Obama Presidency Watch/post election & first 100 days

reply to post by grover

I keep thinking he will appoint John McCain to something ... He hasn't named a VA chief ... maybe along with Biden to look into cutting waste in government. Kinda like what Gore did under Clinton.

For sure John McCain is “spent” goods in the Hard Right Wing of the GOP. Those do truly love the Palin types. Neither too bright, nor broadly read, but ADAMANT in her commitment to the ONE TRUE FAITH.

Those thrive on three issues: 1) No abortions, 2) no gay marriages and 3) lots of prayer in public schools. Sweet Jesus! I thought those mini-thinking dinosaur types went out with the 19th century’s Know Nothings - a/k/a the American Party - but alas, but like mosquitos or rats, you turn your head ant the fast breeders are back again!

Originally posted by donwhite
Yes. On LIBERALS there are fewer that 10% of our population.

Well ya know that's a funny thing because while more people (roughly 35% vs roughly 20%) identify themselves as conservative, people tend to agree with liberal policies (domestic anyway) over conservative ones by a significant margin. This is why the Republicans basically refuse to run on policy issues and instead wrap themselves in the flag and attack their opponents characters. They know that if they run on the issues they lose hence the comment from the McCain camp that they had to change the subject because if it remained the economy, they lose.

Also what I find interesting is that what we here in America consider conservative and even far right wing... in many countries would be considered liberal and indeed often dangerously radically left.

reply to post by grover

Well ya know that's a funny thing because while more people (roughly 35% vs roughly 20%) identify themselves as conservative, people tend to agree with liberal policies (domestic anyway) over conservative ones by a significant margin. This is why the Republicans basically refuse to run on policy issues and instead wrap themselves in the flag and attack their opponents characters. They know that if they run on the issues they lose hence the comment from the McCain camp that they had to change the subject because if it remained the economy, they lose.

I have a theory. When Ronnie Reagan the Republican Icon and perhaps, like John Paul 2 on the FAST track to sainthood, took office, it was his intention to see Congress repeal all the laws of the New Deal and the Great Society. Whether he was already suffering from the adverse effect of early Alzheimer’s - I think so - is for wiser observers (and more objective) than I to decide, but I’m convinced he HATED Roosevelt and Johnson.

He and his self-deluded legal genius Ed “Original Intent” Meese found they could not repeal any of those laws on an UP or DOWN vote! This is consistent with what you said above. SO, they hit upon a cruel and vicious alternative scheme.

They would DE-FUND the programs. How to do that? By cutting tax revenues - generally selfish Republicans always love that - and raising the Department of Defense expenditures - another item the always bleak out-look Republicans love - there would not be money available to fund the WELFARE programs always so distasteful to a TRUE Republican. A TRUE Republican is one who HATES personal welfare but LOVES corporate welfare. Viola! The Welfare State is gone!

Unexpectedly for Reagan and his cohort of greedy Republicans, the Dems who then controlled congress - went on funding all those programs! And Reagan was faced with a non sequitur for true Republicans, deficit financing! Ugh!

But wait some wiseacre said! We - the R&Fs - rich and famous - can have it BOTH ways! We have our cake and eat it too! Cut our taxes and the money we should have paid in taxes we have and thereby we can use it to BUY US Treasury bonds!

The government gets its funding, and we get interest on their spending! Eliminate the death tax and we can pass this windfall along to our children giving them a leg up on the Poor and Poorer. I call them the P and P-er. So spending booms. Debt roars. Taxes are gone. Bonds are bought. The Rich actually get DOUBLE in unpaid tax obligations and interest on the national debt. For republicans it is a Win Win situation. Taxes bad, Debt Good.

On my thread:

"Ten Myths Conservatives Believe About Progressives"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I discuss movement conservatism and cite sourcewatch.org

www.sourcewatch.org...

and highlight the fact that Movement conservatism which has taken over the Republican party is not the same as classic conservatism.... I think you will find the material interesting.

It's been a busy week for our nation in the halls of government, and some rather telling signs are emerging.

Bush went to Peru for an economic meeting. The main thing that seems to have come out of it is pictures of Bush wearing a poncho. He pardoned two turkeys and issued a statement of condemnation for the attacks in India (or, rather, his office did.) He's probably the lamest of all the lame duck presidents I've seen, more concerned for his image than he is about running the country.

Frankly, he was the same way when he was governor of Texas, so the behavior isn't very striking.

