Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
i understand the gist of your problem, ace.
it's abundantly clear.
what you do not seem to understand are the myriad reasons for not bothering with most of them--they aren't serious as critiques--they're based on some arbitrary standard for action that no president has lived up to, least of all republicans. what conservatives arrogate to themselves--probably out of habit given the extent to which conservative language has been dominant over the past decades--is the ability to set those standards. but that doesn't come from anywhere, isn't based on anything--it's a best a collective verbal tic.
so far, i think obama's been pretty consistent in doing what he said he would do--as consistent as any reasonable person might expect--a bit more so even in some areas. not all.
|
Actually I have a very realistic view of the presidency. I know Presidents are flawed. Bush had his, Clinton had his, etc., what I am having fun with is the unrealistic expectations some had for Obama given his campaign rhetoric. I stated early on that there would be very little difference between the US under Obama compared to Bush. As much as Obama criticized Bush I am certain most of his supporters expected more. But, for example, as much as Rumsfeld was criticized, Gietner deserves an equal amount. Both men are in critical roles, and neither had a "winnable" strategy. Bush stayed with his guy too long (given he would not change), and Obama is staying with his and it will be for too long (and perhaps he never should have be given the job)
---------- Post added at 10:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by asaris
I don't understand the complaints about earmarks.
|
The first problem was that he initially blamed Bush for the earmarks in the bill. That was b.s. And I guess the question is, when do you get tired of b.s.?