISA? What Democrats are going to change the Patriot Act? Do you think Vilsack is going to change agriculture? Lawrence Summers is going to revolutionize economic policy? Obama has already backtracked on taxing the wealthy.
You are talking about words. I'm talking about actions.
We can't even get a nice liberal rabbi to give the invocation.
God is in his heaven and the center right establishment is firmly in control.
Nothing changes.
December 22, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, you were talking about words, too, until you got called out on your lie. You said you *heard* Democrats say "keep Bush's policies but change the management."
Please tell me when you got that crystal ball that shows you exactly what Gates and Summers and Vilsack and Clinton will do. The one that shows you we'll still be in Iraq in 2012. Too bad you didn't get it before you stood in the cold to support Obama or it would have known that he'd keep Gates and appoint Hillary and save yourself the trouble.
Last time: Name ONE Democrat who said "keep Bush's policies but manage them better." Just one. Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? . . .
December 22, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're looking for a quote in which a Democrat literally says that?
That's your challenge?
If so, don't bother, Bluebell, because no Democrat would ever have said anything like that in an election in which the main plank of any platform was "anything but Bush". Even if they favored continuing Bush's approach in, for instance, Iraq.
December 22, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think bluebells case can be made by just looking at who in the Democratic party sees the war in Iraq and Afganistan and Pakistan and the Horn of Africa as being an immoral colonial war for oil as opposed to a mismanaged war on terrorism.
I did not hear Obama discuss the immorality of what we are doing in the Persian Gulf. In the election, discussions were about "the success" of "the surge". And the fact that there were not enough troops on the ground.
Bush got us into the Iraq war in order to control Oil and steer profits to his friends and allies. Obama want to "surge" in Afganistan instead of Iraq.
It's the same goal but different management.
December 22, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama's "I'm not opposed to all wars, just unjust wars" line from the primaries covers your moral argument. In the general, the issue was the economy, which Obama wisely hammered on relentlessly. To the extent that they discussed the "success" of the surge, that was all about McCain trying to grab credit for what the public had already relegated a failed policy.
Are you trying to say that Obama wants to focus on Afghanistan as a favor to his oil buddies? I swear, sometimes the arguments that I hear around here boggle my mind.
December 22, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to boggle you so.
I too am boggled mulling the "justice" of what we are doing in Afghanistan.
And enjoying how touchy people get when they actually have to speak in defense of ultra-violence.
December 22, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the war in Afghanistan has anything at all to do with Oil.
I have failed your liberal test. Oh well, at least I'm not paranoid.
December 22, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're damn right that's what I'm looking for. Is that so wrong? After all, bluebell claimed that so many Democrats had said that, that he/she is *tired* of hearing it! Tired, I say.
So many democrats have advocated for keeping Bush's policies (with better management, of course) that poor bluebell is worn down by these repeated pleas for more Bush-like policies that he/she feels like covering his/her ears. Yet when asked to name just ONE democrat who has said such a thing, thereby distressing poor bluebell so, he/she can't do it.
December 22, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's useful to appreciate how literal you appear to be.
Your claim:
Bluebell's actual words:
You took some liberty in interpretation of this; seems it's reasonable that others be allowed to do the same?
December 22, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bluebell can't produce a single Democrat who has said anything even remotely close to that. He/she is engaging in the repugnant tactics of the right-wing--putting forward a bunch of straw men arguments as policies advocated by the left.
To rile up their cadre of simpletons, they turn the left's opposition to school prayer into "the liberals want to stop your children from praying." No one has ever said that.
They want to continue the failed abstinence only programs in schools so our advocacy for age-appropriate sex education becomes "they want to teach comprehensive sex education 5 year olds."
It's meant to keep us hating each other over what we disagree about instead of helping us find the things we agree about. Everyone agrees there should be fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer abortions but we never get to implement programs that will achieve that because people like Limbaugh on the right and Bluebell on the left want to keep us focused on what divides us. If they have to lie to do that, no problem.
December 22, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word, bluebell.
December 22, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since you're giving bluebell "word" why don't you give him/her the name of 3 democrats who have said "keep the Bush policies but manage them better"?
December 22, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you're not telling people to fuck off of STFU, FreeRider, you're demanding that they answer your hysterical questions. Why in the world would anybody pay any attention to you? Grow up, learn some manners, or just go away.
December 22, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blah, blah, blah. I see you can't name any either. Just as I thought. Ha!
December 22, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you go troll somewhere else FR.
December 23, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's abrupt, but he's right here. Principled opposition is important, even within a party. God knows the Republican party would be better off today if those that had ideological concerns about torture or balanced budgets or unprovoked war had spoken up while Bush at his political high.
