interesting what a few months in office does to you;

[OldFatGuy]

- especially when some of this crap saddling the new administration might have been left in an unfixable mess by their predecessor.

Exactly. One of the reasons federal courts may be out is because of the predecessor's decision to use "torture" techniques, which means the info would not be allowed in federal court. Thus the illegal acts of the predecessor plays a role in this administrations lack of options.

And, related to the torture issue, I saw a national (U.S.) poll over the weekend that showed the more one attended church, the more likely one was to support torturing terrorist suspects. Not only is that a sad indictment of the U.S., but it also a damning indictment of those that attend church. It seems to me that a great many "religious" folks are missing an important part of the word of Jesus. Not all, I'm not painting ALL with a wide brush, but the poll was pretty specific, the more one attended church, the more likely one was to approve of torturing another human being. Incredibly sad, and stupid.

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04...-survey-finds/

http://blog.beliefnet.com/apagansblo...s-reports.html

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12256286?source=most_viewed

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

Interesting quote. Especially interesting considering who said it.

Ronald Reagan, supposed mesiah of the right wing.

[HoustonGM]

So, can anybody point to one President that did not reverse at least one "campaign promise"? Or one President that came through on every "campaign promise"?

[OldFatGuy]

So, can anybody point to one President that did not reverse at least one "campaign promise"? Or one President that came through on every "campaign promise"?

George Washington. He could never tell a lie.

[RickD]

Washington because he didn't campaign for the job!

[HoustonGM]

So he didn't have any campaign promises, so he doesn't count.

[RickD]

So he didn't have any campaign promises, so he doesn't count.

Ah but he does...he fulfills all the obligations of the questions asked. He did not reverse any campaign promises....because he didn't make them....he kept every promise he made....

[dickay]

I know - I wasn't directly ping-ponging you - I read your post at first and just went on to another thread. When I came back and found all the other comments, I pretty much had to blow off the steam in my post.

My point is that, even if the Obama admin goes through and finds that all of these policies and detention centers and what not really were the best option, and somehow are defensible/necessary/immovable, then at least they went in with the intention of doing the right thing, and were convinced otherwise - and will then (be forced to) let the public know why. And that, alone, is enough to satisfy people like me - knowing that the people in charge are examining things and adapting and learning what the best option is, instead of just declaring it Decider-style and then labelling anyone disagreeing or even questioning as assisting terrorism.

I don't expect every campaign promise to be lived up to 100% - but by pushing the tax stuff, economic overhauls, and masssive green/environment agenda, they're following through at a pretty good rate. What gets me upset is when people get gleeful at any tiny opportunity to play political "gotcha!" - especially when some of this crap saddling the new administration might have been left in an unfixable mess by their predecessor. Ever have public office? I ran thinking I could get the budget sorted out, not realizing how seriously F'd up the fools before me had gotten it.

Anyway - back to something everyone here should be able to agree on; here's hoping the Sox wipe the floor with the Yanks! Enjoy the game.

Wow this is backass lol. First of all, "Obama went in with the intention to do the right thing" which ended up being wrong!! Maybe it wasn't the right thing then?? One could say that the constant criticism regarding the issue during the campaign was detrimental to our efforts. Maybe he should have further educated himself on the issue before making false accusations?

Now i will highlight this statement;

And that, alone, is enough to satisfy people like me - knowing that the people in charge are examining things and adapting and learning what the best option is, instead of just declaring it Decider-style and then labelling anyone disagreeing or even questioning as assisting terrorism.

Are you kidding me? So Obama makes a decision and he did so after examining all issues and deciding the best option, but Bush's decision was clearly different? What makes you so certain Bush didn't examine the issues and come up with this conclusion, the same that apparently Obama has come up with, prior? And because he was apparently right, then wasn't attempts to give false and unjust criticism and demands to take a different course in fact "assisting terrorism"? I like my leaders to be right the first time as much as possible. I'm not critiquing Obama here, i'm critiquing your logic into saying his style of leadership was right and Bush's was wrong, on this issue that is.

[Alloutwar]

Well, that's partially fair - some of my attitude is over-the-top, Bush was always wrong, ANYONE else will be better. That perhaps may be a bit unfair. I'm sure that administration couldn't have done everything wrong.

I guess my realistic stance is more of feeling that this is administration we can trust to make good decisions, since the last one could not. They're also starting with a clean slate, so there's no reputation for uninformed, harmful decision making. Finally, they are communicative and open, instead of just giving everyone the finger and saying they know best. Those three factors are what make me potentially more friendly to this than when Bush espoused it.

That may obviously show a bias towards the more open, intellectual administration. But it's not like I developed that in a vacuum; the previous administration more than dug their own hole in eroding public confidence in their decision-making capabilities. If a majority of Americans feel that most likely, a majority of their moves may have been errors or had the wrong intent, of course they'll be more open to a second opinion - any second opinion.

