So, Obama is conniving, manipulative, and self-serving. I can agree with that.
It's amazing to me how logically bankrupt some people really are...even people who are "intelligent'. Being knowledgeable doesn't equate being able to logically present the data in a non-contradictory fashion.
I find it hilarious and disturbing how people try to have their cake and eat too. Look how easily you've accepted a contradiction.
First, you say Obama is naive, inexperienced and clueless.
30 minutes later is conniving and manipulative.
Now, you've made a couple of serious logical infractions here and accepted that you believe on contradictions... as, certainly, you must know these terms have objective definitions.
You claim that Obama is both "naive" and "clueless" and then "conniving" and "manipulative". Let's help you out here. This has much less to do with politics than with your struggles with semantics.
You've both called Obama naive: "deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment" and conniving: " To feign ignorance yet display tact and exacting measures"
With just this one example, you're pretty much used antonyms to describe Obama. You've literally said that stupid and smart man. He's so damn clueless and naive but manages to manipulate everyone with such conniving schemes. Come on man..be serious.
You need to do one or all of 3 things.
a. Either fully understand the terms you are using
b. Understand how to produce an argument using logical constructs
c. Stop being a sophist who always plays the negative(ive used it in that way intentionally)..which really makes you a cynic...and not the good kind.
I won't even list all the logical infractions in your post. The first line of your response and my dissection of it should make things very easy to see by anyone with a sound and unbiased mind.
Well, economic recovery is not going to happen with these bailouts and stimulus packages. So, the GOP isn't worried about that.
Can I rent your crystal ball? It's amazing how authoritatively you made this proclamation when you absolutely have no clue. The reality of the matter is that absolutely no one knows where any economy as large and sophisticated as the U.S. economy will be in approximately two years..when we will have mid term elections. So stop pretending to know.
And the reality of the matter is that the GOP is worried about this AND a host of other issues that has the party out of favor with the rest of the nation. With them playing the role of obstructions...who obviously cared nothing about fiscal responsibility when they controlled the White House, they've got a hell of a lot to lose if the economy recovers and they know it...that is why many in the GOP want to see economic failure..it is about the ONLY thing that can save their party right now. This is not speculative...their own high-ranking members have publicly admitted as such on the public record.
In fact, when people see how much of an utter failure Obama's administration is, the Democrats are going to see just what people think of them in 2010.
My first dissection of your completely baseless utterances was a discussion on semantics. It also seems you struggle with verb tenses. Unless his entire administration is to be judged by one month, you should be saying WILL BE and not IS. I've always thought an administration had 48 months...not 1...but you seem to know the future...maybe you also have the ability to change the definition of terms as well. You're powerful.
This will leave Obama extremely vulnerable heading in to 2012. He will either sellout completely to the Republican agenda (like Clinton) to survive (which is likely considering Obama's political tendencies).
You must not understand what really happened there. Clinton governed from the same position his entire political career..he was always a centrist. Clinton didn't sellout to the "Republic Agenda". Clinton overplayed his political position by being too heavy handed early in his administration(something Obama has been very keen on not repeating) and essentially turned an entire party against VEHEMENTLY against not...beyond just politics...and lost control and the midterms elections were disastrous where he seeded the Senate and House majorities he came into office with..which were strikingly similar to Obama's margins..and lost control of the House and Senate and couldn't pass the policy he wanted...was as simple as that... he didn't "sellout"...Clinton got outmaneuvered by the GOP... a very distinct difference of evaluation and truth.
Everyone agrees (at least I do) Bush was a dimwit. So, why is Obama following his policies and appointed his guy in charge of Defense?
Let me help you out from a thread I started a while ago.
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=330055&highlight=Gates
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ta...2008/11/the-standard-critique-of-the.php#more
Keeping Bob Gates as Secretary of Defense was the most dramatic signal Barack Obama could have sent that he intends to implement major changes in defense policy. That may sound counterintuitive, but it has the virtue of being true. As Josh noted this morning, "cabinet appointees execute policy. They work for the president." So if Gates is tasked to take us out of Iraq and to redouble our efforts in Afghanistan, we can expect him to carry out both tasks with the same degree of competence he's exhibited thus far in his tenure. In a properly functioning administration, the Secretary of Defense is one of several key voices advising the president on where and how to exercise military force. But he possesses primary responsibility for deciding how that force should be structured, staffed, equipped, and supplied. Those are decisions the president largely delegates, and thus where the secretary exercises his greatest degree of autonomy. And it is in those realms of defense policy that Gates has most distinguished himself. In retaining Gates, Obama is sending a clear signal to the Pentagon bureaucracy that their usual strategy of stalling and out-lasting civilian appointees is going to fail; that he intends to pursue Gates' key reforms. And that's a decision which should make us all stand and cheer.