The problem is bluebell isn't engaging in any sort of "principled opposition". Bluebell is inventing positions to oppose and grievances to nurse. If you're upset about Warren, fine. It's a real issue that needs to be debated. Bring specifics and reasons to the fight, and we'll hash it out. If you're still upset about FISA, my opinion is get over it. It cut off one of McCain's legs and helped get Obama win the election by not giving Republicans a National Security strawman to beat up for 5 months. The issue is now how to govern, but fine, debate FISA if you want.
If you're going to constantly make up grievances to rail against, then feel free to STFU.
December 22, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Bluebell is railing about things he's invented. If there's so many things Obama and/or the Democrats have done wrong, I don't understand why he has to make shit up to be pissed off about.
Talk about Warren or FISA, if you want (even though those ships have sailed and won't be coming back). But fabricating grievances out of whole cloth is ridiculous and deserves to be mocked.
December 22, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, FreeRider, but it was in one of the Rick Warren threads that you told someone to STFU because he/she disagreed with your position & in which yo9u told me to "Fuck off! And the horse you rode in on." That's a direct quote. So for you to now to be insisting on principled debate is laughable. You don't want debate -- you just want to hector and shout down anybody who disagrees with your centerist politics.
December 22, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I told you "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" when you said that I think "liberal" is a dirty word. You earned every inch of that FU since (a) I have never said anything even remotely close to that and (b) I *proudly* identify as a liberal, albeit one who's tired of using the same old tactics that have not worked!
I make no apology for wanting us to actually get something done this time. I will always speak out about what I see are self-defeating tactics that may make us feel good and righteous but leave us with NOTHING!
For instance, an increasing number of gays are calling Obama a homophobe and a bigot, simply because he invited Warren to speak. An even greater number are labeling anyone who isn't demanding Warren be disinvited as a homophobe and a bigot. Real smart. Real fucking smart!
After the past 40 years, you'd think liberals would have learned how to agitate without alienating the very people they need to get something done. But no.
December 22, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Data?
I've read a lot of discussion on this issue, but I've yet to read one commenter who says that they think Obama is a homophobe and bigot.
You take great exception to Bluebell's supposed mischaracterization of Democrats. (Not Obama, mind you, because Bluebell quite literally said nothing about Obama). I think you're guilty of the same inflammatory rhetoric that you are repeatedly accusing others of when you make statements like this.
December 22, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time writer John Cloud called Obama a bigot and a homophobe in a piece published 12/18. He went on MSNBC and said the same thing. This is the same guy who defended Ann Coulter for calling Edwards a faggot. He said Coulter isn't a homophobe because "she has a gay friend." {rolling eyes.}
John Avarosis of Americablog has said the same thing . . . REPEATEDLY over the past week. Read the comments from many on his blog. They AGREE with him!
Read the comments on HuffPO. An increasing number of people who've been posting there for years are saying the exact same thing.
Now, I doubt if there's been a study or a poll about this but I've seen it and heard it. You see, unlike bluebell, I don't just make shit up for effect!
December 22, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, I've personally seen Obama referred to as a 'homophobe'. Just not on this site recently. Although I'm pretty sure that language like that was thrown about here fairly freely as far back as very early on in the primaries during the Donnie McClurkin episode. You were here, I'm sure you saw it too. This is a real issue because it has some roots, especially in the aftermath of the Gays vs. the Blacks story that followed the passage of Prop 8. I'm on the side that Obama is trying to accomplish something here that'll ultimately be good for the progressive movement, including those for Gay Rights, but get it, and it needs to be debated, because issues like this are how we define ourselves as a people. Just don't think that there aren't people out there using pretty harsh and insincere language to debate the issue.
But you're right. In that's not what bluebell was explicitly saying. My problem is, I don't think bluebell herself can keep track of her grievances with with Obama at this point.
December 22, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are people on both sides of the Warren issue using very harsh and dismissive language. So much so that I'm probably going to stop commenting here, because try as I might, I just keep feeling that I'm being attacked, personally, if I post a comment that just whiffs of criticism of this decision.
Bluebell? I may not share Bluebell's somewhat skeptical position with respect to Democrats, but I find her/his comments usually thought-provoking. As I do yours, even when I don't really share them. I can't comment on whether Bluebell can keep her/his arguments straight, because I don't follow Bluebell around and keep track of her/his arguments. But I know it's important to have viewpoints that differ from the majority, and it's important to not "shout" them down with invective. Something has been lost here in the last week, and perhaps it will return, but right now, this just isn't a very comfortable place to have a discussion.