Obama's had a busy week, picking cabinet members, starting transition teams, working at a food bank with his kids (I like that... it gives me the sense that unlike Bush he has some idea of how bad things can get), attending a Senator's funeral. Although he insists Bush is still in charge, I think it's clear that very few are looking towards Bush right now as a leader. America and the world wants change, and Bush's "street cred" is falling. Obama is doing things. Bush is ... on vacation. Again. As he was for most of his first year in the Presidency.

His Monday announcements are expected to include Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State (after some interesting political wrangling in the background: www.nydailynews.com... ).

Clinton's an interesting choice. She was my original Presidential choice, and I think she'll make a good Secretary of State (rather along the lines of Madeline Albright.) At one time, some writers had suggested she'd make an excellent Supreme Court judge.

The Obama admin is choosing experience over partisanship -- a refreshing change from Bush policies. The new team is politically mixed, which means that in order to get things done, they will have to set aside the firmly drawn lines of partisanship that developed during the Bush administration.

Obama and the Energy policy

As Bush's leadership devolves into "I'm on vacation and thinking about packing to go home... no really", Obama is being confronted with issues that he will be expected to make quick decisions about during the early part of his administration. One of these comes from the Western Governors Association -- a group of... well... governors of western states.

The PDF is here: www.newwest.net...

Basically, they ask for:

Energy Policy Goals
• Promote a more efficient use of energy throughout the economy.
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a scale necessary to contribute to climate stabilization.
• Maximize the economic development opportunities offered by clean energy.
• Ensure that energy costs are affordable for consumers and support a sustainable, growing economy.
• Increase the proportion of our energy supplies that come from domestic resources and friendly trading partners.
• Minimize adverse environmental impacts.

Energy Policy Principles
• Energy security is essential; both energy efficiency to reduce demand and a
diversity of energy sources and technologies must be part of the solution.
• Climate change is happening, so we must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions immediately and adapt to changes that cannot be avoided.
• A clean energy economy should focus on economic prosperity, environmental sustainability and energy affordability.
• A National Energy Policy must consider that global and domestic energy demand and prices are increasing.
• Energy delivery infrastructure development and expansion are needed to avoid supply interruptions and promote increased development of and accessibility to renewable and other clean energy sources.
• Transportation energy and emissions should be addressed as a system, including vehicles, fuels and transportation demand.
• Energy development must be done in an environmentally responsible manner.
• A comprehensive national framework should include clear and measurable goals, an aggressive timeframe for implementation, and certainty in how solutions will be implemented.
• Substantial, long-term national commitment to investment in energy technology and infrastructure is needed, in the same way our nation made a commitment to put a man on the moon.
• Stable long-term policies are necessary to enable public and private investment in environmentally responsible energy research, development and immediate deployment.

Then they tell him how they think it should be accomplished, and advise that he put this all into place during his first 100 days.

Now, some of that can't come from the President. Things like funding and a timeframe have to come through the Senate. With a Democratic majority in Congress right now, he has a decent chance of getting some of this passed. However it is going to take the cooperation and support of the rest of the branches of government as well as public support to make all of this happen.

The waning days of his administration shows more than anything who bush minor is working for and it certainly is not the American people per say but industry and corporations and as he once put it... "the have's and the have more's".

I have never seen a president elect be so public so early... indeed they are usually in the back ground right up to the week of their swearing in.

This speaks volumes about Obama's readiness to govern and even more about the power vacuum in D.C. As it is the federal government essentially ceased to function quite some time ago... I suggest in the months leading up to Katrina. Too many special interests had taken over the various departments and were too busy either pillaging, dismantling or rigging things in their favor to function for the people. This much should be obvious by now.

When Obama is sworn in he will certainly have his hands full... not only will he have to deal with an economy in turmoil and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but he will basically have to rebuild the government.

In this I would not count on the Democratic controlled congress. After 8 years of an imperial president we will see congress reasserting itself and demanding its fair share of governing as it were so I don't see them a rubber stamp congress like the 2000/2006 congress. I suspect it will be more like congress in the years after Nixon's ouster.

Well when it comes to the economic crisis is not doubt that Bush has washed his hands once the new president was elected and signed the bail out bill to pay back his donor base.

Obama will go into history with one more thing, he is going to be one of the few presidents that has been put in charge of a crisis that neither he created or was part of it but had to fix it or at least try to fix it, even before he is sworn to president.

reply to post by marg6043


Well put Marg!

I think the situation, as you described it, is stunning and thread-worthy on it's own. I worry that - God forbid - something serious other than the financial situation were to occur before 1/20/09 that we may well have a Constitutional crisis on our hands, if we don't already.