[Jeffy25]

Oh my god. Out of 1200 ridiculously stupid, poor decisions the last administration made, they made ONE (1) move that might not have been the worst decision, and somehow this turns into a right-wing glee club? Give me a break.

for you guys jumping up and down and saying 'look! he's not infallible! He's not perfect! Mwaha-hah!' What did you think, we're all sheep? That we felt Obama was the Neo-esque, real life equivalent of The One, flying about DC and kung-fu-ing the place into shape in 110 days? Holy projected idealistic ignorance, Batman.

We wouldn't be jumping up and down about it if the media didn't make him out to be some sort of savior or the one. If he didn't get glorified so much pre-election then his backing on a simple campaign promise wouldn't matter as much to people. I still stand by what I posted earlier in this thread

[Jeffy25]

Interesting quote. Especially interesting considering who said it.

Ronald Reagan, supposed mesiah of the right wing.

yes same guy who said "the gov't doesn't solve problems, it subsidizes them."

There are many great quotes from Reagan....and he wasn't all out conservative either....he was a previous liberal ya know........

[HoustonGM]

Interesting quote. Especially interesting considering who said it.

Ronald Reagan, supposed mesiah of the right wing.

"As I said in China this spring, there is no place for abuse in what must be considered the family of man. There is no place for torture and arbitrary detention. There is no place for forced confessions. There is no place for intolerance of dissent." - Newt Gingrich, 1997

"The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example.” - President Bush on UN Torture Victims Recognition Day 26 June 2003

"I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment." - President Bush in a memo from June 26, 2003 regarding UN Torture Victims Recognition Day

“Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right and we are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law … Many have been detained, arrested, thrown in prison and subjected to torture by regimes that fail to understand that their habits of control will not serve them well in the long term.” - Statement by President Bush released by the White House on June 26, 2005

[dickay]

Well, that's partially fair - some of my attitude is over-the-top, Bush was always wrong, ANYONE else will be better. That perhaps may be a bit unfair. I'm sure that administration couldn't have done everything wrong.

I guess my realistic stance is more of feeling that this is administration we can trust to make good decisions, since the last one could not. They're also starting with a clean slate, so there's no reputation for uninformed, harmful decision making. Finally, they are communicative and open, instead of just giving everyone the finger and saying they know best. Those three factors are what make me potentially more friendly to this than when Bush espoused it.

That may obviously show a bias towards the more open, intellectual administration. But it's not like I developed that in a vacuum; the previous administration more than dug their own hole in eroding public confidence in their decision-making capabilities. If a majority of Americans feel that most likely, a majority of their moves may have been errors or had the wrong intent, of course they'll be more open to a second opinion - any second opinion.

Very fair. I will agree with you 100% that I did not like the way the previous administration communicated with the public. There may be things that should be kept confidential and not explained which I'm fine with but they did do a poor job communicating almost everything. That we agree with. Where we disagree is in how many of the prior regimes decisions were "errors". Thus far the new president who initially had many opposing view points seems more and more to be siding with the prior regimes decisions rendering them in fact "correct' on many levels, at least for those who support Obama fully.

Some of the hysteria regarding "everything bush did was wrong" appears more and more to be the result of some of the media and liberals falsely demonizing (again if you buy everything Obama does as good) alot of the policy & programs largely for political reasons which they now are going to embrace under Obama. Now, don't get me wrong...bush did fu(k alot of shiite up....but again many of Obama's campaigns strong criticisms were towards programs he now apparently has chosen to endorse or keep in place.

My biggest concern and critique, is Obama and the democrats IMO correct assaults on Bush's growth of executive powers. We've never had an administrative branch with so much power. Of course, once taking office Obama has been a staunch defender of his rights to maintain that power. Kind of wanting cake and eating it too.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...bama_be_l.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/whi...ower-grab.html

It's past time for Obama to address his apparent adoption of positions he formerly characterized as extremist, and his suddenly cooling commitment to transparency when it comes to embarrassing secrets left over from the Bush era.

In the past few weeks, we've seen the Obama Justice Department make absurdly broad invocations of the state secrets privilege to protect Bush's spying programs from judicial review. We've seen the administration argue that foreign detainees -- as long as they are being held in Afghanistan rather than at Guantanamo -- can be imprisoned indefinitely without formal charges. We've seen how Obama, after staying out of the debate over accountability for torture and other unlawful legacies of the Bush administration, is now, apparently, taking sides by balking at requests from his own top legal advisers to release incriminating memos.

