Barack Obama is already retracting promises made on the campaign trail and he hasn't even made it to the Oval Office yet.According to reports from MSNBC, Obama is recanting his promise to eliminate earmark spending in Congress. More than a week before he has the job, he is beginning to realize that he's not going to get his $800 billion stimulus plan without the use of earmarks.
He got a bit too big for his britches and believed he could have full domination over the United States. One faction he neglected to consider was a little problem called Congress. Checks and balances are exactly what protects the U.S. from a dictatorship. Unfortunately, it also makes it much more difficult to get things done without concessions.
Next up...the elimination of Guantanamo Bay. This too is a promise that Obama concedes may have been overly ambitious. While he doesn't approve of some of the tactics used to obtain information from terrorists, he admits that this promise is going to be much more difficult to carry out than originally thought.
President-elect Obama is about be ripped apart as, even his own supporters, attempt to collect following a year of financial and verbal support in 2008. Every person, PAC, and organization who contributed to the near $1 billion his campaign raised are all going to have their hand out. It appears as though it's starting to hit him that he cannot please everyone and only the mindless Obama disciples are going to continue chanting, "Yes we can" without asking "How can we?".
5 comments:
Why don't we let him actually have the job for a few months? It is tough to break a promise when you don't yet have the authority to do so. 1/20/09 will be here soon.
It would be difficult for anyone to be measured on our performance before actually starting work. Most companies use an annual appraisal system with perhaps a six-month appraisal the first year.
Let's take a look at things on July 20th.
Exactly my point. It's not even January 20th and he's already breaking promises.
Quite honestly, I like him more. He's acting more Republican than Democrat and he's starting to realize that there are reasons that George W. Bush made certain decisions.
I'm just amused that he's already bracing his supporters for the realization that he's not going to be able to deliver on a lot of his promises.
Seriously, how can you brwak promises you don't yet have the authority to break? Give the guy at least a week or two!
But you like him now? That's nice; I said he wouldn't be so bad!! The difference between Obama and GW is that Obama actually graduated from college on his own and won't rely on Cheney.
Oh, don't even!!!
If that was a Republican who made a barrage of promises on the campaign trail and then started breaking them even before he entered office, you'd be up-in-arms.
He made a mistake. Period. He made promises to get elected (that McCain refused to make because he's seasoned enough to know they weren't realistic) and now the patsies who voted for him are going to be disappointed, but not go down easy as they defend the hell out of this rookie they put on a pedestal.
I'm simply amused by the fact that his actions are being met with disdain by his Democratic Congress...already.
Your golden boy may fix things, but by means far more Republican than Democrat.
Wall Street bankers, with their $18 billion in bonuses, private jets and gaudy conferences, are causing headaches for the GOP.
President Obama has proposed capping compensation for executives at banks that take taxpayer bailout money at $500,000. Republicans hate the idea -- a position puts them uncomfortably on the side of people currently about as popular as child-porn producers and subprime mortgage brokers.
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed the "tone deaf" bankers for creating the political environment that allows Obama to call for a cap.
"Because of their excesses, very bad things begin to happen, like the United States government telling a company what it can pay its employees. That's not a good thing in America," Kyl told the Huffington Post.
"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that he is "one of the chief defenders of Obama on the Republican side" for the president's efforts to reach across the aisle. But, said Inhofe, "as I was listening to him make those statements I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?"
Democrats argue that banks that take government money must accept any rules the government decides to send with it. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Rep. Barney Frank are both working on legislation that would complement Obama's attempt to get a handle on executive compensation.
It's not a novel concept, and it's one the GOP supports -- when applied to welfare recipients, at least. We demand that welfare recipients do an honest day's work for their checks. And now, since President Obama laid down the law Wednesday, we demand that the guys who ran our banking system into the ground abide by our pay scales in return for our bailing them out.
So is the capitalism? Republicans afraid of bankers they are loaning money to? Why can't we have a say in what they pay their top execs if they want to borrow MY money?
Post a Comment