Obama Promised Change, but Picks Insiders Instead, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

Topic started on 20-11-2008 @ 08:58 AM by centurion1211

Yes, brought to all of us by the voters that couldn't tell Tina Fey from Sarah Palin .... Real change. Change we can believe in ...

Not. Turns out again to be only campaign promises you (can't) believe in.

Obama is stuffing his cabinet with proponents (from the past) of the worst of failed liberal policies.

Tom Daschle as secretary of HHS? You've got to be kidding.

article

WASHINGTON (AP) - President-elect Barack Obama promised the voters change but has started his Cabinet selection process by naming several Washington insiders to top posts.

Obama is enlisting former Senate leader Tom Daschle as his health secretary. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a well-known Washington personality, seemed more likely than ever to be his secretary of state. Clinton is deciding whether to take that post as America's top diplomat, her associates said Wednesday

Obama is ready to announce that his attorney general will be Eric Holder, the Justice Department's No. 2 when Clinton's husband was president. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, is another veteran of the Clinton White House.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is Obama's primary choice to be secretary of the Homeland Security Department, several news organizations reported Thursday. The New York Times, citing Democrats with knowledge of the process, said Napolitano was about to be offered the job. The Washington Post also reported that she was Obama's choice.

Sad that so many voters fell for this - if they even knew what obama's promises were. And now we're all stuck with the lot of them.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 09:11 AM by deltaalphanovember

I don't know much about the candidates track records, but wouldn't it be good for him to pick some people with a bit of experience?

From what I hear, the working of the US Government is rather vicious, and I think Obama is wise to choose a few experienced street fighters to watch his back.

As we know, politicians don't stick to their convictions very often, and if Obama makes his new policies clearly and strongly enough, then the pack will follow the big dog without a whimper.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 09:13 AM by nyk537

reply to post by centurion1211

It's useless to argue this point anymore.

The Obama supporters will say that this is change. Apparently change from Bush, any change, is all they wanted. It doesn't matter if it's change for the good or the bad, they just wanted change.

They're sure as hell going to get it now though, and not in a good way.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 09:20 AM by deltaalphanovember

nyk537, sorry another off-topic post but I just noticed your signature ... very nice. Live was very big here in SA in the early 2000's. Still one of my fav bands.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 09:38 AM by centurion1211

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
I don't know much about the candidates track records, but wouldn't it be good for him to pick some people with a bit of experience?

But exactly how is this "change"?

And another question. If the democrats wanted a cabinet full of "clintonistas", why didn't they just nominate Hillary in the first place?

Starting to look more and more like obama is nothing more than a figurehead for same-old, same-old democrat policies.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 09:52 AM by deltaalphanovember

Since I read Orwell's Animal Farm, nothing surprises me. And then of course:
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." from Won't Get Fooled Again by The Who

Coincidentally I just found the following link relating to the current economic crisis:

Representative Joe Barton of Texas (R) referenced the song in expressing his opinion of the Senate's passage of HR1424, its version of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 the House had recently rejected: "The bailout legislation that the Senate is sending back to the House is a fraternal twin to the one I voted against on Monday — meet the new bill, same as the old bill."[5]

Link

[edit on 20-11-2008 by deltaalphanovember]

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 09:54 AM by grover

What do you expect? Pick a bunch of people no body has ever heard of... has never delt with Washington and/or congress and needs to spend the first half of their tenure learning the ropes?

No with all that needs to be done you pick people who can get the job done then keep a tight rein on them.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 09:55 AM by sos37

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by centurion1211

It's useless to argue this point anymore.

The Obama supporters will say that this is change. Apparently change from Bush, any change, is all they wanted. It doesn't matter if it's change for the good or the bad, they just wanted change.

They're sure as hell going to get it now though, and not in a good way.

Agreed. The Obamatrons are mostly driven by their hate of the Bush administration. It will be very interesting to watch these same people when Obama starts screwing things up. They won't have the Bush administration to use as a scapegoat anymore. Heck, they won't even have the majority of Congress to blame. I think a lot of Obama supporters are in for one hell of a rude awakening in the next year or two.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 09:57 AM by niteboy82

reply to post by centurion1211

Exactly what are you expecting? Do you have a list of phenomenal people who have not played the game inside of the beltway before that you would like to see nominated?

As far as change goes, there aren't many people I would have said no to when it came to replacing Bush's circus. I'll give the guy a chance to prove himself. I don't expect results, but I'll play it fair. My guy lost, but I'm not going to play out being a sore loser like this.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:05 AM by grover

Originally posted by sos37
Agreed. The Obamatrons are mostly driven by their hate of the Bush administration. It will be very interesting to watch these same people when Obama starts screwing things up.

ROTFLMAO!!!

You have no idea what you are talking about.

First off we are not Obamtrons as you call us. We are not robots, sheeple or any other smear you chose to throw at us... we are fellow citizens who are concerned about our country.

Second: our support for him has far less to do with bush minor and more about the direction Republicans and their policies have taken this country than anything else.

Third: The Liberal/progressive press (and not the mainstream media of your fantasies) and us liberals and progressives in general are not going to spend the next 4 years or more trying to justify his policies like the conservative/Republican press has done. If we don't like the direction he is going we will tell him and make it known.

Don't believe me? Go to some of the liberal/progressive websites like alternet.org or
inthesetimes.com or motherjones.com they are already criticizing him for some of his picks and policy changes even before he's been sworn in.

We will hold his feet to the fire if need be and if need be abandon him next election cycle.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:08 AM by andy1033

We all know obama will fill his white house with cfr members, so why does anyone think anything will be new.

Why people want to be conned is beyond belief sometimes....

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:09 AM by nyk537

Originally posted by grover
needs to spend the first half of their tenure learning the ropes?

I find it hilarious that people keep using this reasoning, especially after electing Obama.

Apparently it's fine to have a President with no experience, but to appoint some non experienced cabinet members? Of course not!

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:11 AM by FlyersFan

Originally posted by niteboy82
Exactly what are you expecting? Do you have a list of phenomenal people who have not played the game inside of the beltway before that you would like to see nominated?

The point is that for the past two years Obama said that the very people he is hiring are the ones that have been 'the problem' and that they are all guilty of Washington Politics as usual.

If he planned on hiring all these 'part of the problem' people, then he shouldn't have run so strongly on 'change' and he shouldn't have given the very strong impression that he was cleaning house in DC.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:13 AM by FlyersFan

Originally posted by centurion1211
Obama is stuffing his cabinet with proponents (from the past) of the worst of failed liberal policies.:

More on this type of discussion here -

Change = lobbyists and Clintonistas

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:13 AM by grover

reply to post by nyk537

No one has the experience to be president... not Barack Obama... not John McCain... not Hillary Clinton because absolutely nothing prepares you for that kind of job... not CEO... not squadron leader... not senator... but you can surround yourself with people who know their way around the halls of power.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:18 AM by niteboy82

reply to post by FlyersFan

And again, I ask. What exactly are you expecting?

My personal belief is that whoever goes into that Oval Office at this point is going to be surrounding themselves with the same types from either side. They may be different in their policies, but they are either going to be super liberal or super conservative which is just a different face on the same old coin.

I wanted change, not necessarily this change above any other, but I gave Bush the chance in 2000, and we all know how well that turned out...

ie, look at my avatar.

[edit on 11/20/08 by niteboy82]

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:20 AM by grover

Anyone with any sort of experience with teams (or business) knows that the management sets the tone and the underlings follow suit. If the leader is a sloppy manager then that sloppiness will be translated all the way down the line.... if the leader is disciplined and focused then it too will be translated all the way down the line.

Just because someone has served someone else does not automatically mean that they will function in the same ways if the management style above them is totally different.

Barack Obama is certainly disciplined and focused or he wouldn't be where he is today... he didn't have daddy's machine set things up for him... and I expect his team to reflect his attitudes or they won't be there long.

From what I have seen I fully expect him to run a tight ship and jetison anyone who does not play well with others.... including Hillary Clinton should she come on board.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by grover]

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:25 AM by centurion1211

Originally posted by niteboy82
reply to post by centurion1211

Exactly what are you expecting? Do you have a list of phenomenal people who have not played the game inside of the beltway before that you would like to see nominated?

Well, that's what obama promised. I assume some people (not all) voted for him based on that promise. Now it's been exposed as a lie.

As far as change goes, there aren't many people I would have said no to when it came to replacing Bush's circus.

Sad.

I'll give the guy a chance to prove himself. I don't expect results, but I'll play it fair. My guy lost, but I'm not going to play out being a sore loser like this.

Again, sad. Hardly a sore loser. But I do recall 10 years - a decade - or more of vicious attacks by the left. Many on Bush before he had even taken the oath. Karma - it's real. I'm also not fool enough to think Obama meant change, but only after a couple years of doing things the old d fashioned way. The clintonistas will never let that happen now that they infest obama's government.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:28 AM by SpeakerofTruth

I'm willing to give the guy a chance. He might be a decent president. I'll be honest though, I don't expect him to be able to cash the checks he has been writing and he will be voted out in 2012... I suspect that he will be a four and through president, but we'll see.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:29 AM by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by sos37
Agreed. The Obamatrons are mostly driven by their hate of the Bush administration. It will be very interesting to watch these same people when Obama starts screwing things up.

ROTFLMAO!!!

You have no idea what you are talking about.

First off we are not Obamtrons as you call us. We are not robots, sheeple or any other smear you chose to throw at us... we are fellow citizens who are concerned about our country.

Second: our support for him has far less to do with bush minor and more about the direction Republicans and their policies have taken this country than anything else.

Third: The Liberal/progressive press (and not the mainstream media of your fantasies) and us liberals and progressives in general are not going to spend the next 4 years or more trying to justify his policies like the conservative/Republican press has done. If we don't like the direction he is going we will tell him and make it known.

Don't believe me? Go to some of the liberal/progressive websites like alternet.org or
inthesetimes.com or motherjones.com they are already criticizing him for some of his picks and policy changes even before he's been sworn in.

We will hold his feet to the fire if need be and if need be abandon him next election cycle.