"Preserving the President's general ability to block lawsuits alleging illegal conduct on the part of the President obviously enables Obama to invoke that power whenever there are allegations that he is breaking the law. The power to abduct people and put them in cages indefinitely without having to answer to anyone about what you're doing -- the power Obama is claiming he possesses in the Bagram case -- is obviously a potent authority that a typical President fighting a 'war' would instinctively want to wield. And Howard Fineman was likely correct when he told [MSNBC's Keith] Olbermann on Tuesday night that Obama is petrified of alienating the permanent intelligence and military establishments in Washington which might be alarmed by any attempt to abandon these vast powers, particularly where reversing course could raise the likelihood of prosecutions.

The Obama Administration supports invoking Bush era state secrecy to protect executive order illegal wiretapping and domestic surveillance. Bob Egelko - San Francisco Chronicle:
"For the second time this week, the Obama administration has gone to court in San Francisco to argue for secrecy in defending a terrorism policy crafted under George W. Bush - in this case, wiretapping that President Obama denounced as a candidate... The dispute involves Walker's Jan. 5 order to allow plaintiffs who say the government illegally wiretapped their phones to read a classified surveillance document that could confirm the assertion and avoid dismissal of their suit. Lawyers for the Obama administration say the judge's decision "presents a clear-cut conflict between the court and the executive branch."

[Jeffy25]

Obama, just like any and all other presidents who ran on a campaign, have all done the same thing. Made promises, and they will do their best to uphold them. Obama isn't intentionally going back on any of his promises. He is just getting more information now and handling it as well as he (thinks) he can. I believe Bush did the same. To believe that all presidental campaigns will be ran in full honesty is absurd. They can't seem weak or indecsive on decisions and thus must take stances (in Obama's case he was more anti-Bush then he was pro-liberalism in my mind) in order to become elected. Once elected, he can do whatever he needs/wants to do. Another example of everyone being fed the same b.s. by a politician to become elected. They all do it, so outcasting Obama isn't fair at all. But it's nice (as a conservative) to watch the Obama halo slowly disapear.

P.S. I don't mean that in a negative sense, I'm just annoyed with how much the media and liberal morons (not all liberals, just the one's i seem to keep meeting) would proclaim him the savior to all of America's problems. I hope he does a great job

[dickay]

Obama, just like any and all other presidents who ran on a campaign, have all done the same thing. Made promises, and they will do their best to uphold them. Obama isn't intentionally going back on any of his promises. He is just getting more information now and handling it as well as he (thinks) he can. I believe Bush did the same. To believe that all presidental campaigns will be ran in full honesty is absurd. They can't seem weak or indecsive on decisions and thus must take stances (in Obama's case he was more anti-Bush then he was pro-liberalism in my mind) in order to become elected. Once elected, he can do whatever he needs/wants to do. Another example of everyone being fed the same b.s. by a politician to become elected. They all do it, so outcasted Obama isn't fair at all. But it's nice (as a conservative) to watch the Obama halo slowly disapear.

P.S. I don't mean that in a negative sense, I'm just annoyed with how much the media and liberal morons (not all liberals, just the one's i seem to keep meeting) would proclaim him the savior to all of America's problems. I hope he does a great job

Its one thing to turn around on some of your campaign promises and its another to turn around on the entire theme of your candidacy. His stanch attacks on the negligent growth and abuse of executive powers and his now defense of them should be concerning as heck, even to Obama blind supporters. I happen to agree that our govt. has unprecedented powers and this is worrysome. Was everything he said simply a lie to get elected?

More imporantly, and something our country should wrestle with, was lying or greatly exaggerating...or being naive about the situation and speaking so affirmatively detrimental to our country's national security and image around the world?

An example....if Donald Trump or Bob Bernanke publicly said that they dislike some of the business practices by XXXX Corporation without fully knowing the situations involved, there would be negative consequences to the shareholders of that corporation. It also could be criminal. If a presidential candidate uses that pulpit, the media and his or her supporters to denounce things being done without full knowledge, is that detrimental to the country and possibly reckless? That statement goes for democrats and republicans alike.

[Jeffy25]

Its one thing to turn around on some of your campaign promises and its another to turn around on the entire theme of your candidacy. His stanch attacks on the negligent growth and abuse of executive powers and his now defense of them should be concerning as heck, even to Obama blind supporters. I happen to agree that our govt. has unprecedented powers and this is worrysome. Was everything he said simply a lie to get elected?

More imporantly, and something our country should wrestle with, was lying or greatly exaggerating...or being naive about the situation and speaking so affirmatively detrimental to our country's national security and image around the world?

that's a little extreme, even to me.

I am not hurt by him lying (if you can call it that), i assumed he would. I figured this was very likely to happen, and all Republicans would get all in a huffy about it and take it too far....and democrats will continue to put all the blame on Bush....but no one is taking responsiblity for our country....it's in Obama's hands for the next four years regardless.....we just gotta accept that and support him...if you don't like, then make sure he isn't re-elected.

I just don't want Republicans to make the mistake of attacking Obama during his administration, it won't help us in regaining support.