December 22, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The righteousness just drips off you, FreeRider. I bow to your moral superiority.
It was amusing in that Rick Warren thread a couple of days ago -- I don't think I picked you out in particular -- to see so many people anxious to celebrate a bigot like Warren accusing their fellow liberals of apostasy and that is what I was commenting on. And how does your response then square with what you just said upthread here: "Talk about Warren or FISA, if you want..." But you don't mean that, do you.
Anyway, that's the last time I'm going to bother engaging you--I'll be saddling up that horse and riding on out of here.
December 22, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You did single me out by name as someone who views liberal as a dirty word. By name.
I have never defended Warren's odious beliefs. I defended Obama's right to invite him. I don't have a problem with people disliking him. I have a problem with people thinking they have the right to ban him from appearing. That's the same shit the right does.
Now, saddle up and skeedaddle!
December 22, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since FISA wasn't made up, I don't get your point. Why would I get over a bill that further undermines the bill of rights? The only reason I supported Obama in the primary was because of Hillary's foreign policy. Now, she's at State and Bush's Secretary of Defense is still in place. You know if you actually believed in change, you wouldn't get over the things you want changed.
December 22, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe it might be time to reintroduce Tennessee and Alabama to the joys of unregulated free market capitalism. Sell the TVA and Oak Ridge Labs. See what Lamar has to say then.
December 22, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Including a ban large state subsidies to foreign auto manufacturers!
December 22, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Run it up a flag pole Lamar...You'll be back to wearing plaid shirts by the first State of the Union.
December 22, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The vast majority of Americans support Obama's policies. In fact Obama gets the only policy where the vast majority of Americans differ from Obama is on closing Guantanamo. Everything else they support Obama on including a big stimulus package to just start the economy, getting out of Iraq, putting more troops in Afghanistan, changing our economy to a green economy, tax cuts for the middle class, etc.
December 22, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lamar Alexander is still alive?
December 22, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does this redneck think change in management means?
December 22, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest repudiation of an administration since 1980, and arguably since 1932, and they say this wasn't a demand for change in policy? These guys will be arguing with the shovelers when they are buried.
December 22, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans will block Obama's policies UNLESS Democrats are willing to exercise what conservative writers call the "constitutional option" to do away with filibusters. If that happens, then the power of Obama is vastly increased because the Republicans won't be able to filibuster progressive legislation. The question is do Democrats have the guts to pull the trigger and get rid of filibusters?
My guess is that Obama will wait and see what the Republicans do with his stimulus plan and his plans for health care reform. If they block his plans, then he will have the ability to rally the public behind getting rid of filibusters once and for all.
December 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think getting rid of filibusters is the appropriate approach. Rallying voters to pressure those who are filibustering is a better way to go. It will keep people aware of what their representatives are doing on their behalf, keep them engaged in the process, and provide a tangible cost for anyone refusing to vote for cloture.
With one party controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House, a filibuster, much as we might loath it, is a useful instrument.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats right now (before the new Congress has been even sworn in, of course) is that Republicans are "getting away" with filibustering, while Democrats were painted as obstructionist when they just contemplated a filibuster several years ago.
Don't do away with filibusters. Do a better job educating the public about what's actually going on, and who's being obstructionist.
December 22, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good talking points. I agree the filibuster is a tool for the minority and should be respected - it's their only means to address issues. That the repugs were ready to kill it just shows their disrespect for the office they hold. Perhaps your point about educating the public about the issues specifically related to the filibuster will get more public airing and may make the repugs look more like terrorist, hellbent on destroying civility than statesmen in the eyes of the public.
December 22, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see the problem as filibusters per se, but in the use of cloture votes to stand in for one. If the Republicans don't want to close off debate - fine, shut down debate on any other subject and require them to speak. When they stop speaking, debate's done, time to vote.
And make sure that voters know why no other business is being conducted.
December 22, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point, gavel ... I take Alexander's quote: "they're in for a big surprise" more as a shot across the bow of the Dem leadership that this GOP minority has pulled together and ready to use any means possible to slow down any liberal agenda.
And they will do it. The Dems were not willing to go after Bush, but the GOP will go after Obama.
The good news is that future elections look good for the Dems bcuz the GOP did not learn their lessons about the electorate at large in 08.
The bad news is that the Dems never are able to unite and will not fight the GOP at this game.
December 22, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are a number of adjustments to the filibuster rule that would make it a lot harder to implement a filibuster. For instance, have the senators actually present on the floor of the Senate decide. 60% of those present could vote for cloture (rather than 60 senators). Or reverse the vote - 40% of the senators on the floor of the Senate would have to vote in favour of continuing the filibuster. So, if there were 50 senators present, 20 of them would have to stand up on their little hund legs and say "yes, I want the filibuster to continue". If there were less than 20 votes, no more filibuster. Having to go on record supporting the filibuster of a piece of popular legislation might be a sobering thought for some of them.