Many critics of the pick exhibit a myopic view of defense policy. Open Left's Chris Bowers objects on purely symbolic grounds, arguing that it makes Democrats look weak on defense and undermines the appearance of change. These same concerns have been voiced by TPM's usually-astute David Kurtz and Greg Sargent, as well as by posters at DailyKos. Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation, goes a step further, all but declaring the Obama administration a third term for Bush, at least on foreign policy.
The standard critique of the mainstream media, as the traditional press is derisively known in the blogosphere, is that it privileges process over substance. But on defense policy, at least, a similar charge could reasonably be leveled against these bloggers. Conspicuously absent from any of these laments is a detailed, substantive case against Gates. The argument is being conducted almost wholly on symbolic grounds.
Chris Bowers may be the most widely-cited online critic of this pick, so it's worth taking a close look at what he's written. Bowers points out that the Pentagon budget accounts for a huge percentage of our discretionary spending, and it's entirely out of control. But is Gates the problem, or the solution? Bowers appears to have no idea. In fact, Gates and his team have attacked a series of previously-sacrosanct weapons programs. They've done so in the absence of any material support from the Bush administration, and in the face of fierce opposition from the Democratic congress.
No single example is more powerful than that of the F-22 Raptor. It's quite likely the finest air-superiority fighter ever built, but it's certainly the most expensive. The program has been scaled back repeatedly. The Pentagon wants to end purchases with just 183, preferring to purchase the cheaper F-35 instead, and to spend the difference elsewhere; the Air Force is pushing for 381. Congress stuffed $523 million into the FY2009 Defense Appropriation for the production of parts for another 20 aircraft, including $150 million in up-front spending, designed to lock the purchase in before the new administration could take office and cancel the program. But John Young, a widely-respected Gates deputy rumored to be staying on along with his boss, cleverly noticed that the bill only required the Pentagon to expend up to $150 million; he allocated just $40 million, just enough to replace the 4 F-22s lost in combat, and structured the contract so that the options must be exercised by January 21, forcing an immediate decision on the new administration. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were livid. Neil Abercrombie, the subcommittee chair, and Silvestre Reyes delivered memorable verbal thrashings. And they're both Democrats. But Young refused to cave. And his stand preserved for the new administration the chance to make up its own mind about the F-22.
That's just a single example. Gates and his team have also questioned the need for further procurement of the C-17, the CSAR-X helicopter, the Zumwalt-class destroyer, and the Army's FCS initiative, among other weapons systems. One analyst, quoted in Politico's coverage of the pick, bluntly observed that "the defense industry would like to see the entire Bush team move on." But it's not the "Bush team" that's the problem for defense contractors; it's Gates. The Bush Administration has presided over an historic expansion of defense spending. But Gates has been warning that the party is over. His deputies are pushing to roll the ongoing and predictable costs of conflicts into the main appropriations bill, instead of using a supplemental, an important first step in regaining control of spending. And defense spending is just the tip of the iceberg. On a wide array of issues including encouraging heterodox thought, promoting capable officers, reigning in inter-service rivalries, prioritizing the needs of soldiers in the field, and placing personnel ahead of technology, Gates has made important strides - a point I've already made at excessive length. Having him pursue the same agenda while working for a President who actually agrees with and supports his efforts is an exciting prospect.
Don't just take my word for it. The two leading blogs on counterinsurgency - Abu Muqawama and Small Wars Journal - make it clear that this was the smartest and most important decision Obama has made thus far. Richard Danzig is reportedly Obama's choice for Deputy Defense Secretary, a role he is expected to full until he takes over for Gates. How does he feel about the Pentagon chief? "I think Secretary Gates has been a good secretary of defense," Danzig told reporters back in October. "I think he'd be an even better one in an Obama administration.... Many of the kinds of efforts he's made are in tune with what we're trying to do."
Obama is not fixing/cleaning anything. He is only making things worse. (30 years from now, there will be textbooks about how Obama completed the destruction of the American economy)
Yo man. You've got to let me use that crystal ball you have
... you're able to see what textbooks are going to say 30 years from now about an administration that has been running for 30 days.
Why does Obama have to be the "black" President when he is obviously unprepared, ill-advised, and unsupported. Not one person in his Cabinet is an Obama insider. They are either from the Bush or Clinton camps.
Not good.
Your suppositions aren't even making sense anymore.
