Um...
OK, I am really trying. I am trying to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. I am really trying to remember how much I totally hate and despise everything about Bush, and how he is so hateful and evil that I should still feel positive and excited about Obama's election no matter what. I'm looking at the adorable photos of the Obama family and clinging to Obama's mentions of FDR and trying not to cringe too much when he mentions Reagan in a positive light. I'm even listening to the audiobook of Dreams from My Father.
But it's hard, people! Especially when Obama is appointing center-right misogynist racist deregulation-happy asshats like Larry Summers to cabinet posts... and when he promises to KEEP Bush's Defense Secretary?! I have to admit I was kinda hoping that by "bipartisan" he meant "I'll throw the GOP a small bit of something every now and then" not "I'll keep the guy running Bush's illegal and unjust wars." What happened to Mr. Supposedly Anti-War?
I've also read that instead of getting rid of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy right away, he might just let them expire eventually. WTF?!
So yeah... um... let me go get that audiobook again!
6 Comments:
Wow, you want him to be the anti-Bush. To do that he has to be (really be not just pretend to be) bipartisan.
Give him a break...he hasn't even taken office yet.
Anyway, read this:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obamas-agenda-difference-between.html
I'm not sure that Gates is all that bad. He was the replacement for Rumsfeld (who was bad), and rumor has it that Rummy was removed due to rebellion in the military ranks over plans to attack Iran (notice how that just went away?). Gates is apparently more reasonable.
Dont expect him to stay too long, anyway. I'll bet he's gone within two years.
Oh, one more thing: the whole "Bush is evil" thing is just tired out hateful rhetoric that makes you look hostile and immature. Bush made a lot of mistakes, but I don't think he's an evil person; just a guy who wasn't suited for the position.
But I suppose people like you always need to demonize those on the other side. Why is that?
David--you're right that Bush was never ever bipartisan. Republicans don't bother to let Democrats have any say when they're in charge--I can't help feeling they don't deserve much of a say in return, especially the way they've screwed up our country.
daveawayfromhome--no, he's not Rumsfeld. But he's still part of the failed Bush war, and I wish he'd go a lot sooner.
Josh--I'm not going to allow repeated "you should have voted for Bob Barr posts"--this is my blog, not a Bob Barr blog. As for your other point--what's wrong with hostile? I'm proud to be hostile towards the Bush administration, and I do believe Bush and his buddies and his doings are evil--if torture and illegal wars that kill millions of innocents aren't evil, if anti-gay discrimination and bigotry aren't evil, then what does that word even mean?
You say that Gates is "not Rumsfeld. But he's still part of the failed Bush war, and I wish he'd go a lot sooner."
The problem is that, whether or not you agree with the war in Iraq (and I do not), we are there and we must establish some sort of stability in the region before we leave. If we cut and run at this point, Iraq will blossom into another Afghanistan over the coming decade, if it hasn't already.
The US has bungled every chance to secure Iraqis' trust in the past four years. If there is anything that Obama can do to change that, I say let him keep us there a little bit longer. And if Gates, who was more of a carpenter than an architect in this war, can help clean up the mess he inherited from Rummy, I think it makes sense to keep him on.
Also, symbolically, I think that keep Gates shows the rest of the world that Obama will not be soft on defense.
I think letting Gates stay on is a wise move. I don't think many people realize how tough a presidential transition is-- new presidents pretty much always go into the White House blind, with absolutely no real idea of procedure, political realities as Presidents, etc. I can't see how it would have been smart to appoint someone who doesn't know what's going on in Iraq (or Afghanistan, or anywhere else our troops are) more than the average well-educated citizen does, even if that person had the right political credentials. Other cabinet posts give a little more time to learn; I think, but in this case, keeping on the old guy is a smart move if Obama wants to get us disentangled from this thing.
Don't you think he's considered these things, and a lot of other factors that we don't know about, and come to a careful decision? I would never vote for someone who I didn't think was capable of doing that. I understand your frustration with Larry Summers, especially, but I think it's worth remembering that Obama isn't just the president of us at the left end of the political spectrum, but of the whole country. Obama has always come off as extremely pragmatic to me, so it doesn't surprise me that he's focused on making practical, wise choices, rather than choices that are ideologically pure. His willingness to compromise and the fact that he knows how to balance reason and ideology without letting the second run amok are two things that distinguish him from Bush.
I hope you don't make your mind up so quickly to be so disappointed in him--if not, it's going to be a rough four years.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home