These suggestions are based on an article I read a few weeks ago that I don't have a link for. Sorry.
December 22, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
you mean Lamar! no longer has his finger on the pulse of america? what a surprise.
December 22, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
He gets his news from his buddy Jim Bunning.
December 22, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems that Toyota is the primer auto manufacturer, world-wide. And they just said they're barely going to be seeing black. So if that is true, and the market response to the announcement is adjusting itself accordingly, then I suspect all those foreign auto assembly plants in those southern states rebelling against helping the Big 3 may be seeing a little cut back in their production schedules - lay offs due to reduced consumer demands.
I know VW, BMW and Mercedes are struggling in Europe so I suspect they're sales in the US are getting hammered too.
So we need to hear from Honda, Subaru, KIA, and a few other Asian auto makers to see how they're weathering the storm. If they're doing just as bad or worst as Toyota, then those southern Senators are all bark and no bite.
December 22, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they are. And if they are, doesn't this take the legs right out from under the argument that Detroit's problems are due, in part, to that nasty greedy UAW?
December 22, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point exactly ... all bark and no bite!
So the Democrats will be well-armed with real and current economic data to support the need to help the Big 3 keep their heads above water.
December 22, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's hoping they'll put that data to good use.
Lost in all the objections from Republicans (particularly those from the South) is the fact that Honda, Toyota and Nissan don't want the big three to fail--the industry is too intertwined at this point.
December 22, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Big 3 would be giddy to be "barely going to be seeing black". Make no mistake, the Big 3, and in particular GM, is in MUCH worse shape than the foreign car manufacturers. There are a number of reasons, but much of the blame is based on myth.
Myth: Workers at union plants make much more than their counterparts at foreign-owned plants.
Reality: They don't. Both make an average of about $30/hr.
Myth: Work at union plants is hamstrung by work rules.
Reality: That may have been true 30 years ago, but it's not any longer. In reality, the most productive plants in output per worker hour are almost all union plants.
Myth: Union workers receive far better benefits than non-union, and this cost is drowning the Big 4.
Reality: Union workers receive somewhat better benefits, but the cost difference is not that large. If you add all the benefits and divide by the number of active workers, the union plants APPEAR to be more costly, but it's just playing with math. The real difference is that the Big 3, because they've been around longer, have a lot more retirees. By dividing by ACTIVE workers, their costs appear higher. Make no mistake - this is a large financial burden and adds significantly to the cost of manufacturing, but don't be misled by funny statistics.
Myth: The Big 3 emphasis on big cars and SUV's were a response to the marketplace.
Reality: Foreign car manufacturers made big cars, too, but they didn't put all their eggs in one basket. An essential part of a CEO's job is to look 5-10+ years into the future and make sure the product mix matches not just today's demands, but that the company is positioned to satisfy future demands, too. Foreign car manufacturers looked into the future and invested heavily in cars that don't make much of a profit today, but which will be part of the product mix in the future. The Big 3 looked into the future and saw Hummers.
December 22, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems that Toyota is the primer auto manufacturer, world-wide. And they just said they're barely going to be seeing black. So if that is true, and the market response to the announcement is adjusting itself accordingly, then I suspect all those foreign auto assembly plants in those southern states rebelling against helping the Big 3 may be seeing a little cut back in their production schedules - lay offs due to reduced consumer demands.
I know VW, BMW and Mercedes are struggling in Europe so I suspect they're sales in the US are getting hammered too.
So we need to hear from Honda, Subaru, KIA, and a few other Asian auto makers to see how they're weathering the storm. If they're doing just as bad or worst as Toyota, then those southern Senators are all bark and no bite.
December 22, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pleased to hear that Lamar! is stimulating the economy by smoking a lot of crack...
December 22, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans: Redefining reality to fit their words!
December 22, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
They should change their name to "Delusionalim"!
December 23, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama : Repackaged Bush
FARHAT MAQUAMI
The Liberals should not be surprised by Obama’s selection of the Right Wing Evangelist Rick Warren because they don’t understand Obama. Their infatuation with Obama has blinded them to Obama’s social philosophy.
Those on the left, or anti-war movement are surprised by the direction Obama has taken to the right. Lets make it clear Obama has never said he is Anti-War, pro-Black Civil Right activist, or progressive in economic theory or Future of Military Missions of the Empire. The Progressives are still daydreaming and are giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Yet, every Cabinet appointment he is proving to be a refurbished Bush. His election, the Festivities of his inauguration and the rhetoric of Change might prove to be the smokescreen to fool the world America has changed while carrying the same bankrupt policies of Bush administration.