Everyone understands about a lame-duck situation but this is ridiculous. Bush has seemingly acquiesced his position for all practical purposes. Not that I trust him to make good decisions, but I do want him to at least fake it for our Constitution's sake and World image.

Welcome Kosmicjack.

What I am worried about more than anything is that the global situation in regards to both the economic crisis but also growing tensions between India and Pakistan will reach a boiling point before Obama is sworn in and will be left unaddressed by bush minor.

I mean other than trashing regulations and the like before he leaves office he's basically doing nothing... which I will admit is better than him trying to do something... still if he's not going to play the role of president until the end then he should step down now.

Hey guys, I have a new thread that I'm hoping some liberals ( if your in this thread please come join mine) will post in and help me better understand things.

I am curious how is it okay to leave Iraq but stay in Afghanistan? What is the difference?

reply to post by ConservativeJack


But feel free to contribute to this thread as well... its not just for liberals.

reply to post by kosmicjack

I think the situation is stunning . . I worry that [if] something . . serious were to occur before 1/20/09 we may have a Constitutional crisis on our hands . . Everyone understands about a lame-duck situation but this is ridiculous.

I have been urging a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION be called by Congress to convene in Philadelphia on July 4, 2009, and to make public their recommendations by the day after Labor Day, September 8, for a nationwide vote on November 3, 2009. The LAW should provide for a referendum in each state with open voting all during the week of Memorial Day, May 25-30.

We desperately need a new document to get us off to a better start in this the THIRD millennium giving due credit to our 18th century Age of Enlightenment document that got us this far.

Each state would sent 3 delegates. W-DC and Puerto Rico would send 2. The other US Territories would send 1 each. 158 delegates in total. To run for delegate sttus, a person would need 1,000 genuine signatures to file, which filing period would open March 15 and close March 31. Every newspaper and every tv, radio and cable network would be requied to open 2 hours (9 PM to 11 PM) every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to all candidates on an equal time basis. FREE. The print media would have to give 1,000 words to each candidate once a week, FREE.

The top 3 candidates (or 2 or 1 as the case may be) would be the delegates. Each delegate would be paid $50,000 for his or her services and they would bear their own expenses.

[edit on 11/30/2008 by donwhite]

Reading through this thread really brings home the HUGE job Obama has waiting for him... My first question is who, in his right mind, would WANT that job? Whew... I can only guess that Obama has, at his heart, a sincere desire to make things better for the people.

Along with marg, I don't think a whole lot will be widely evident in his first hundred days or even first 2 years. He's going to have to dig us out of some seriously nasty holes. We're going to be "riding the wave" of the economy and it's not going to be as fun as surfing. I think the most he can do about that is react and respond for the first 3 months or so.

Same with the Pakistan situation. That's just scary to me.

I do fully expect him to get rid of some of the legislation that Bush enacted having to do with torture, Guantanamo and the Freedom of Choice Act. I also expect him to go through the budget, line by line, and cut out a lot of governmental spending.

I actually have some pretty high hopes for his presidency. I'm excited about his choices so far and the focus and direction that he put forth during his campaign.

I agree completely with Grover on Sec of State. I wish it had been Richardson. But it's not the first or the last I will disagree with Obama.

Great thread, grover!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Reading through this thread really brings home the HUGE job Obama has waiting for him... My first question is who, in his right mind, would WANT that job?

I have maintained... since the early 80's anyway that whomever wants to run for president should first be given a battery of psychological exams... and then regardless of whether they pass them or not... they should be locked them away in a padded cell for all our good.

Nerva (cir. 96 to 98 AD) was offered the emperorship and was reported to have asked if the Senators offering him the job were crazy or not... that he was an old man who wanted to die in his bed. And actually he did... one of the few Roman emperors who did.

The presidency is a no win supposition and the United States like all large entities will grow only so big (either in territory or population) before its sheer gravity will tear it apart.

Originally posted by grover
So what do people think of his choices so far?

I am not so thrilled about Gates staying on either though I understand the reasoning

I wasn't so thrilled with Gates either, but at least the Pentagon feel they can work with him a lot better then they could work with Rumsfeld.

Here's a little from an article about Obama's first meeting with senior Pentagon officials.

Joint Chiefs Chairman 'Very Positive' After Meeting With Obama

But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials who would speak about their incoming leader only on the condition of anonymity, is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.

"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."

Obama's expected retention of Robert M. Gates as defense secretary and expected appointment of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser have been greeted with relief at the Pentagon.

[edit on 11/30/2008 by Keyhole]

It seems as if Obama's number one priority is people who can work together and more importantly, work with him. If the Pentagon feels it can live with Gates well at the very least it provides a working continuity.

reply to post by Byrd


While I wouldnt be a decent kiwi if I didnt give Obama a fair crack . However I do feel that I need to point out a couple of things . The first is that a lot of lofty goals including a reduction in carbon emissions is easier said then done . The secend thing is that at this stage I dont have a lot of faith in Obama energy policy in the long term due to the fact alternative sources of energy havent materized(SP?) in the last nine years or so here in New Zealand

Partisan fights during the first 100 days of Obama in office is assured the implementation of his vision for America is not . Reality can bite and the faster someone clues onto the fact there plan simply wont work the better the leader they are .

The first 100 days huh?

OK, I'll give it a shot.

Please remember these are my opinions and not something I care to argue about.

To begin:

I expect Obama's first 100 days to be but the beginning of the tragedy I see as his presidency. Now I understand, unlike Bush Bashers, that the President has only so much power and is limited in his scope; he will however, for the first two years have a Senate and Congress that is also in line with Liberal Socialist ideology.

He will increase taxes. Most importantly he will increase them on the very people/corporations that are paying the bulk of the tax base now. What this will cause is quite simple. Those people/corporations will not willingly accept a lower profit margin. So in order to offset the Obama tax increases, they will 1) Raise prices on their goods or services and 2) reduce their work force. Thus we will see massive lay-offs and increased cost of living. Even though this will be directly caused by the increase in taxes, it will of course be blamed on Bush and the public, having been properly manipulated by the MSM, will accept this.

He will reduce spending. The problem is exactly where he will reduce the spending. Expect a smaller, less capable and far less effective military to come out of this administration. Expect abject surrender in Iraq and the Islamic Fascists to gain a massive foothold in that area. Expect more domestic terrorism problems due to the reasons outlined above.

Higher gas prices are most definitely in his future. One of the core democrat/liberal foundations is to increase the price of gasoline to promote less usage and further the global warming myth. Furthering the publics dependency of the general public on the federal government. Another core liberal policy.

As anyone that knows or reads political history knows, the Republicans tried to warn all of us about the impending doom of Fannie and Freddie. This was constantly shouted down by the Democrats as Republicans not wanting fair housing. Even discrimination was alleged. What we will see early on in this administration is a furtherance of the bailouts and in addition, we will see the Federal Government beginning to exercise control over the now vast holdings they obtained through the bailouts.

We are not going to see a National Health care, not right off. What you will see is an increase in the welfare programs that are fraught with what some experts consider a 65% fraud rate. Food stamps, SSI, AFDC, all will experience a meteoric rise with the accompanying rate of fraud.

Hope? Yes.

After two years of moving the country towards a Socialist state, the American Public will wake up and vote the Liberals out of the house and senate. Thus neutering Obama for his final two in office.

Remember that Conservatism did NOT lose this time around. There was not a Conservative on the ticket for us to choose from except Palin and the MSM could not get past her speaking mistakes to take notice of the "57 state" mistakes; among others. The hypocrisy of this election astounded me.

I feel as if McCain voted for and supported Obama all through this election. I have never been witness to an election that was bought and sold than this one. Yet I have hope.

I have faith in the American People. Faith in their perseverance and tenacity. Faith in their belief in a hand up and not a hand out. This next few years will be a wonderful awakening for the public at large. While nothing that happens will ever change the true hard core socialist, the general public will get tired of paying the bill for those that wont work.

Well folks, that's exactly how I see it. To the point of selling my stocks and interests in the two business I held and buying gold. (Stuffing some in jars around the yard too.. Don't ask where I live )

Just like in 2006 when we had a growing economy, historic low jobless rate and booming housing market; I told you then what would happen when you voted the Democrats into power...Now two years later and your still blaming Bush... Common sense as gone awry..

I am proudly saying...

I told you so

In two more years, I will again...

Semper

In response to a thread today, I did some real poking into Obama's background and found (okay, I hadn't been paying attention) that he's a true Constitutional scholar (and was consulted on such things when he was a mere professor), and is very much an advocate for the underdog.

And he walks the walk. Doesn't spend a lot of time talking about it. He just *does.*

I hope to see some of the Bush admin abuses undone. I think he will move very carefully, though. I like it that he's not hasty about his decisions.