Offer one criticism of President Elect Obama

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Backtracking on the telco immunity is my greatest criticism of him so far and I think it was a terrible reversal of his previous position that he'd vote against that.

That is a big one, and IMO, says who he is.

There is an issue with the fact that politicians are so pressured to fudge on the issues that hurt them to get elected.

We'll say all day how that's wrong, and unacceptable. Yet it's such pressure to do it that the politicians we happily praise did it to get elected.

George Bush wasn't up front about his radical right-wing agenda to hand the government over to the radical right-wing and donor representatives. Richard Nixon wasn't up front about the Vietnam war. JFK ran on a platform to close a 'missile gap' with Russia when Russia actually had four missiles to our thousands. FDR ran on a platform not to enter WWII in 1940, while preparing the nation for the war he was convinced we had to enter.

If it really comes down to saying that the wrongs justify the other person being elected - what if Nixon had been elected and the result was a nuclear war over the Cuban Missile Crisis, what if FDR had not been elected and his replacement did not prepare us for WWII, and so on, well we may not be crazy about paying that high a price for the honesty.

I'm not condoning, but I am pointing out that the criticisms of the politicians who do these things fail to reflect the political realities, IMO. I think what we end up with instead are a mix of well-intentioned politicians who do it but try to do the right thing, and not well-intentioned politicians who do it simply to get power and then abuse that power.

One thing in the way of 'fixing' it is that who among us is willing to vote for the opponent of the guy we agree with, if the guy we agree with is guilty of this practice?

Would any strong Obama or McCain voters really weigh this more heavily against their candidate than all the issues against the other side? Few would, and probably few should.

I don't have an easy answer.

 

[Farang]

I never noticed the "uhh" thing until people criticized his Democratic primary debate performances but at the press conference it annoyed me.

 

[Craig234]

Each of my criticisms have counter-points.

I could criticize his reversal of his position on accepting public campaign financing - but also recognize that may well have made the difference in his wining, so that it's conceivable that had he said he was not going to use it early on, it might have prevented his primary win, and had he not changed position later, he might not have won the general election. Would I want him to actually act differently if it would have cost him the election and put a worse candidate in office? Right now, I'm just mentioning the problem.

I can criticize his speeches for having IMO way too much 'hot air' and empty sloganeering - but he's drawin crowds like few others and won the election. Do I really want him to make more substantive speeches if it makes him lose the election because the voters prefer the fluff, as long as he has solid policiy positions?

He's made too many statements and taken too many positions that are centrist compromises for my taste, but again, if they are what's helpful to win, would I change it?

The point I'm getting to is not as much 'he did wrong and should not have' as 'I don't want the candidates having to do wrong to get elected'.

As unplesant as it is to say you would rather your candidate lose than do wrong, it's even moreso when you say that the other side is happily doing far more wrong.

I guess at the end of the day most end up accepting some wrong by our candidates because we view the policy issues as more important. As long as it's not too excessive.

It's a lot more fun to point out how the other side is doing wrong and condemn them, because there's no price to pay to do that.

Yes, the other side's candidate SHOULD do right and lose the election! It's quite clear!

I'm not at all satisfied with this situation, but I'm not happy with the price of fixing it for just one side, either.

 

[Carmen813]

He is being far to indecisive about this new puppy.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
He is being far to indecisive about this new puppy.

That is above his pay grade. It's Malia & Sasha's decision.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Backtracking on the telco immunity is my greatest criticism of him so far and I think it was a terrible reversal of his previous position that he'd vote against that.

That is a big one, and IMO, says who he is.

I don't see how it says anything about who he is...

what kind of ridiculous mindset do you have to possess to think that telcos are going to protect our privacy from the GOVERNMENT

they are ..governed..by the government...

if the government is doing something illegal, the government needs to be stopped, the companies that are bullied by them shouldn't be taking the fall instead of the people who are actually at fault.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: TallBill
No criticisms yet. I might cry if Gates isn't hes SecDef.

I don't think bill gates is qualified although he might be able to bankrupt the enemy by requiring them to buy software licenses.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
He has not talked of closing the Faith Based Initiatives office at the white house - which Bush opened.

I don't want religion to be an influence in governance.

The faith based initiative is mainly a way to help religious groups provide charity to the poor.

Many soup kitchens, homeless shelters etc are run by churches, this allows the government to help them help more people.

The other option would be to have the government provide more of these services directly, which is a bad choice since it would cost a LOT more money to do work these churches do.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
He has not talked of closing the Faith Based Initiatives office at the white house - which Bush opened.

I don't want religion to be an influence in governance.

The faith based initiative is mainly a way to help religious groups provide charity to the poor.

Many soup kitchens, homeless shelters etc are run by churches, this allows the government to help them help more people.

The other option would be to have the government provide more of these services directly, which is a bad choice since it would cost a LOT more money to do work these churches do.

He doesn't care if people are harmed by shutting down services. Better to have someone starve than have someone connected with a church feed someone. Poverty and hunger are better than the Salvation Army.

 

[Deliximus]

He has said way more of what he is going to do in office (outlining his tax program, healthcare, education) than McCain BY FAR (accusing Obama of being a terrorist, socialist, liberal (don't know why LIBERAL is a bad word, btw), unpatriotic, sleeping with a black woman, being black guy being too audacious are NOT programs an administration can run on).

Obama already made it clear why he reversed his decision regarding the telco.

One thing I don't agree with him at first was picking Biden, but Biden has been a far more positive pick for the campaign.

FLAMEBAIT: I hope he takes away guns. bwahahaha

 

[winnar111]

Minimum wage theory. Oh, and he didnt run 4 years ago and get trounced.

 

[sonambulo]

Look at those big clown ears. Can you hear me now?!?!?

Guffaw haw haw.

This thread is stupid.

 

[Pandaren]

I don't think that my criticism is completely warranted just yet, but I think President-Elect Obama needs to make sure he communicates clear and concrete ideas during press conferences.

I listened to his press conference on Friday, and I didn't hear anything specific about his vision for an economic stimulus is, except for extending the unemployment benefits period. This leaves me (and I'm sure a lot of other people) wondering what the heck is going on.

Now I understand that Obama is not net president until inauguration day 2009, and that he doesn't want to be presumptuous while Bush is still the president, but I hope his press conferences are more specific and longer once he gets into office. Being open with the press and answering the hard questions will earn him a lot of respect.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Backtracking on the telco immunity is my greatest criticism of him so far and I think it was a terrible reversal of his previous position that he'd vote against that.

This was the biggest problem I had with Obama. I'm hoping that he voted the way he did to seem more moderate. We'll see.

 

[jpeyton]

He's way too awesome.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Offer one criticism of him and what you think he should have done/said instead.

LOL, this board can be so overwhelmingly negative.


Something great and positive happens?


Board response:


"How can we turn this into a negative??"

 

[sandorski]

Hasn't tossed Dubyahs crap onto the front lawn yet!

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
How can you criticize a guy when no one seems to know what he actually plans to do once in office?

Gee, Obama's website has been up for months and months. All you had to do was break free from your normal NRC sites, go there, and read his policy statements then you would have been an informed voter.

Anyway, back on topic. I was really turned off this past Thursday when Obama dug up Vince Foster and shot him again.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Polish3d

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Offer one criticism of him and what you think he should have done/said instead.

LOL, this board can be so overwhelmingly negative.


Something great and positive happens?


Board response:


"How can we turn this into a negative??"

There are members on here that will NEVER admit that a politician that they like has any bad ideas, or will NEVER admit that a politician that they don't like has any good ideas.

jpeyton is one of those guys if you couldn't tell.

 

[JJChicken]

He's not sociable

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I don't like his position on gay marriage I think he has an opportunity to establish once and for all that 'separate but equal' is not 'equal'

He's black he know more about seperate but equal not being equal than ANY gay person could ever possibly know.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
He has not talked of closing the Faith Based Initiatives office at the white house - which Bush opened.

I don't want religion to be an influence in governance.

Ahh hate to break the news to you but he will continue that and maybe even expand on it. He has stated several times he thinks it has been one of the successful Bush policies.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
He has not talked of closing the Faith Based Initiatives office at the white house - which Bush opened.

I don't want religion to be an influence in governance.

Ahh hate to break the news to you but he will continue that and maybe even expand on it. He has stated several times he thinks it has been one of the successful Bush policies.

Yup :thumbsdown:

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Backtracking on the telco immunity is my greatest criticism of him so far and I think it was a terrible reversal of his previous position that he'd vote against that.

this

 

[piasabird]

Obama will need all the help from God that he can get. When you are president the bad guys keep coming. You cant give a speech and expect Al Qaeda to go away.