As he declared vigorously the night he disconnected his connection with the Black Church and his spiritual mentor :” Reverent Wright does not know me.” He should have continued to declare that he used the Black Church to get elected in Chicago, he used them to get elected in the Senate, he used Black Americans to unseat Clinton; since he never thought of himself as Black , never shared their historical sufferings. He emphasized time and time again that he was born from a white mother an a Kenyan Father!
The infatuation of the Liberal America with Obama, and the childish concept that putting a Black Face in the Whitehorse would bring fundamental change, is nothing but an illusion! Even his election is a great psychological victory for the Black Americans or any minority group, his economic and foreign policies are already set in motion by Neo-Cons. Continue to spend on a War of aggression which has already costs us $940 billions of dollars and use the government to Bailout the rich elite.
Unfortunately our disillusionment with the Republican Party and 6 years of war which has brought disrepute to America outside and economic bankruptcy to the US economy, has not permitted us to question Obama’s Policies. Yet, sooner or later the Liberals would notice that they have been betrayed not in the War in Iraq but a wide range of policies. Lets analyze all the contradictions. The trick is the phrase he is using now “seamless transition”!
In Defense he is going to use Robert Gate so the Bush agenda in Iraq would continue ”seamlessly” ! He has never made a clear statement after the election about Iraq. He never told Iraqis that he is getting out in 18 months and they better vote to pick-up the bill.
Like Bush and McCain he wants to close the Guantanamo Bay Torture Chamber, but he is not saying how to release the torture victims or how is he going to prosecute those who violated the international law and American Human Right Principals by torturing innocents, driving many to commit suicide and others who have become mentally deranged. He is not declaring to the World that Americans are going to wash their hands of the blood of innocents in Abo Gharieb prison by bringing these criminals to trial. He wants bi-partisanship, while Bush drove this country to the edge of madness by far lesser Vote in a disputed election and never sought bipartisanship for his reign of terror.
In Iraq, he now wants a “seamless” withdrawal and carry it out by letting the same Generals follow the same agenda and carry us to hell of political disrepute and economic disaster.
He forced the Democrats to keep Liberman, who is more vicious than Bush administration toward Iraq and Domestic surveillance as Chairman of the powerful Homeland Security. The left is still simmering in infatuation so all concern have not even considered the implication of this stupid act as Obama’s framework of action toward war and national security.
He put a 4 Star general and a close friend of McCain in charge of his National Security.
He has made many speeches and funny interviews, yet he has not still told the world that the vicious, illegal, and universally condemned Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War would be rejected on his first day in office. This would assure the world that we would be entering a new era of cooperation, diplomacy and the rule of law.
He is probably going to announce that he would keep the FBI and the CIA Director for another seamless transition rather that making a declaration that while in presidency he would ensure that he would issue a new Executive Order to stop all Extraordinary Renditions and Country’s adherence to Geneva Convention.
In order to calm the world he also should declare that he would stop the War on Terror which has not only terrorized the world but encouraged and enabled every anti-democratic regimes and every Feudal Warlord to use the most vicious methods to terrorize their own people. We have never heard from him that he is a man of Peace, wants to bring Peace to the World and to achieve this would stop supporting the undemocratic government. Most opposition of various Islamic group is not to Americans or America but to the American support of their oppressive regimes and therefore America is going to bring Peace to the world, not by arms but by diplomacy.
Until he comes up with real change for Americans he would be nothing but Bush with a black mask!
December 22, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
LA is right about "lurch" -- or at least would have been before Oct. The proposed $850B spending plan does look like a lurch. Other than that, Obama is not a radical leftie, even tho' he seems to be a progressive of sorts.
And LA is right about people wanting a change in management. The thing is, policy and management overlap strongly in many cases.
December 22, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the next change Lamar will experience is the one where he is replaced by Phil Bredesen...
and after that maybe Bob, the union buster, Corker
will be changed too...
December 22, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A change in management ..." ? Now THAT's some serious spinning (like wheels grinding in the muck after a Tennessee rain storm). Electing Daffy Duck would get you a "change in management", Lamar. Go home, put on a nice flannel shirt and some comfortable slippers, put your feet up, and call us in the morning. Jeez . . .
December 22, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
They still think that their word creates reality, and just don't understand that the election repudiated the Bush policies and the Republican Congress that OK'd them.
December 22, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Change? You want change? Here's your change:
December 22, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink